Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 1: Methodology and Interpretation (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 26)

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN A GREEK RURAL LANDSCAPE THE LACONIA SURVEY VOLUMEI METHODOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION Annualo...

Author: Richard Catling | William Cavanagh | Joost Crouwel | Graham Shipley

24 downloads 704 Views 57MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN A GREEK RURAL LANDSCAPE

THE

LACONIA

SURVEY

VOLUMEI METHODOLOGY

AND INTERPRETATION

AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens Volume26 Supplementary William Cavanagh Joost Crouwel R. W. V Catling Graham Shipley withcontributions by

PAMELA ARMSTRONG JASPER FISELIER OLIVER RACKHAM

JAN-WILLEM VAN BERGHEM MALCOLM WAGSTAFF

andmapsby

DEBORAH MILES-WILLIAMS DAVID TAYLOR

with LUCY FARR ANNE SACKETT GUY SANDERS

LONDON · BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS · 2002

PublishedbytheBritishSchoolat Athens,SenateHouse,Malet Street,London,WCiE7HU © The Council,BritishSchoolat Athens,2002 ISBN (thisvolume):0-904887-22-7 ISBN (setoftwovolumes):0-904887-21-9

ProducedbySuttonPublishing,Stroud,Glos. GLj 2BU Printedin GreatBritainon acid-free paper by J.H. Haynes & Co. Ltd, Sparkford

In memory of ElizabethCatling and DavidSmyth

PREFACE This VOLUME Data (publishedin 1996),presentthe and itscompanion,subtitled Archaeological was led a jointBritish-Dutch resultsoftheLaconia Survey(1983-9).The survey, undertaking, in the fieldby WilliamCavanagh and JoostCrouwel under the supervisionof Dr H. W. Catling,CBE,at thattimeDirectoroftheBritishSchool at Athens.The projectgrewout ofDr and the Iron Age sanctuaryat the Catling'sown excavationsof the BronzeAge settlement Menelaion(1972-82),and itwas he who originally suggestedtheidea ofa survey. the seven and surveycampaigns studyseasons in Laconia and the subsequent During of the we incurred manyotherobligations.In the firstplace, many preparation publication, ofCulture,and to Dr Th. thanksare due to theArchaeologicalServiceoftheGreekMinistry and for theirpermissionsand of for Lakonia Arkadia), Spyropoulos(Ephor Antiquities in Dr Eleni Kourinouand Mrs Voula Rozaki,thenEpimelitries assistanceduringthe survey. the Lakonia Ephoreia, were especiallyhelpful.IGME (the InstituteforGeological and MineralResearch)kindlysupportedour applicationto carryoutthegeomorphological survey. The HellenicArmyGeographicalServicesuppliedtherelevantsheetsofits 1 : 50,000and 1 : 5,000map series,and withaerialphotographs. The successiveofficersand staffof the BritishSchool at Athenswere helpfulin every of theirtimeand advice duringand between possibleway.Variousexpertsgave generously Chris Mee, Jim Roy,and Kathleen Slane. In the preparatory surveyseasons,particularly Mr voor Prae- en Protohistorie, Albert Visser of this volume, Amsterdam) (Instituut stages are to thestaffofSuttonPublishing with electronic mail. We valuable assistance grateful gave Anne Bennett,ChristopherFeeney,and (for fortheirpatienceand guidance,particularly Fiona Thornton. VolumeII) Richard Catling,who directedthe thirdfieldThe two directorsalso thankparticularly sections of Volume Two dealing withthe hellenistic, walkingteam and later revisedthe Roman,and Byzantinepotteryin additionto writinghis own section;and GrahamShipley, whoeditedtheentiretextofbothvolumesforpublication. the financialsupportreceivedfromthe following We also wishto acknowledgegratefully bodies:the ManagingCommittee(now Council)of the BritishSchool at Athens,the British Academy,the Societyof Antiquariesof London, the Universityof Nottingham,the UK Science and EngineeringResearchCouncil (projectgrantGB/E/30263),the Universityof Amsterdam FacultyofArts,theAllardPiersonFoundation,the Dutch PhilologicalResearch Fund, the Dutch Organizationforthe Advance of Pure Research(NWO), the Amsterdam University Society,and theDutchPhilologicalResearchFund. PARTICIPANTS IN THE SURVEY

and dedicationofourmany The presentstudycouldnothavebeen written withouttheefforts colleaguesand collaborators,severalof whom have also contributedchaptersor partsof a composite,year-by-year list,whichwe hope is complete,represents chapters.The following listofpersonnel(manyofwhomalso tookpartin thestudyseasons).

viii Preface Apothikiassistants

Neil Brodie(1989) HayleyHodges(1988) WendyKnowles(1985) PamelaMarshall(1988-9) Marco Overbeek(1989) Chemists

AndrewFricker(1988) SimonHirst(1984) JillSymes(1988) Draughtspersons

|ElizabethCatling LucyFarr(maps)(2001-2) Deborah Miles-Williams (1995-6,2001-2) David Taylor(1995-2002) CatrionaTurner(1988-9) Sara Wild(1988-9)

Field teamleaders

RichardCatling WilliamCavanagh JoostCrouwel Field-walkers

PamelaArmstrong (1983-5,1987-8) Ros Bailey(1984) LesleyBeaumont(1985) Laura Bloemendaal(1983-4) Neil Brodie(1988) TristanCarter(1988) SaskiaDeluy(1984) Liesbethden Boer (1985) MarionDijkman-Dulkes (1988) Roald Docter(1987) CallyFord(1985) DirkGielen(1983) GordonHamilton(1983) RobinHanley(1983) StephenHarrison(1984-6) David Hibler(1983-5) ChristineKoch (1987) Ab Koelman(1983) Ron Leenheer(1984) Sarah Lucy(1984)

Neil McLynn(1985) MiekePrent(1985) RichardRussell(1985) GrahamShipley(1983-5,1987-8) NathanTravers(1985) van derPut(1985) Winfred Heleen Visscher(1983-5,1987) Sean Wakeman(1984) MarkYdo (1983-8) Geomorphologists

JasperFiselier(1988) van Berghem(1986) Jan-Willem Henkvan Bremen(1986) Geophysicists

RichardJones(1989-90) JohnMitchell(1990) Lia Sarri(1990) ApóstolosSarris(1990) Historicalgeographer

MalcolmWagstaff(1986) Historicalgeographer's assistants

RosemaryBraithwaite ElizabethDouglas RuthMcCarthy SimonCapper SimonLee

Housekeepers

BrendaHampton(1987) PamelaMarshall(1989) RhiannonRoberts(1985) JanMotykaSanders(1986,1988) Paula Suttle(1983-4) Palaeobotanist

OliverRackham(1984)

computer operator Photographer,

Ron Leenheer(1984,1986-9) Potterysamplingadviser

ChrisMee (1983)

Preface ix Publicationassistants

Statisticians

OdetteHaex (drawings) Ron Leenheer(photographs) AnneSackett(maps,slides)

CaitlinBuck CliffLitton

Romanpotterystudy

Guy Sanders(1983-9) fDavid Smyth(1983)

Jo Lawson(1988-9)

Surveyors

Mr Finally,we are deeplyindebtedto Mr PanagiotisTragas and Drs Anna Poelstra-Traga, and manyotherpeople in Aphysou,thevillagewherewe livedduring IoannisKonstantelos, and forhelpofmanydifferent our sevencampaignsin Laconia,fortheirunstinting hospitality kinds. 1 May 2002 Nottingham Amsterdam Oxford Leicester

W.G.C. J.H.C. R.W.VC. D.GJ.S.

CONTENTS VOLUME I PREFACE

VÜ

LIST OF TABLES

XIV

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ABBREVIATIONS MODERN PLACE-NAMES A NOTE ON SITE NUMBERS SELECTED ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME II

1.

THE LACONIA SURVEY: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

WilliamCavanagh,GrahamShipley, andjoost Crouwel(witha notebyMalcolmWagstaff)

The surveyarea, ι Sourcesand previousresearch,15 The progressofthesurvey, 1983-9,34 and samplingprocedures, 38 Field-walking Conclusion,54

2.

OliverRackham

THE SURVEY AREA IN THE PREHISTORIC PERIODS

57

73

WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel

121

THE SURVEY AREA FROM THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE CLASSICAL PERIOD ^.1050-^.300bg) R. WV Catling

151

The Neolithicperiod,121 The EarlyHelladicperiod,128 The MiddleBronzeAge,135 The Late BronzeAge,142

5.

ι

OBSERVATIONS ON THE HISTORICAL ECOLOGY OF LACONIA The land ofLaconia,73 Modernplantcommunities, 77 Relictwildtrees,97 Written sources,99 111 Picturesand photographs, Conclusions,112

4.

XXIV XXVÜi xxix

SOILS AND LAND USE POTENTIAL

andJasperFiselier Jan-WillemvanBerghem

methodsand tools,57 Landscapereconstruction: The landscapehistory ofthesurveyarea, 60 Land evaluationand soilsuitability history, 65 sitepatterns, 69 Interpreting Discussionand conclusions, 71

3.

XVI xviii

The Early Iron Age (i-.1050-c.700BC), 153 The early archaic period (C.700-C.600BC), 155 The later archaic and early classical period (C.600-C.450BC), 157

xii Contents The classicalperiod(C.450-C.300 BC),175 Evidenceforsitecontinuity and discontinuity, 185 Siteclassification and function, 187 Evidencefordifferential 193 prosperity, Evidenceforstorage,195 The ruraleconomy,196 Distribution and interpretation oflow-density 200 scatters, Populationestimates, 205 211 Communications, The religiouslandscape:sanctuaries, 218 Summaryand discussion,224 Epilogue,255

6. THE SURVEYAREAIN THE HELLENISTIC AND ROMANPERIODS GrahamShipley

257 Methodology, The hellenistic data,274 The Romandata,288 Furtherinterpretation ofsitedata,298 data,and conclusions:hellenistic, Summary, 310 comparative data,and conclusions:Roman,326 Summary, comparative Epilogue,336

7. THE SURVEYAREAIN THE BYZANTINEAND OTTOMAN PERIODS PamelaArmstrong

Introduction, 339 Late Romanto earlyByzantine(sixthto eighthcenturies AD),350 MiddleByzantineI (ninthto earlyeleventhcenturies AD),353 MiddleByzantineII (eleventhcentury AD),358 MiddleByzantineIII (AD1081-1204):theKomnenoiand Angeloi,361 Late Byzantineor Palaiologan(AD1204-1460),368 FromtheOttomanconquestto thenineteenth century, 372 Discussion,380 Conclusions,398

257

339

8. THE FORMATIONOF THE MODERN LANDSCAPEOF THE SURVEYAREA MalcolmWagstqff

403

Historicalintroduction, 403 Settlements, 405 Population,412 land use,415 Agricultural Conclusion,418

9.

THE LACONIA SURVEY: AN OVERVIEW Parallelcommunities and paralleleconomies,422 Settlement 423 hierarchy, Centralplaces,428 Siteabandonmentand siteduration,430 Technology, 432 434 Marginality, 435 Concludingremarks,

William Cavanagh

421

Contents xiii INDEXEScompiled byGrahamShipley

5. SelectindexofGreekwords,460 6. Listofsitesand findspots, 461 7. Addendato indexin VolumeII, 465

ι. Generalindex,439 2. Selectbotanicalindex,458 3. Ancientand medievalsources,459 460 4. Selectepigraphicreferences,

439

inpocket

soil map VOLUME II 10. THE NEOLITHIC

POTTERY

11. THE EARLY HELLADIC

WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel

POTTERY

12. THE MIDDLE HELLADIC AND LATE HELLADIC WilliamCavanaghandjoost Crouwel 13. THE MYCENAEAN (LATE HELLADIC 14. THE ARCHAIC AND CLASSICAL 15. THE HELLENISTIC

POTTERY

16. THE ROMAN POTTERY

21. THE EPIGRAPHIC

17 JoostCrouwel

RichardCatling

Heben Visscher

MATERIAL

24. SITE CATALOGUE

33

in POTTERY

PamelaArmstrong

TristanCarterandMark Tdo

STONE

125 141 183

AND SCULPTURAL

FRAGMENTS 199

GrahamShipley

213

22. PHOSPHATE AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Richard Sarris WilliamCavanagh, Jones,andApóstolos 23. ARCHAEOLOGICAL GrahamShipley

27

91

Marco Overbeek

20. THE STONE ARCHITECTURAL David Hibler

5

POTTERY

Jo Lawson

AND GROUND

19. THE SMALL FINDS

III

III) POTTERY

POTTERY

17. THE BYZANTINE AND OTTOMAN 18. THE CHIPPED

1

WilliamCavanagh

235

SITES IN LACONIA AND THE THYREATIS 263 OF THE SURVEY

INDEXEScompiled byGrahamShipley

GrahamShipley

1. Generalindex,439 2. SelectindexofGreekwords,456 3. Indexofsitenumberswithzonesand subzones,456

FIGURES PLATES MAPOF THE SURVEYAREA

315 439

following page460 II at endof Volume II inpocketat endof Volume

TABLES Table ι.ι Table 1.2 Table 1.3

Average of potteryand tile counts per sq m fromsingle-periodsites. Data fromrewalked areas. Site U490: resultsof 'clickercounts' and 'hands and knees' counts.

TABLE2.1 TABLE2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4

Diagnostic soil units. Land-formsin chronological order. Land use requirementsand agro-ecological zones. Numbers of findspotson stable soil units.

61 63 68 70

TABLE3.1

Comparative figuresforthe extentof woodland in Lakonia, Messinia, and Arkadia.

117

Table Table Table Table

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Late-Final Neolithic sites. Main Early Bronze Age sitesin seriated order. Possible multi-phaseEarly Bronze Age sites. Middle and Late Bronze Age sites.

123 132 134 136

Table Table Table Table Table Table

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

Late archaic-early classical sites. Classical sites. Archaic and classical siteswith functionalcategories of artefacts. Archaic and classical non-sitefindspots. Population estimatesforthe archaic and classical periods. Archaic and classical cult sites.

TABLE6.1 TABLE6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 TABLE6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 TABLE6. 11 Table 6.12 TABLE6.13

Numbers of hellenisticand Roman sherds. Numbers of hellenisticand Roman findspots. Hellenistic non-settlementsites. Roman non-settlementsites. size categories. Numbers of hellenisticand Roman sitesin different Hellenistic settlementdata: SE sector. Hellenistic settlementdata: W sector. Hellenistic settlementdata: Ν sector. Roman settlementdata: SE sector. Roman settlementdata: w sector. Roman settlementdata: Ν sector. Hellenistic non-sitefindspots. Roman non-sitefindspots.

Table 7.1 Table 7.2 TABLE7.3 TABLE7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 TABLE7.8 Table 7.9

Definitionsof site categories in Byzantine and Ottoman periods. Medieval locations other than churches. Comparison of sherd counts on K247 and P284. Probable or possible Middle Byzantine churches. Post-Byzantinechurches. Settlementsrecorded by Grimani. Settlementsnoted by the Commission Scientifique. Comparative population statistics. Type (i) sites.

42 45 52~4

159-60 176 188-90 201-3 205 219 260 260 262 262 264 274~5 280 284 290 292 295 3°3~4 3°5~6 347 348-50 3^5 367 378 378 379 382 395~6

Tables xv Table 7.10 Table 7.ιι Table 7.12

Type (ii) sites. Type (iii) sites. Type (iv) sites.

396 397 398

Table 8.1 TABLE8.2 Table 8.3 TABLE8.4 Table 8.5

Modern and historicalsettlementnames. Number of familiesin settlementsin the studyarea, £.1830. Number of familiesin settlementsin the studyarea, 1700. Settlementsshowingpopulation growth,1940-51. Agriculturalland use data foreparchiaof Lakedaimon and the studyarea, 1911-71.

408 409 410 414 417

TABLE9.1

Size ranges of levels of the settlementhierarchy:Neolithic to modern.

424

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT Map of Laconia and periphery,showing ancient settlements (various periods) and principal routes. Map showingthe surveyarea in relation to Laconia. Map showingtoponymsin the surveyarea. Taygetos at sunrise,fromAphysou. The riverEvrotas in spring. A burntlandscape the day aftera fire. A burntolive-treeeightmonthsafterthe fire. Graphs of mean monthlytemperatureand precipitationat Sparta. Graph of interannualvariabilityof precipitationat Sparta. Simplifiedmap of surveyarea showingsoils and base rocks. Map showingsites in Laconia mentioned by Strabo and Pausanias. deMorée. scientifique Map of part of the surveyarea afterpl. 45 in Expédition area. of the zones survey Map showing Map showingsectorsof the surveyarea. Map of the surveyarea showingre-walkingtractsLAR01-LAR08. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR01. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR02. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR03. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR04. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR05. Plan of change-pointanalysis of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR06. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR07. Diagram of artefactdensitiesin tractLAR08. Contour map of clickercounts at U490. Contour map of total tile and sherd counts at U490.

2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 23 30 37 39 46 47 48 48 48 49 49 49 50 55 55

III. 2.1 III. 2.2

Examples of a chronosequence and toposequence fromthe field. A palaeosol on a terracewithpotteryfragments.

58 60

III. 3.1 III. 3.2 III. 3.3 ILL. 3.4 III. 3.5 III. 3.6 III. 3.7 III. 3.8 III. 3.9 III. 3.10 III. 3. ιι III. 3.12 III. 3.13 III. 3.14 III. 3.15

Map showingplaces mentioned in Chapter 3. Desert of crumblyschist,Vervena. unedoand Quercuscoccifera. Maquis of co-dominantArbutus A prickly-oakturningfroma shrub into a tree. Deciduous oak {Quercusbrachyphylla) invadingex-cultivatedland. Valonia oak {Quercusmacro lepis). Interiorof the Skotitasoakwood. Old black pine {Pinusnigra)hemmed in by youngertrees. Black pine invadingformerpasture. Area of youngishblack pines killed by a fire. The southernmostalder in Europe. Patch of maquis or woodland isolated on a huge boulder. Ancient lime-tree,the southernmostin Europe. View of Taygetos fromthe kástroat Sparta, £.1908. Similar view of Taygetos in 1984.

74 77 79 81 83 84 86 89 90 91 93 94 97 112 113

III. 4.1

Map showingNeolithic sitesin the surveyarea.

124

III. i.i III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III. III.

1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 ι.ιο i.i 1 ι.ι2 ι.ι3 1.14 1.15 ι.ι6 ι.ι7 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.2 1 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25

Illustrations in the text xvii III. 4.2 III. 4.3

Map showingEarly Bronze Age sites in the surveyarea. Map showingMiddle and Late Bronze Age sites in the surveyarea.

III. 5.1

Map showingtoponyms,main arterialroutes,and hypotheticalterritorial boundaries in central Laconia. Map showinglate archaic-early classical sites in the surveyarea. Map showingclassical sitesin the surveyarea. Map showingroutes in the surveyarea. Map showingprime arable land, secondary arable land, and pasture in central Laconia.

III. III. III. III.

5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5

III. 6.1 III. 6.2 III. 6.3 III. 6.4 III. 6.5 III. 6.6 III. 6.7 III. 6.8 III. 6.9

Graphs showingnumbersof sitesby size and sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Graphs showingmedian and quartile measures of site size by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Bar chartsof total settledarea by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Map showinghellenisticsitesin the surveyarea. Bar chart representingtotal settledarea by geological zone and period (late archaic to Roman). Map showingRoman sitesin the surveyarea. Pie chartsshowingproportionsof potteryuse-typesby sector: (upper) hellenistic,(lower)Roman. Pie chartsshowingnumbers of siteswith each use-typeof pottery,by sector: (a) hellenistic,(b) Roman. Combined histogramsof notional population by sector: hellenisticand Roman.

131 138 152 158 177 212 245 265 267 268 276 287 289 299 300 307

III. III. III. III. III. III.

7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.ιι

Map of central Laconia in medieval times,showingthe area of the survey. Map showingMiddle Byzantine I (gth-earlynth-cent.) settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingMiddle Byzantine II (nth-cent.) settlementsin the surveyarea. Diagram of nth-cent,site hierarchy. (a) Map showingMiddle Byzantine III (Komnenian) sitesin the surveyarea. (b) Detail of south-eastof surveyarea. Map showingLate Byzantine (Palaiologan) settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingearly i8th-cent.settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingearly igth-cent.settlementsin the surveyarea. Map showingmodern settlementsin the surveyarea. Old olive-treenear Voutianoi. Plan and elevation of wine-pressat Sto Lino.

III. III. III. III. III.

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

Map showingthe administrativestructureof the studyarea in the 1980s. Plan and elevation of house and mándraat Morou. Graph of population change in the eparchiaof Lakedaimon, 1848-1981. Graph of population change in the studyarea, 1879-1981. Map of agriculturalland use in the surveyarea, 1986.

406 411 413 413 419

III. III. III. III. III. III. III.

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

EBA sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. MBA-LBA sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. Archaic-earlyclassical sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Classical sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Hellenistic sitesof the Laconia Survey: site area versus site rank. Roman sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank. Byzantine (Komnenian) sitesof the Laconia Survey:site area versus site rank.

427 427 427 427 428 428 429

III. 7.1 III. 7.2 III. 7.3 III. 7.4 III. 7.5

343 354 359 361 362-3 370 375 376 381 383 384

ABBREVIATIONS See also, forvol. ii, the listsof generaland bibliographical abbreviations at LS ii, pp. xix-xxx.Abbreviations of ancientauthorsand theirworksfollowOxford Classical Dictionary. #

ist LaconianStudiesCongress ist LaconianTreatises Congress

ist Peloponnesian Congress 2ndPeloponnesian Congress jrd MessenianCongress 3rd Peloponnesian Congress 4thPeloponnesian Congress jth Peloponnesian Congress 6thPeloponnesian Congress 12thClassicalArchaeology Congress AA AAA A. Delt. AgAJA AM Ar AR Arch.Eph.

etal., 'Crossingtheriver' Armstrong

andAssemblage Artifact Avraméa, Péloponnèse

to number)'zembil',a groupoffindsfromone location (prefixed Πρακτικά του Α' Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Σπουδών (Σπάρτη-Γνθείονy-ii 'Οκτωβρίου igyj) (Athens,1979)52 v°ls = Λακ. σπουδ. 4-5 (!979) Πρακτικά του Α' ΤοπικούΣυνεδρίου ΛακωνικώνΜελετών (Μολάοι$-y 'Ιουνίουig82) (Πελ. suppl.9; Athens,1982-3) Πρακτικά του Α' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών (Σπάρτη, 7-14 Σεπτεμβρίου igyj) (Πελ. suppl. 6; Athens,1976-8),3 v°ls Πρακτικά τού Β' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών (Πάτραι, 25-31 Μαΐου ig8o) (Πελ. suppl.8; Athens, 1981-2),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Γ' ΤοπικούΣυνεδρίουΜεσσηνιακώνΣπουδών (Φιλιατρά-Γαργαλιανοι 24-26 Νοεμβρίου ig8g) (Πελ. suppl. 18;Athens,iggi) Πρακτικά τού Τ' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Καλαμάτα,8-ij Σεπτεμβρίουig8$) (Πελ. suppl.13; Athens,1987-8),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Δ' ΔιεθνεούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Κόρινθος,g-i6 Σεπτεμβρίουiggo) (Πελ. suppl. 19; Athens,igg2),3 vols Πρακτικά τού Ε' Διεθούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών ("Αργος-Νανπλιον,6-ΐο Σεπτεμβρίουiggj) (Πελ. suppl.22; Athens,1996-7),4 vols Πρακτικά τού Στ' ΔιεθνούςΣυνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών(Τρίπολις, j-14 'Οκτωβρίου2οοο)(Athens, forthcoming) Πρακτικά τού XII Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Κλασικής 'Αρχαιολογίας('Αθήνα, 4~10 Σεπτεμβρίου ig8j), 4 vols (Athens,1988)

Archäologische Anzeiger

'Αρχαιολογικά ανάλεκτα εξ

Archaeology '

Annals of 'Αθηνών /Athens

ν δελτίον Αρχαιολογικό Agia,Agioi,or Agios

American JournalofArchaeology desDeutschen athenische Instituts, Mitteilungen Archäologischen Abteilung

archaic

Archaeological Reports(supplement to JHS)

'Αρχαιολογική εφημερίς P. Armstrong, W. G. Cavanagh, and G. Shipley,'Crossingthe river:reflectionson routesand bridgesin Laconia fromthe archaicto Byzantineperiods',BSA 87 (1992),293-310 C. Runnels,D. J. Pullen,and S. Langdon,Artifact andAssemblage: The Finds from a Regional Surveyof the SouthernArgolid, Greece

Calif, 1995) (Stanford,

A. Avraméa, Le Péloponnèsedu IVe au Ville siècle: changements et

de la Sorbonne:ByzantinaSorbonensia, (Publications persistances 15;Paris,1997)

Abbreviationsxix ΒΑ Besch. BAR BCH

BeyondtheAcropolis BG NaturalEnvironment Bintliff, RecentDevelopments Bintliff,

Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey' and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition' Bintliff Blouet, Architectures BMGS

Boblaye, Recherches

Bölte,'Geographie' Bonias,Αιγιές BSA Byz CAH2iii. 3

Bulletinvan de Vereeniging totBevordering der Kennisvan de Antieke Beschaving

British Archaeological Reports (Oxford); int. ser. = International Series(formerly Series) Supplementary

Bulletinde correspondance hellénique

A Rural T. H. van Andel and C. Runnels,Beyond theAcropolis: Greek Past(Stanford, Calif.,1987) black-glazed

and Human Settlement in Prehistoric NaturalEnvironment J. L. Bintliff, Greece:Based on OriginalFieldwork (BAR int. ser. 28; Oxford, 1977) in theHistoryand Archaeology of J. L. Bintliff,RecentDevelopments CentralGreece:Proceedings BoeotianConference of the6th International

(BAR int.ser.666; Oxford,1997) J. L. Bintliff, 'Regional survey,demography,and the rise of in the ancientAegean: core-periphery, societies neocomplex Malthusian,and otherinterpretive models',JFA24 (1997),1-38 and A. M. Snodgrass,'The Cambridge/Bradford J. L. Bintliff Boeotian Expedition: the firstfour years', JFA 12 (1985), 123-61 et vuesdu G. A. Blouet, Architectures, sculptures, inscriptions des Cycladeset de l'Atlantique, 3 vols (Expédition Péloponnèse, de Morée; Paris,1831-8) scientifique ByzantineandModem GreekStudies sur les ruinesde la Ε. le Puillon de Boblaye, Recherches géographiques

Morée(Expéditionscientifique de Morée; Paris,1835) F. Bölte, 'Sparta: Geographie', RE 2nd ser., iii (1929), cols 1294-373 Ζ. Bonias, Ένα αγροτικό ιερό στις Αιγιές Λακωνίας του αρχαιολογικού δελτίου,62; Athens,1998) (Δημοσιεύματα

AnnualoftheBritishSchoolat Athens

Byzantine Ancient J. Boardmanand N. G. L. Hammond(eds),TheCambridge History(2nd edition), iii. 3: The ExpansionoftheGreekWorld,Eighth

CAH2 xiv

toSixthCenturies DC(Cambridge,London,etc.,1982) F. W. Walbank, A. E. Astin,M. W. Frederiksen,and R. M. Ancient (2nd edition),vii. 1: Ogilvie (eds), The Cambridge History TheHellenistic World (Cambridge,London,etc.,1984) A. Cameronand P. Garnsey(eds), The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd edition),xiii: The Late Empire,AD337-425 (Cambridge, London,etc.,1998) A. Cameron, B. Ward-Perkins,and M. Whitby(eds), The

CAWi. 2

I. E. S. Edwards,C. J. Gadd, and N. G. L. Hammond(eds),The

CAR1vii. ι CAH2xiii

Cartledge,SL Cartledgeand Spawforth Catling,'Menelaion' Catling,'AlessapianZeus' Cavanaghand Walker

AncientHistory(2nd edition), xiv: Late Antiquity: Cambridge Empire and Successors, AD425-600 (Cambridge, 2000) AncientHistory(3rd edition), i. 2: The EarlyHistoryofthe Cambridge

MiddleEast(Cambridge,1971)

P. Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A RegionalHistory1300-362 BC

(Statesand CitiesofAncientGreece;London,1979) P. Cartledgeand A. Spawforth,Hellenistic andRomanSparta:A TaleofTwoCities(London,1989) H. W Catling,'Excavationsat theMenelaion,Sparta,1973-76', AR 23 (1976-7),24-42 H. W Catling,Ά sanctuaryof Messapian Zeus: excavationsat Aphyssou,Tsakona,1989',BSA 85 (1990),15-35 W. G. Cavanaghand S. E. C. Walker(eds),SpartainLaconia:The

ofa Cityand its Countryside Archaeology (Proceedings oftheigthBritish

xx Abbreviations MuseumClassical ColloquiumheldwiththeBritishSchoolat Athensand King's and University Colleges,London, 6-8 Decemberiggj) (BSA

Cl CMS CPCActs4 CPCAds6 CPC Papers 2 CPC Papers 3 CPC Papers 4 CPC Papers 5 Cd CR

Davis etal., 'Pylos Γ

Dawkins, AO Ε EH FGH Forsén etai, 'Asea valley' G GAC

'Geraki1' 'Geraki2'

'Geraki3' 'Geraki4'

Studies,4; London,1998) classical

undmykenischen Siegel(Berlin, 1964- ) Corpusderminoischen M. H. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an UrbanCentreand as a Political

(Actsof the Copenhagen Polis Centre,4/HistoriskCommunity filosofiske Meddelelser, 75; Copenhagen,1997)

Arkadia:Symposium,■ Ancient T. H. Nielsen andj. Roy (eds), Defining

April, 1-4 igg8 (Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 6/Historisk-filosofiske Meddelelser, 78; Copenhagen,1999) Greek in theAncient M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub(eds),Studies Polis (Papers fromthe Copenhagen Polis Centre,2/Historia Einzelschriften, 95; Stuttgart, 1995) in theAncient M. H. Hansen and K. Raaflaub (eds),MoreStudies GreekPolis (Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 108;Stuttgart, 1996) 3/HistoriaEinzelschriften, T. H. Nielsen (ed.), YetMoreStudiesin theAncientGreekPolis (Papers

fromthe CopenhagenPolis Centre,4/HistoriaEinzelschriften, 117;Stuttgart, 1997) P. Flensted-Jensen (ed.), FurtherStudiesin theAncientGreekPolis

(Papers from the Copenhagen Polis Centre, 5/Historia Einzelschriften, 2000) 138;Stuttgart, Classical(Quarterly ClassicalReview

J. L. Davis, S. E. Alcock,J. Bennet,Y. G. Lolos, and C. W. 'The PylosRegionalArchaeologicalProject,part Shelmerdine, I: overviewand the archaeological survey',Hesp. 66 (1997), 39!-494R. M. Dawkins (ed.), The Sanctuaryof ArtemisOrthiaat Sparta

(Societyforthe Promotionof Hellenic StudiesSupplementary Papers,5; London,1929) to date codes) early(prefixed EarlyHelladic Historiker dergriechischen F.Jacoby etal, Die Fragmente (Berlin, etc.,

!923- ) J. Forsén,Β. Forsén,and M. Lavento,'The Asea valleysurvey:a 21 Atheniensia, reportof the 1994 season', Opuscula preliminary (!996)>73-97 Geometric R. Hope Simpson and O. T. P. K. Dickinson,A Gazetteer of in theBronzeAge I: The Mainland and theIslands AegeanCivilisation

(SIMA 52; Göteborg,1979) J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,S. M. Thorne,G.-J.Wijngaarden,and D. Sueur, 'Geraki: an acropolis site in Lakonia. Preliminary season(1995)',Pharos, 3 (1995),41-65 reporton thefirst J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent, S. M. Thorne, N. Brodie, G.-J. Wijngaarden,and J. A. K. E. de Waele, 'Geraki: an acropolis sitein Lakonia.Preliminary reporton thesecondseason(1996)', Pharos, 4 (1996),89-120 J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,J. Fiselier,andj. A. K. E. de Waele, 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the thirdseason(1997)',Pharos, 5 (1997),49-83 J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent,R. Cappers, and T. Carter (1998), 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the 6 (1998),93-118 fourth season(1998)',Pharos,

Abbreviations xxi 'Geraki5'

Kourinou, Σπάρτη

J. H. Crouwel, M. Prent,J. van der Vin, P. Lulof, and R. Dooijes, 'Geraki: an acropolis site in Laconia. Preliminary season(1999)',Pharos, reporton thefifth 7 (1999),21-49 J. H. Crouwel,M. Prent,S. M. Thorne, and J. van der Vin, 'Geraki:an acropolissitein Laconia. Preliminary reporton the sixthseason(2000)',Pharos, 8 (2000),41-76 M. H.Jameson, C. N. Runnels,and T. H. van Andel,A Greek theSouthern lidfromPrehistory to thePresent Countryside: Argo Day Calif.,1994) (Stanford, Hesperia hellenistic S. Hodkinson,'Land tenureand inheritance in classicalSparta', ClassicalQuarterly, 80 [n.s.36] (1986),378-406 S. Hodkinson,Property and Wealth in ClassicalSparta(Londonand Swansea,2000) C. Renfrewandj. M. Wagstaff, AnIslandPolity: TheArchaeology of inMelos(Cambridge,1982) Exploitation Science Journal ofArchaeological desDeutschen Instituts Jahrbuch Archäologischen Journal ofFieldArchaeology Studies Journal ofHellenic Journal ofMediterranean Archaeology A. Jochmus, 'On the battle of Sellasia, and the strategic movements ofthegeneralsof antiquitybetweenTegea, Caryae, and Sparta' in id., 'Commentaries', Journalof the Royal Geographical 27 (1857),1-53,at 34-53 Society, Journal ofRoman Archaeology desRömisch-germanischen Mainz Jahrbuch Zentralmuseums Journal ofRomanStudies D. R. Keller and D. W. Rupp (eds), Archaeological in the Survey Mediterranean Area(BAR int.ser.155;Oxford,1983) E. Kourinou,Σπάρτη: συμβολή στη μνημειακήτοπογραφία

L

late (prefixed to date codes)

'Geraki6' Greek Countryside Hesp. HI Hodkinson,'Land tenure' Hodkinson,Property IslandPolity JAS Jdl JFA JHS JMA 'Sellasia' Jochmus,

JRA JRGZM JRS Kellerand Rupp,Archaeological Survey

Λακ. σπουδ. Landscape Archaeology

Leake,Peloponnesiaca Leake, Travels LH Lohmann,Atene Loring,'Routes' LS LS

LSÚ

M

της (διδακτορική διατριβή) (Athens,2000)

ΛακωνικαΙ σπουδαί J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,Landscape

as Long-term Keosin theCycladic Northern Islands Archaeology History: until Modern Times (Monumenta from Earliest Settlement Archaeologica,16;Los Angeles,1991) W. M. Leake, Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in theMorea (London,1846) W. M. Leake, Travelsin theMorea,3 vols (London, 1830; repr. Amsterdam, 1968) Late Helladic H. Lohmann, Atene-Ατήνη: Forschungen zu Siedlungs-und desklassischen Attika(Cologne, Weimar,and Wirtschaftstruktur Vienna,1993) W. Loring,'Some ancientroutesin the Péloponnèse',JHS 15 (1895),25-89 Laconia Survey to 5-figure (prefixed number)non-sitefindspot W. Cavanagh,J. Crouwel, R. W. V Catling,and G. Shipley, andChange ina Greek RuralLandscape: TheLaconiaSurvey, Continuity ii: Archaeological Data (Annualof the BritishSchool at Athens, supp.vol. 27; London,1996) middle(prefixed to date codes)

xxii Abbreviations McDonald and Rapp,MME Law MacDowell,Spartan Macreadyand Thompson,FieldSurvey MH MME mod. MystrasCongress Nl

OJA Ott Πληθυσμός Panagiotopoulos, Pauly-Wissowa PCPS Πελ. Πελ. suppl. PH Phaklaris, Κυνουρία2

Φιλολήκων Pikoulas,NMX Pikoulas,'Skiritis' PLi PLÛ R r. RE RG

Roughand RockyPlace

SAGT

SandyPylos

McDonald, W. Α., and Rapp, G. R., jun. (eds), TheMinnesota

a BronzeAge RegionalEnvironment MesseniaExpedition:Reconstructing

(Minneapolis,1972) D. M. MacDowell, SpartanLaw (Scottish Classical Studies; Edinburgh,1986) FieldSurvey S. Macreadyand F. H. Thompson(eds),Archaeological in BritainandAbroad(Societyof AntiquariesOccasional Papers, n.s.6; London,1985) MiddleHelladic W. A. McDonald and G. R. Rapp jun. (eds), The Minnesota

Messenia Expedition: Reconstructinga Bronze Age Environment

(Minneapolis,1972) modern(place-name) Πρακτικά του εκτάκτουΠνευματικούΣυμποσίου (ΣπάρτηΜυστρας2J-29Μαου ig88):από την φωτεινήκληρονομιάτου Μυστραστην Τουρκοκρατία(Πελ.suppl.16;Athens,199o) Neolithic Oxford JournalofArchaeology

Ottoman V. Panagiotopoulos, Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοποννήσου: ΐ^ος-ΐ8ος αιώνας (Ιστορικό αρχείο ΕμπορικήΤράπεζατης Ελλάδος;Athens,1985) see RE oftheCambridge Philological Society Proceedings Πελοποννησιακά Πελοποννησιακά,παραρτήματα prehistoric P. V. Phaklaris, Αρχαία Κυνουρία: ανθρωπινή δραστηριότητα και περιβάλλον (Δημοσιεύματα του αρχαιολογικού δελτίου, 43; Athens, 199°) (revision of publishedPh.D. thesis,Thessaloniki,1985) J. M. Sanders (ed.), Φιλολάκων:LakonianStudiesin Honourof HectorCatling(Oxford, 1992)

G. A. Pikoulas,Ή νότια μεγαλοπολιτική χώρα από τον 8° π.Χ. ώς τον 4° μΧ- αιώνα(Athens,1988) G. Α. Pikoulas,'Συμβολή στην τοπογραφίατης Σκιρίτιδος', Hows,5 (1987)5121-48 Η. Waterhouseand R. Hope Simpson,'PrehistoricLaconia: partΓ, BSA55 (i960), 67-107 H. Waterhouseand R. Hope Simpson,'PrehistoricLaconia: partIF, BSA56 (1961),114-75 Roman reigned

Wissowa, G., et al. (eds), Paulys Real-ency clopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart,1893-1 981) red-glazed C. Mee and H. Forbes (eds), A Rough and Rocky Place: The Historyof theMethana Peninsula, Greece Landscape and Settlement bytheBritishSchoolat (ResultsoftheMethanaSurveyProjectSponsored Athensand theUniversity ofLiverpool)(Liverpool, 1997) i-vi (University W. K. Pritchett,StudiesinAncientGreekTopography,

of California Publications: Classical Studies; Berkeley,Los Angeles,and (iv-vi) London, 1965-89), vii-viii (Amsterdam, 1991,!992)

fromNestorto History J. L. Davis (ed.), SandyPylos:An Archaeological Navarino(Austin,Tex., 1998)

Abbreviations xxiii SF

'Laconia' Shipley, '"OtherLakedaimonians'" Shipley, 'Perioikos' Shipley, 'Territory' Shipley, Shipleyand Salmon,HumanLandscapes

Ven Wells,Agriculture WellswithRunnels,Berbati-Limnes Wrightetai, 'Nemea'

smallfind G. Shipley,'Laconia', in M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen(eds), An Inventory (Oxford, ofPoleisin theArchaicand ClassicalPeriods forthcoming) G. Shipley,'"The other Lakedaimonians": the dependent perioikic poleis of Laconia and Messenia', in CPC Acts4, 189-281 G. Shipley,'Perioikos:the discoveryof classical Lakonia', in Φίλολάκων,2ΙΙ-26 in thelate classical G. Shipley,'The extentof Spartanterritory and hellenistic periods',BSA 95 (2000),367-90 in Classical G. Shipleyand J. Salmon (eds), HumanLandscapes Studies Environment and Culture (Leicester-Nottingham Antiquity: in AncientSociety,6; Londonand New York,1996) Venetian(date) in Ancient Greece: B. Wells (ed.), Agriculture oftheyth Proceedings Institute at Athens at theSwedish International (16-iy May, Symposium iggo) (Stockholm, 1992) B. WellswithC. Runnels(eds), TheBerbati-Limnes Archaeological i Athen, ig88-iggo(Skrifter Survey utgivnaav SvenskaInstitutet seriesin 40,44; Stockholm,1996) J. C. Wright, J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani,S. B. Sutton, and R. F. Sutton, jun., 'The Nemea Valley ArchaeologicalProject:a preliminary report',Hesp.59 (1990), 579"659

MODERN PLACE-NAMES Forancientplace-names,wherea well-established Englishformexistsit is generallyused (e.g. form is preferred whereit willnotgiverise a Greek-like Otherwise Athens,Corinth,Sparta). to ambiguity(Achaia, Arkadia,Aigina, Keos, Lakedaimon, Lakonike). The use of khis avoided,as chis a familiaraspirateto mostreadersof English.Hybridssuch as Attikaand Korinthare eschewed.For reasonsbehindthe use of Laconia ratherthan Lakonia forthe indicatedbyê regionin theancientperiods,see Chapterι, η. ι. Eta and omegaare sometimes and o. For modernplace-names,as the surveycoveredthewholetime-spanof Greekculture,we wishedto retainindicatorsof linguisticcontinuity(such as in Panagia) and etymological We have accordingly developeda systemclose to that (as in Geronthrai-Geraki). continuity of modernGreek',BSA 15 (1908-9), recommendedby R. M. Dawkins('The transliteration 214-22).We retaing forgamma,d fordelta,phforphi,and chforchi; thesehave thevirtueof We links(as in Chrysapha,Kephalas,Anthochóri). familiaretymological generallypreserving and for most double vowels and medieval the ancient (e.g.ai, oi diphthongs digraphs preserve has changedat least once since the forαι, 01) even where,as is usual, theirpronunciation eta by i (ratherthan e, classical period. We followDawkins'spreferenceforrepresenting BSA minded the recommendedby Managing Committeeof those presumablyclassically and have different resonances,we havebuiltin additional origins days).Because place-names ratherthan with Greek to preservesimilarities forms,permitting e.g. Konstantinos flexibility Δ Ντ or a name with When the phoneticallycorrectKonstandinos. (e.g. Δίχοβα, begins transliteration. Ντουφέκια),we sometimes givean explanatory For α, ε, ζ, θ, ι, κ, λ, μ, ν, ξ, ο, π, ρ, σ/ς, τ, ψ, and ω we use their'natural' roman as equivalentsa, e, z, th,i, k, /,m,n, x, 0,p, r,s, t,ps, and 0. Otherlettersare transliterated in a judgementhas been made each case. below;ifthereare alternatives, Greek

transcription

(ifdifferent) pronunciation approx.

αι αυ

ai

e as in get

Y

g (Ágios) ng

ß

γγ Γκ (initial) γκ (medial)

ΥΧ

δ ει ευ η Μπ (initial) μπ (medial) νδ

af or αν ν

G (Goritsá) ngovg nch d ei efor ev(Efstrátios,Evrótas) i (Kokkinórachi,Prophítis) Β (Bakáli) mb,mp,or b (Roubaíika) nd

ν

ghbeforea/o/u; y beforee/i g as in got nkh thas in the eeas in meet ee as in meet η + thãs in the

Modern place-names xxv Ντ (initial) ντ (medial) OL

ου φ χ υ (alone) vi

D (Douphekiá) ndor nt(Konstantínos) oi (Ágioi Anárgyroi) ou

eeas in meet oo as in hoot

ph

chas in loch ee as in meet ee as in meet

ch(Chrysapha,Ochtaïmero) y yi

Stress is indicated by an acute accent, normallyonly at the firstmention of a name in the main text of a chapter (and at firstmention in the notes if it is also the firstmention in the chapter) or in special contexts such as specific discussions or catalogue entries. Where a diaeresis would coincide with the stress,the diaeresis is retained in all contextsand the stress accent is not marked (e.g. Taygetos). The followingselectionof alternativesexemplifiesthe systemof transliterationin actual use.

ALTERNATIVE

FORMS

OF PLACE-NAMES

We give here a selection of alternativetoponymsfor places in Lakonia and the surrounding areas. In general,we have preferredthe formscommon in everydayspeech, while recognizing that these oftendifferfromformsused in maps and officialtexts,and that both popular and officialnames may well change in future.Alternativespellingsof names listed below can be found in earlier works, such as those of Leake. For other names recorded by the Venetian censuses and the French Expédition de Morée, see Chapters 7-8 and TABLES7.6-7, 8.1. For extensiveinformationabout changes in modern place-names, see G. A. Pikoulas, Λεξικό rcw οίκισμών της Πελοποννήσου: παλαιά καΐ νέα τοπωνύμια (Athens,2001). With the aid of thatinvaluable referencework,we take thisopportunityto correctsome equivalences given or implied in Chapters 23-4. official

colloquial (if different)

Ágioi Anárgyroi Agios Phokás Agrapidoúla (also Agrapidiá) Aigiés Aigíai Alesía Ambelochórion Ambelochóri Amyklai Amykles Ano Glykóvrisi Anthochórion Anthochóri Aphisión Aphysoú (also Aphisioú) Areópolis Areópoli Asopós Astéri

formermodernname

Zoúpena Voútama Mitátova Chánia Koutoumoús Léle Grámousa Sklavochóri Vezáni Katsouléika Tsímova Kondeviánika Bríniko{Leake:Príniko)

xxvi Modern place-names official

Astros Cháradros Gytheion Dáphni Drymós Elaphónisos Ellinikón Ellinikón Elos Éxo Nymphion Glyppía Kallithéa Kalloní KalyviaTheológou Kamára Karyaí KastríTyroú Káto Glykóvrysi Keraséa Kokkinórrachi Koutrí Krokéai Kryonérion Latomeíon Lefkóchoma Mavrovoúni Metamorphosis Moní Agíon Tessarákonta Martyron Neápolis;Neápolis Voión Oítylon Panigyrístra Pellána Pentauloí Peristérion Pháros PlákaLeonidíou Plátanos Plytra Polydroson Prosílion


Gytheio (E)laphonísi;Nisi Ellinikó(inThyreatis) Ellinikó(inMaléa) Lymbiáda

Karyés Kerasiá Krokées Kryonéri Latomí Metamórphosi ÁgioiSaránda

formermodernname

Agiannítika Kalyvia Trestená Marathonísi Kamínia Drialí Cervi;Tsirigo Teichío Kouléndia Douralí (Δ-or Ντ-) Éxo Nyphi;Níphi Kástro;Palaióchora Zaraphóna Pérpeni KalyviaServéika;Kalyvia Serviánika Giannaíoi Aráchova Lygariás Káto Vezáni Arvanitokerasiá Tsoúni Kokóretsa Levétsova Poliána Vigláphia Karáspai" Melíssi Katávothra

Neápoli

Vátika

Oítylo

Vítylo Alaibeï(ratherthanSaidali) Kalyvia;Kalyvia Georgitsánika Georgítsiou Koumoustá Tsási Alaibeï Nisi Límberdo (medieval)Asópolis Tzí(n)tzina Strotzá

Peristéri

Polydroso

Modern place-names xxvii official

PyrgosDiroú Pyrrichos Sellasía Synora Thalámai Timénion Tripolis Vapheió


Timénio

formermodernname

Pyrgos Kávalos Vrouliá;Vourliá Koutoumoú Koutíphari Káto Vérvena;Tseréni Tripolitsá Barbali D.G.J.S.

A NOTE ON SITE NUMBERS is explainedin fullat pp. 34-8 below The systemof numberingof sitesand otherfmdspots and at LS ii. 315-16.Beloware examplesoftypesofserialnumbersused in thesurvey. M348

sitenumber,i.e. sampledfindspot designatedas 'site'(numbersin range1-534; see surveysitecatalogue,Chapter24); letterprefixindicatesgeographicalzone

Π1384 *P284 ?R42I ??Fi43 Ã34

non-sitefindspot probablesite(inChapter6 only) possiblesite(in Chapter6 only) site(in Chapter6 only) doubtful findspotdesignatedas a sitein a periodotherthan thatunderdiscussion(in Chapter6 only) site(i.e. withinsurveypermitarea butoutsideintensively sampledOut-of-area' in range3000-26) numbers area; surveyed site known prior to survey(withinpermit area; either inside or outside surveyedarea) but not located or not sampled;numbersin range intensively 4000-8) site reportedby earlier sources but with unknownlocation or uncertain existence(numbersin range5000-10) site in all-Laconia catalogue (Chapter 23); double-letterprefixindicates geographicalzone (see ILLS23.1-10) series zembil(groupoffinds)in originalfieldwork non-sitezembil(e.g.zembil#36with10,000added to serialnumber,indicating also citedwithlower-casezone letterprefix(e.g.1110036) an off-site findspot); see previousentry sherdor lithicitemfromLS site(see artefact studies,Chapters10-18) smallfindfromsite(see Chapter19) or epigraphic sculptural, potteryor artefacttype,or individualarchitectural, artefact (see Chapters10-20)

A3018 L4001 A5001 AA296

#36

LS IOO36

hioo36 M348/64 SF2 14 a

(see ILL. 1.13)

Fora tableofsiteand findspot numbers,see Indexes6 and 7 below,and LSii. 456-9.

1 THE LACONIA SURVEY: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY GrahamShipley, WilliamCavanagh, andjoostCrouwel The Laconia SURVEY,1 a multi-disciplinary carriedout between projectbased on fieldwork a an area near Sparta in the 1983 and 1989,combines systematic archaeologicalsurveyof in and south-easternPéloponnèsewithrelatedstudies historicalsources,sedimentology, historical settlement Laconia ecology.Itsprincipalaim was to clarify changesin north-central ofthemodernGreekstatein theearly betweenthelateprehistoric periodsand thefoundation nineteenthcentury;in particular,the relationshipbetweenthe traditionalheartland(the Evrótasvalley,or Spartaplain)and theneighbouring rurallandscapes,bothin theplain and in the neighbouringhills. The project was designed to set in a regional context the programmeof excavationsby the BritishSchool at Athens:both those at Sparta and the and historicalsitesin and aroundthe Menelaion,and theSchool'searlierworkat prehistoric the surveywas also intendedto further the long traditionof topographic plain. Indirectly, researchin Laconia. It was also our hope that ultimatelythe surveymightlead to the excavationof one or moreruralsitesin Laconia to shed further lighton the issuesoutlined above. The information illuminatetheinterplay between presentedin thesevolumeswilltherefore cultural and human over a of Laconian circumstances, society physicallandscape, long span history. The Survey Area description of the survey area in thecentreoftheterritory The surveyarea is situatedapproximately ofancientSparta,and thus in the centralpart of the modern nomós(province)of Lakonia (ill. 1.1). The area examinedby thesurveyconsistsofa roughlyrectangular blockofland about twiceas longas itis wide,withitslongaxis orientedfromnorth-west to south-east (ILL.1.2).It generallyslopes 1 The name 'Laconia' is the regularancient post-classical; name forSparta'sterritory, whetherΕ or W of Taygetos,was Lakônikê, ή Λακωνική(firstin Herodotos,i. 69. 4; also e.g. iv.53. 2; Aristophanes, Peace,245; Strabo,v. 1. 1. Thucydides, 363; Pausanias,iii. 1. 1).The LatinneologismLaconiaseemsto vi. 34. 39. 214, occurfirstin Plinythe Elder {Natural History, here;xvii.18. 30. 133),yetevenhe thoughsomeread Lacónica also uses Lacónica(e.g. xxv.8. 53. 94). The Greek-likeform Laconice occurse.g.in Nepos (Timoleon, 2. 1) and Mela (ii. 3. 4). the officialmodernname of the province{nomós), is Lakonia,

thusa post-classical ofa Romanname.We adopt readaptation theanglicized(orlatinate)spelling'Laconia' as a neutralterm to avoid prioritizing any period- especiallythosewhen the area had quitedifferent namesor nonethatwe knowof. We are grateful to Dr Yanis Pikoulasforadviceabout the In thelightofhisinformation, ofmodernplace-names. spelling we havereadoptedtheformAphysoú'forthevillagewherethe Surveywas based,ratherthanAphisioú',used in LS ii. GS is gratefulto Graeme Barkerand the late Donald Shipleyfor comments on an earlierdraftofthischapter.

2 Chapter ι

from fromvariousperiodsand principalroutes(D. Miles-Williams, III. i.i. Laconia and periphery, showingancientsettlements an originalbyA. Sackettand D. Taylor,withadditionsbyRWVC and DGJS).

Backgroundand methodology3

'

'-^

,î

^î

τ r--^

rii.

GYTHEIQ

|

::

γ

WIlJ^ -

*"'_/^- *^'

Main roads

^ - *"""*^-

Rivers

.

J

1

Hs **'

'

J

vV

600m

. :'.V"V/^ '"'^Sv r^

0

II

DRS

'^

Land above 1000m do

monemvasia

kJ^x

LACONIASURVEYAREA : "

^*'

II

il

li

li

20

« Kms

I

III. 1.2.The surveyarea in relationto Laconia (G. D. R. Sanders).

'

s

4

Chapterι

III. 1.3.Toponymsin thesurveyarea (D. Taylor).

Backgroundand methodology 5

to south-west and is situatednorthand east of Spárti,the siteof the down fromnorth-east ancientand moderntownof Sparta.That has not alwaysbeen thelocationforthecapitalof theregion;forseveralcenturiesthatrolebelongedto theFrankishand Byzantineacropolisof of Mystrásat thewesternedge oftheplain,untilin thenineteenth centurythetown-planners laid out an urban on the ancient of new Greek site The modern the kingdom grid Sparta. townadjoinsthewest(right)bankoftheriverEvrotas(theclassicalEurôtas);acrosstheriver, almostwithintouchingdistanceof the town,the surveyarea beginsfromthe east (left)bank and stretches up intothehillsbeyond.2(Forplace-namesin thesurveyarea, see ILL.1.3.) The area presentsa variedtopography, geology,and vegetation,owingto the varietyof Withinthelargerarea enclosedby theboundariesofa land-forms and elevationsit contains.3 (communes)specifiedin the surveypermit (see ILL. 8.1), a group of adjacent koinótites was studiedintensively between1983and 1989.4 contiguoustractofsome70 squarekilometres The northernmostpoint of this tract lies not far beyond the limestone hill of Agios thisis the highpointof the Konstantinos (818 m; ILLS24.4-7)wl^ ^tsclassicalfortifications; To thesouththearea endsat theplace wherea long,erodedridge,bearingtheBronze survey. Age mansionknownas Dawkins'House and the classicalsanctuaryof Menelaos and Helen, runsout intothe Sparta plain. Here, wherethe Evrotasrunsclose up againstthe hills,the surveyarea reachesitslowestpointat around170m above sea level.Turningback northwards along the river,we can tracethewesternboundaryof the surveyupstreamthroughthelowlyingfieldsnorthof Sparta,includingthe area of Geladári (LS siteH45),siteof a probable of the Evrotasvalleyfloorat this ancientvillage;it thusincludesseveralsquare kilometres At the north-western limit the river and cold (ILLS24.15-16),fromthe point. emerges,deep limestonefoothillsborderingthe Sparta plain on the north.Finally,in the east the survey climbsthewesternoutliersofthePárnonrange,embracingthelowerslopesofKoutsovition the roundhillof Phagiá to its south,and comprisesmuchof the dry the northand skirting basin overlooked bythevillageofChrysapha(ILL.24.56). upland The twogreatmountainrangesofLaconia, Mt Taygetosto thewestand Mt Parnonon the east,dominate(at a distance)the landscapeof all thispartof Laconia, and providethe first foranycontextualization elementofa framework ofthesurvey. To talkfora momentonlyof it was how the of visibility: striking highestpeaks Taygetos,notablythe pyramidalProphitis Ilias (2,404m), werevisiblefromalmosteverypartof the surveyarea (ILL. 1.4). In termsof mobilityand resources,the mountainsare farfromthe least importantamong economic thesettlement factorsinfluencing ofthestudyarea. history Two riversalso dominatethearea. The Evrotasformsthewesternmargin,whileitstributary theKelephina(theancientOinous)flowssouthalongsideourarea,thensouth-west it,to through with the Evrotas a few kilometres north of in Both are their converge Sparta. perennial, though lowercoursestheydivideintobraidedrivulets beds,and can shrinkto spreadingovergravelly in late summer(ILL.1.5).Otherwaterresourcesare numerouscomparedto many meretrickles Greeklandscapes;oftenthe visitor'sfirstimpressionof Laconia is thatit is surprisingly un2 For an excellent general geographical descriptionof Laconia see AdmiraltyNaval IntelligenceDivision, Greece (Geographical Handbooks, BR 516, 516 ab; London, 1944-5),iü-177-86. 3 A fullzone-by-zonedescriptioncan be found in the surveysitecatalogue(Chapter24),whilethegeomorphology and naturalecologyare discussedfullyin Chapters2-3.

4 Some 1.65sq kmwas coveredby recentpine plantations and provedcompletely barrenofarchaeologicalremains(see below);modernvillagescoveredc.0.5sq km;fencedorchards and other inaccessible areas would have brought the unsurveyed portionto r.2.5sq km. Thus the surveyedarea, havingtakenaccountoftheseinaccessibleportions,amounts to c.68 sq km.

6

Chapterι

III. 1.4.The southernpartofMt Taygetosat sunrise,lookingSWfromAphysoú(G. Shipley).

ofthevalleyfloorare so greenand becausesprings 'Spartan',becausetheolive-and citrus-groves and fountains abound.Thisis particularly trueofthewestoftheplainat thefootofTaygetos.On theeast,however, and in thefoothills ofParnonwhereour surveytookplace,springsare more The whole area is in somethingof a rain-shadowresultingfromthe widelyspaced. survey of which the winds.The geologyofmuchof presence Taygetos, intercepts prevailing rain-bearing thecentraland southern is less conducive to the formation ofspring-lines. area,too, survey Various'natural'routescrossour surveyarea. One is the valleyleadingENEfromSparta acrossdry,erodedhillsto theChrysaphabasin;fromthereit ascendsto theuplandvillageson thecrestofParnon,and beyondto theKynouriaor Thyreatis, a coastalshelfanciently disputed betweentheSpartansand Argivesbutnowassignedto thesprawling nomos ofArkadia.Southof some40 kmaway,has usuallyfollowedthewest Sparta,theland routeto thesea at Gytheion, bank the of across the river from thesurveyarea,downto theVardouniahillsat Evrotas, (right) thelowerend oftheSpartaplainand onward.On theeast (left)bank,withinour surveyarea, themain route(likethemodernmotorroad) has traditionally turnedeast,firstwiththe river and thenawayfromit,pasttheByzantineacropolisofGerákito Monemvasiaon theeastcoast and into Maléa, the remotesouth-easternpromontoryof the Péloponnèse.Less easy to determine forsomeperiodsis whichwas thenormalrouteto and fromeasternArkadia,northof a main Laconia.The Kelephinavalleyis difficult to pass at certainpoints.Morelikely, therefore, land traffic to routeskirting Konstantinos and to the Evrotas carried Agios descending valley and fromArkadia,as itdid untilrecently whenitwas supersededbya moredirectmotorroute in different fromTripolis(modernTripoli).The place whereit met the plain was different sometimes at the north-western remains of our where there are periods: extremity surveyarea,


III. 1.5.The riverEvrotasin April1989,lookingnnwfromtheMenalaion(G. Shipley).

in thecentreofthesurveyarea nearthe ofRomanand Ottoman-period and sometimes bridges, modernroadbridge.Forperiodswithoutbridges,eitheris possible.Anotherroad,againoutside oursurvey thewest(right) bankoftheEvrotasto Megalopolis(modernMegalópoli) area,follows and western Arkadia.Whileroutesto thenorth,to south-eastern of Laconia,and to theinterior Parnonall pass through thesurveyarea today,theywereprobablynotas important in thepast southcorridor thatpassedthrough as thisnorthbankoftheEvrotas. Spartaon thewest(right) The surveyarea,sensu was sparselysettledin the1980swhenourfieldwork was carried stricto, out,and remainsso today.Mostpeoplelivedin a villagewitha populationofup to a thousand or two,forming thecentreofa koino'tis and administering a definedterritory which (commune)5 contain a few smaller settlements or of isolated might outlyinggroups houses; permanent dwellingswere,and are, rare.In the north,our area stoppedshortof the koinoticcentreof Sellasia(formerly Vourliáor Vrouliá),butwithinitwas thesizeablevillageofVoutiánoiastride the Sparta-Tripolisroad and, furtherinto the hills,the koinoticcentreof Agios Ioánnis and east-central Theológosand itsdependency KalyviaTheológou.The north-east partofthe where are contained no settlement. The west-central area, slopes mainlyverysteep, large part, in theEvrotasplain,containedthe'commuter villages'ofKladás and Aphysou(in thelatterof whichthe surveywas based), as well as the ribbon-development settlement of Kokkinórachi and above the main In road. the south-east we are Tsouni)along (formerly again in almost unihabitedhill-land;the substantial of with its smaller village Skoura, neighboursof Zagáno, 5 In the late 1990s, afterthis volume was drafted,a ofkoinótites intodimoitookplace. We have not reorganization

to adjustthetextsystematically to reflect this. attempted

8

Chapterι

III. 1.6.BurntlandscapenearVoutianoi,theday aftera majorbushfirein August1988, lookingSSW(G. Shipley).

Platána,and KephalásdottedalongtheGerakiroad,lieswellto thesouthofthatbroadofarea ofdissected hillsand valleyswhosenorthern as edgeformsthesouthern partofourarea. Finally, ofthesurvey reachesto theuplandvillageofChrysapha. alreadynoted,theeasternextension Land use in the surveyarea covers a wide range.6Agriculturein rural Laconia has and muchof undergonea patchyrecessionsincethehighpointofthemid-twentieth century, the landscapeis no longeras intensively farmedas before.7Possiblesignsof older farming fashionsabound, such as an apparentvogue at some timein the past forpear-trees(now mostlygone wild)or,aroundVoutianoi,forhedgesof the Americanprickly-pear plantthat bearssuchsucculentbut fearsomely fruit. The of cereals with olives protected inter-cropping is rarelypractisednow,thoughin thenorthernSpartaplain and aroundthelowlandvillages the olive-groves are stillcarefullytendedand the fieldsploughedto assistwater-retention.8 of Manyfig-trees venerableage are stillcropped,notablyon thespursbelowVoutianoi,where theyare sometimes grownin largenumbersratherthansinglyas is theruleelsewherein the in late summer, whilefield-walking we would come acrosspeople from Often, Péloponnèse. Athenswho had returnedto theirancestralvillagesto collectthe familyharvestof figsor walnuts.We recallwithgratitude and spontaneous towardstheteams. theirfrequent generosity The othermainaspectofland use is pastoral.Most ofour encounters withlocalsout in 'the field'werewithherdsmentakingtheirsheepor goatsto browsethehills.Generallytheflocks returned to thevicinity ofvillageslikeAphysouor Chrysaphaat night;but some,as could be () See also Chapter8. Furtherdetailsin the introductions to individualzonesin thesurveysitecatalogue(Chapter24).

7 See Chapter8. 0 See Chapter3.


inferredfrompens of brushwoodor more remainedon the hills permanentstructures, forprolongedperiods.Some herdsmenwere membersof local communities,but one educated who repeatedly individual, friendly us in local toponymy guided (and incidentally us to several findspotsof archaeological we had notyetsurveyed), materialin localities came downon horsebackfromArkadiaeach summerto graze his animals on the late summer steppe plants and garigue of Geladariand on thelimestonespurs.In formertimes,perhaps,he wouldhaveexploited thestubbleleftbythecerealharvest. Duringour workwe weremade aware of the various importantroles played by the uncultivatedcountryside,apart fromits contributionto agriculturaland pastoral production.9The dexterous weaving of spinybroomand otherbrushwoodto plug gaps in hedgesand thussave livestockfrom as it fallsprovedas ethnologically impressive Over the inconvenient. was archaeologically years of the survey,several countrymen demonstratedtheirskillat makingherdsand crooksfromshoots man'swalking-sticks nearVoutianoi,eightmonthsafter III. 1.7.Burntolive-tree of wild olive. Much of the landscape is ofthetreeand thesamefire,showingregeneration dottedwithdisusedlime-kilns. surrounding vegetation(G. Shipley). But we werealso aware of changein the Farmingpracticeshavechanged, countryside. effects offire(ILLS and a possibleconsequenceis whatappearto be theincreasingly devastating butthe scrub to controlled of the no burning promotegrazingresources, 1.6-7): longer periodic, hillsides. This is theresultofa declinein grazing acrossproductive uncheckedspreadofwildfire of wild grassesand gariguethatallowsfireto whichhas led to a re-growth and ploughing, oftheruralproductive also aware that facets We were economyconcern many spreadrapidly. their more now earn a of livingin offices, Aphysiots shops, only minority peopletoday:probably to assume is without land. While economic from the or garagesthan precedent, system today's that 'agriculture'was the universalpreoccupationin everypast period would be to beg questions. important A NOTE ON CLIMATIC DATA (BY MALCOLM WAGSTAFF)

about the climateof the surveyarea is derivedfromthe meteorologicalseries Information maintainedat Sparta and kindlymade availableby the GreekMeteorologicalService.This 9 Cf. H. Forbes,'The uses of the uncultivatedlandscape in modernGreece: a pointerto the value of the wilderness

in antiquity?',in Shipley and Salmon, HumanLandscapes, 68-97.

ίο

Chapterι

III. 1.8.Mean monthly and precipitation at Sparta(datasuppliedbyGreekMeteorologicalService). temperature

allows the area to be classified as having a warm sub-humid climate of the classic Mediterranean type. exceed20 °C from The meanannualtemperature is 17.7°C, butmeanmonthly temperatures Theyfall Juneto September(ILL.1.8),and Spartais one ofthehottest placesin GreeceinJuly.10 to 9 °C inJanuary. FrostoccursfromNovemberto March,butthemeannumberoffrost daysis greatestinJanuary(2.8) and February(2.4). Severedamage can resultto citrusand, if the The economicconsequencesare serious. fallsbelow-13 °C, evento olive-trees. temperature 10B. Kayser and K. Thompson (eds), Economicand SocialAtlas ofGreece(Athens, 1964), 104.

Backgroundand methodology n π π

1000-

-

800

4^-Μ-^Η-·.

600 - i;

:

400 - ;;

;

;

2 0 0 - ;!

Ι;

j:

Γ

ΜΜ4Η».

:

**

MEAN

:

: .

·; ; ; ;

'' '

ο oï

ο ιg>

ο cm ο

:

i:

;

ο oo ο

ο ^f ο)

ο un Ο}

[iilij

ο to ο

i ■

;

;

o '' 1111Π If l,li.l.l.l.lJ.llll.l.l.l.l.f.lH.l.i[,Μ,,Ι rro en co

-■-=

η

'■ :_

mm

Π

i

: :

[J.J.U.U.M.i.l.

ο r^ σ>

ο oo ο)

ο σι ο^

III.. i.(). Intcraiiinial variabilityolprccipitatimi at Sparia.

Mean annual precipitationis 801.6 mm (ill. 1.9). Most of it arrivesas rain duringthe butsnowalso fallsin DecemberandJanuaryand lies forseveralmonthson thepeaks winter, in precipitation. The of Taygetosand Parnon.There is considerableinterannualvariability historical series,suggeststhatit does notfallbelowthe 240 evidence,thougha discontinuous mm whichis criticalto a successfulcereal harvestin much of the Near East,11thoughthe existenceof a graincommissionat ancientSparta suggeststhatfoodsupplywas a recurrent worryin the past.12The Taygetosmountainrange to the westof Sparta (summit2,407m) createsa crainshadow'ofsucha sortthat,as Rackhamobservesin Chapter3, thesurveyarea 'drier'thanthezone on thewesternsideoftheEurotas. is noticeably fallsbetweenOctoberand March (inclusive), No less than78 per centof theprecipitation with16.7percentin Decemberand 15.6per centinJanuary(ill. 1.9).In someyears,however, stormshave raised the precipitationvalues well above the means forparticularsummer months;forexample,over62 mmwas recordedin August1915and inJune1921. effects oftheEvrotas windsprevailat Sparta,partlyas a resultofthechannelling Northerly in winds onto the Gulf of Laconia. These are which out summer, drying chilling opens trough in winter.

J.M.W.

SELECTION

OF THE STUDY AREA

The relationshipbetweenpeople and the land theyoccupyis once more an issue,raising to land,nationality, and statehood. Overthelastcentury, withinthe oflegitimacy, questions rights 11C. C. Wallen,Arid zone methodology',in E. S. Hills (ed.),AridLands(London,1969),31-51.

12P.

Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman

World (Cambridge,1988),15.

12

Chapter ι

ofarchaeology, theissuesofrace,ethnicity, imperialism, religion, language,and culture discipline timesto be itsproperstudy,an unachievableaim, or an anathema. have seemedat different These concernsof territory, or more broadlythe relationshipof people to landscape,are have turnedin conductingregionalsurveys. By classicallythe themesto whicharchaeologists in thepoliticsofcomplexsocieties;and themesno less theirnaturetheseissuesariseas conflicts or 'populationhistory, and declineofcivilizations,13 economyand the grandthantheemergence in haveprovidedtheimpetusand targetofsurveys ofpastsocieties',14 development socio-political betweenperiodsofdispersed Greece.Not infrequently thedebatehas focusedon thealternation ofsurvey to analysisin such and ofnucleatedsettlement, and theresults lendthemselves certainly terms.Nevertheless, to expressthe analysismerelyin termsof thisdichotomywould be to The modelneedstobe mademorespecific to thehistory ofLaconia. oversimplify hopelessly. It would be redundantto tryto listbaldlythe historicalissueswhichconnectLaconian withthe historyof itslandscape;thesewillformthe contentof some of the politicalhistory following chapters.All thesame,therewereproblemsthatinspiredtheprojectof theLaconia than,and in additionto, the contextof intensivesurveyresearch Surveymoreimmediately and historical describedabove. Each of the prehistoric periodsdetailedin laterchaptershad address:thehistory ofNeolithic that evidence might alreadypresented properly questions survey the Early-Middle colonizationin Laconia, the natureof EarlyBronzeAge 'proto-urbanism', theMycenaeanstateand therelationship of and therootsofcivicculture, BronzeAge transition of and the crisis the thesurveyarea to theMenelaionexcavations, Laconia, perioikic Spartiate hinterland of Roman Sparta,ByzantineLaconia beforeand thirdcentury BC,theagricultural thatmulti-period underthePalaeologues,and theTurkishoccupation.In thelongperspective when the there are contrasts and allows, challenges:periods Spartan statewas an survey of colonial and colonial of and obscurity; phases supremacy power, periods provincial important the last the effect of the for considerable 2,500years, 'Spartan subjection;and, spellsduring and victimofitsownmythology. mirage',or Spartaas bothbeneficiary in theplanningofthesurvey, overand above the These veryquestionsmade fordifficulties venture of limited resources and remit. encountered on anyarchaeological practicalproblems In the theoryof surveya strongemphasishas veryproperlybeen placed on the ideal of so that a proper sampling strategycan underlie selecting a representativeterritory, to meetin the data.15In practicethisideal was difficult inferences drawn from archaeological our case, notleastbecause thesize and boundariesof theLaconian 'state'at variousperiods and indeedoftenlackcleardefinition. havevariedconsiderably, To take one periodas an example:the classicalcity-state (polis)of Sparta consistedof an ruled a few thousand of by two kingswho were tightly Spartiatai,notionally assembly councilof elders,the Gerousia.The monitoredby fiveelected'ephors' and an aristocratic to military devotingthemselves 'Spartiates'played(in theory)no partin primaryproduction, and politicallife.They ruled over a much largerpopulationof 'helots' (είλώται,roughly Sparta had equivalentto stateserfs),mainlydescendantsof the Messenianswhose territory much of the in BC. This helot cultivated the agricultural population conquered eighthcentury ofMesseniaas wellas partsofLaconia. territory 13See e.g.C. Renfrew, in IslandPolity, i- 8; J. 'Introduction', F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani,'Patternsin the 457-79. Archaeology, landscapeofKeos', in Landscape 14J. L. Bintliff, 'Greece: theBoeotia Survey',in Macready and Thompson,FieldSurvey, 196-216,at 196.

15J. F. Cherry,'Frogsaround the pond: perspectiveson currentarchaeologicalsurveyprojectsin the Mediterranean Survey, 375-416. region',in Kellerand Rupp,Archaeological


ofLaconia, In addition,theSpartansexercisedmoreindirect poweroverthefreeinhabitants in in who lived thepenoikoi (poleis) human-geographical ('dwellersaround'), separatecity-states smalltownsand villages-whichwerepolitically terms, organizedas poleisto somedegree mostly made up the butwerecloselydependentupon Sparta.16Togetherthe Spartiatesand penoikoi or Lakedaimon;17 but onlySpartiates (Lakedaimones) 'polisof the Lakedaimonians5 over-arching whichmade all important decisionssuch as about war, had a voice in the Spartanassembly, name forthe centralsettlement of Sparta peace, and treaties.Lakedaimonwas an alternative inwhichitlay,theEurotasvalley. district and couldalso be appliedto thegeographical (Sparte), and helots(whowerenot)formed The penoikoi (whowereincludedamongLakedaimonians) calledtheLakedaimonian,armythatdominated a majorpartoftheSpartan,morecommonly - a situationthatmayhaveinfluenced settlement mostofthePéloponnèseforseveralcenturies areas such as Arkadia.In a strictsensethe Lakedaimonians'ruled' patternsin neighbouring the namewas Lakônikê, onlyLakedaimonand Messenia,a regionwhosepolitical-geographical WithinLakoniketherewill have been a land of the Lakones(a shortformof Lakedaimones). centralcoreofSparta'sownpolisterritory, thoughtheterm'Spartiateland',Σπαρτιατικήγη, a invention.18 This centredon theupperEvrotasvalley to be modern chora, naturally, appears and extendedsouth-east perhapsas faras the choraof perioikicGeronthrai(wherethe kings of Spartawouldhelpto had therevenuesfromcertainland). The existenceofa definedchora in of communities the of the the absence vicinity city,thoughtheremayhave perioikic explain frontier. been no hard-and-fast ofSparta,evenin a periodas welldocumentedas theclassical,thus Defining'theterritory' matter. to be no simple Quite what,then,would we be sampling?Elsewherevarious proves sometimesbecause the solutionshave been foundto the problemof defininga territory, on a historical with the was based Megalopolis Survey)or specific question (as strategy because it has been possible to sample a natural 'Siedlungskammer'(Boiotia) or a clear entity(Methana,Melos).None oftheseoptionsseemedappropriateor feasiblein geographical Laconia, giventhatwe wishedto coverall periodsand giventhattherewas no naturalor stablepoliticalboundaryto definean area forus. Laconia is not a naturalcatchmentin the in have changedconsiderably way that,say,Atticacan be viewed,and itspoliticalfrontiers recent work has the not to mention times. Furthermore, historical, emphasized prehistoric, importanceof samplinglargesitesin orderto put the ruralpatternin itscontext.Here, too, of whatwas practicablepreventedus frommeetingthe theoreticaldemand the constraints in our region,Sparta,liesunderthemoderntownofSpartiand onlya few The chief site fully. monumental major complexeshave been fullyexcavated.Whileit is reasonableto hope that useful data will be derivedfromrecordsof emergencyexcavations,the townwas not many forpracticalreasons. to open archaeologicalsurvey;norwas Mystras, indicatedclearlyhow we should these certain considerations factors, Despite complicating defineour area. The centralaim was to locatesitesofall periodsin an area thatwas relatively l() Shipley,'Perioikos'; id., '"Other Lakedaimonians'"; amongearlierworks,B. Niese,'Neue Beiträgezur Geschichte

und Landeskunde Lakedämons', Göttingische Nachrichten, gelehrte 1906, 101-42; F. Gschnitzer, AbhängigeOrte im griechischen

Altertum (Zetemata,17; Munich,1958),esp. 61-7; F. Hampl, 'Die lakedaimonische Periöken',Hermes, 72 (1937),1-49· On a thecategoryof 'dependentpolis',see M. H. Hansen,'Korne: settlements studyin howtheGreeksdesignatedand classified which were not poleis',CPC Papers2, 45-81.

17On thebinarystructure ofLakedaimon,a poliscontaining otherpoleis,see J. M. Hall, 'Sparta, Lakedaimon and the in CPC Papers natureofperioikic 5, 73-89. dependency', 18Bölte, 'Geographie', 1321-40.Post-Clauthorsreferto 'the land belongingto the astu1(Plut.Lyc.8. 5) or 'the civic land', πολιτικήχώρα (Polyb.vi. 45. 3); see MacDowell, Law,91-2; Hodkinson,'Land tenure',385. Spartan

14

Chapterι

III. ι.ιο. Soils and base rocksin thesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams and L. Farr,fromoriginalsbyA. Sackettand D. Taylor).


To this end, the complete unknownfromboth ancient sourcesand recentinvestigation. and the of an area was our integrated guidingprinciple, techniquesof intensive coverage The of other have shown that there are real were projects applied. experiences survey was designedas in a and the accordingly surveyterritory advantages working contiguousarea, and that we wanted to the overall aims of the an unbrokenunit.19Given survey, given in it was to the major knownsites a widerruralsetting, contextualize logical includesome land close to ancientSparta.The densityofmodernsettlement, however,combinedwiththe in the plain aroundthe townand the use of irrigation for of recentconstruction frequency citrusgroveson extensiveareas of heavilytilledalluvium,made thatarea problematicand to survey(thoughnot withoutinterest, particularly regardingabovepossiblyunrewarding to make the Evrotasour boundaryand to groundremains).It was reasonable,therefore, thisarea was one of the less kindsof landscapebeyondit. Archaeologically sampledifferent in Laconia,butit enjoyedthedistinction ofhavingtheimportant excavatedsite well-explored oftheMenelaionwithinit. The surveywas designed to include lowland, hill, and at least the lower mountain a range of vegetativecoverand land use and a It contains,correspondingly, environments. range of geologiesincludinglimestone,schist,Neogene (the Miocene-Pliocene marl-andseries),and colluvialslopesas wellas alluvialvalleyfloors(ILL.1.10;see also the conglomerate SOIL MAPat the end of the volume). It included knownor likelynucleated settlements, includingmodernvillagesand whatprovedto be an ancientVillage' at Geladari; religious complexes,such as the Menelaion and the workingmonasteryof Agioi Saránda; major 'natural' routesand rivervalleys;and, in termsof political and economic geography,a via of an ancientand modernurban settlement spectrumof situationsfromthe outskirts extensionof the area was designedto farmedslopesto uplandpasture.The south-eastward of Chrysaphain its enclosedbasin, fascinating territory incorporatesome of the potentially whetherSpartan or perioikic,was knownto lie, but whereno named classicalsettlement, thatwe mightfinda nucleatedcomplex.As it turnedout, thereseemeda strongprobability we foundmajorsitesin theChrysaphabasinnotonlyofthearchaicand classicalperiodsbut also ofprehistoric and post-Romandates. Sources

and Previous

Research

fromsome otherruralsurveyprojectsin thatwe began The Laconia Surveyis distinguished witha relativelyhigh degree of knowledgeof the historyand archaeology.We were not samplingan unknownpopulation. This prior knowledgeconsistedof the productof an understandingof three things:the historyof Sparta and Laconia, the geographyand of thisparticularpart of Laconia, and earlierresearchinto its archaeology. environment muchoftheevidenceconcernsspecifically ancientSpartaand ByzantineMystras, Admittedly, about ruralsettlement, but theimplications and tellsus littledirectly ofthosesystems require ofthearchaeology. It was recognizedfromtheoutsetthat to be workedintoanyinterpretation thispriorexperiencecould,and should,informour understanding and interpretation of the of the past. In all parts of this report, surveydata and hence the furtherinterpretation we attemptto bringtogetherinformation therefore, gatheredbypreviousresearch.This both demonstrates thelimitsof our knowledgeand providesthe necessarytoolsforan integration ofall availablesourcesofevidencewiththeresultsofthefieldsurvey. 19BintlifT(n. 14),195-200.

i6

Chapterι

In thischapterwe briefly outlinethehistoryof Laconia, and withinit the surveyarea, for each period,and summarizethe evidenceforhumangeography. It mightbe thoughtstrictly correctto restrict thispart of the enquiryto the 'scientific'researchof the nineteenthand twentiethcenturies.In the firstplace, however,the scholarsof thatperiod did not come innocentto the subject- theirview of the landscape was formedin the lightof whatwas - and, in the second already written,includingancient literature place, there may be in close that critical which makes to gulf advantages attempting past writingan object of discoursebut not part of that discourse.Rather,therefore, than produce a compositeof settlement foreach periodwhichconcealstheweavingofancientevidenceand modernfinds an into illusory seamlessrobe,we attemptto showhowLaconia was represented, described,or in (sometimes)explored each period, and how we believe the landscape to have been administered. This allowsus to place theregionalgeographyofLaconia in a longerhistorical and incidentally perspective, providesan outlinehistoryof all thethingsthatmaybe termed will 'landscaperesearch'whichhavegoneon in thestudyarea. At thesametimethesummary in raiseissuesaboutthenatureoflandscapecontrol,includingcontrolthroughrepresentation; thisrespectwe are dealingpartlywithmapsnoton paper. CATALOGUES AND EPITHETS:

THE EARLIEST PERIODS

to the topographyof Laconia,20but no Ancientliterature containsmanypassingreferences survive.In additionthereis the 'problem'of Sparta:not onlywas Spartan systematic surveys historical about written it also tendsto dominateand overshadow writings history byoutsiders, thatare specifically focusedon Laconia Lakedaimon;and the fewwritings Sparta'sterritory, outsideSparta(allfromlaterthantheclassicalperiod)are notas helpfulas theymightseem. To beginwiththe BronzeAge: it is generallybelievedthatthe Pyliankingdomdid not extendevenintothewesternmost thoughGerenianear Kalamáta was partof theprovince,21 identified as theplace wherekingNestorgrewup or tookrefugelater(Pausanias,iii. 26. 8). AlthoughLinearΒ archivesmusthaveexistedin Laconia,nonehas been found.22 For writtenrecordsof Sparta and Laconia we muststartaround 700 BC withHomer, has an thoughitwouldbe a mistaketo suggestthathisgeographyofLakedaimonnecessarily of the formation The ninth to seventh centuries were the historical referent.23 period objective ofthecitizencommunities or poleisof Greece;in Laconia theyculminatedin theconquestof ofcoloniesoverseas,and thegrowthofa disciplinedmilitary Messenia,thefoundation society. an earlierworld,thenamesin theCatalogue seems to be reimagining Homer Though chiefly of Ships- Pharis,Sparta,Messe ofmanydoves,Bryseai,lovelyAugeiai,Amyklai,thecoastal city(εφαλον πτολίεθρον)of Helos, Laas, and Oitylos(Iliad,ii. 581-5) and the sevencities offered by Agamemnonto Achilles Kardamyle,Enope, grassyHire,24sacredPherai,deepmeadowedAntheia,fineAipeia,and vineyPedasos(ix. 150-2,292-4)^- do suggesta political 20See thefundamental surveyin Bölte,'Geographie'. 21See convenientlyJ. Chadwick, The MycenaeanWorld (Cambridge,1976),ch. 3. 22ForLakedaimonios in LinearΒ tablets as a possibleethnikon from Thebes, see J. M. Hall (n. 17), 85-6, citing V. L. Godart,and A. Sacconi, 'Sui nuovitestidel Aravantinos, palazzo di Cadmo a Tebe: note preliminari',Rendiconti deWAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei: Classe dei ScienceMorali, 9th ser., 6 (1995), 809-45. 23 Significantly,it has been observed that, for example,

Pausanias 'uses no less than four Homeric passages ... for a conclusive demonstration that at the time of [the] poems there was no city,only a region, called Messene'. C. Habicht, Pausanias' Guide to AncientGreece(Berkeley, Los Angeles, and

London,1985),143. 24eIpT]vποιήεσσαν,also understoodas 'holyPoieëssa'by someancientreaders. 25 R. Hope Simpson, The seven cities offered by Agamemnonto Achilles(Iliad ix. 149 ff.,291 ff.)',BSA 61 to earlierliterature. (1967),113-31,withreferences


worldwherethe stateis defined,ifnot by terrainand boundaries,at leastby the controlof townsand henceoftheirpeople and lands.26Telemachos'svisitto Spartain Odyssey iv cannot be construedinto a map of ancientLaconia. Rather,the impactin Homericpassageswas fromthedescriptive intendedto comefromtheirsensibility, poweroftheepithetsused:κοιλή of Lakedaimon(κοιλην (hollow)and κητώεσσα (fullof gorges?)are both used specifically Λακεδαίμονακητώεσσαν).27Pedasos, as we saw, is άμπελόεις(rich in vines),Antheia Hire ποιήεσσα(grassy).Epithetsare also drawnfrom βαθύλειμος(deep in water-meadows), the religiouslandscape: Pherai is ζαθέαι (extremelysacred),Sparta is one of threecities ofagricultural and wellfertility 'especiallydear' to Hera.28Otherscomefromtheobservation wateredland,as in Telemachos'sadmiringsketchdeliveredto Menelaos:

. . . σύ γαρπεδίοιοάνάσσεις εύρέος,ή ενιμενλωτόςπολύς,ενδε κύπειρον, πυροίτεζειαίτείδ'εύρυφυέςκρϊλευκόν.

Foryoulorditovera broadplain, in whichthereis muchclover,thereis galingale, and wheatsand one-seededwheatsand wide-growing whitebarley. {Od.iv.602-4) The powerof Homericprecedent,the shieldofAchilles,and the ethnography of the Odyssey a programme established forscholarly Nevertheless the geography. beyond earlygeographers, theirliterary the limits,size,and aims,seem to have been moreconcernedwithestablishing and withgraphicaccountsof the ethnography of the shape of the world,withexploration, theirown landscape,the Spartansseem to have had neither barbarians.But in constructing theseaims nor the listsof towns(whichdo not make the mostrivetingreading)foremost in theirminds;insteaditis Homer'sexamplethatloomslargest,in termsofbothdescription and - lands are usually scattersconventionalepithets religion.Tyrtaios,in the seventhcentury, his themeof conquestin a broad,Spartais ίμερόεσσα(delightful)thoughhe can reinforce bluntvocabulary: Μεσσήνην, αγαθόνμενάρουν,αγαθόνδε φυτεύειν. . . ήμισυπαντόςόσον κάρποναρουρα φέρει Messene,bothgood to ploughand good to plant. . . Halfofall thecropthattheploughbringsforth

(frs3-4 Gentili-Prato)

Notethatliterally Messeneis not'good' (άγαθήν),itis a good (αγαθόν),as itwerea benefitor evena merepossession.The landscapeis notmerelyconqueredbutdenatured.In therhetoric ofwarfaretheSpartiatesare fighting forthecityand itsfields,and thereis a hardmaterialism in theimageof thewarriorlyingdead in the dust,blood runningfromhis genitals(fr.7), or thatofthehoplitefirmly treadingtheearth(fr.9). A) On these reputed earlypoleis,see Shipley,'"Other Lakedaimonians"', esp. 2^1-8. 27Od. iv. 1; //.ii. 581. Both of thesehave been thoughtto

be linkedwiththe sea: S. P. Morris,'Hollow Lakedaimon', HarvardStudiesin ClassicalPhilology, 88 (1984), 1-11.

aH φιλταται. . . πολήες,//.iv.51-2.

i8

Chapterι

A richerand more specificsense of place and natureis to be foundin anotherseventhSerapna (Therapne),thewine of centurypoet. Alkmangivesus the templeat 'well-towered' the sanctuaryof the Graces by the river and (probably)the Dentheliatis, the Oinous district sense and a graphic,ifoftenunspecific, Tiasa, and thenightingale bytheEurotasat Amyklai, ofplace and natureis evidentin manyofhissongs.29 LAND, COMMUNITIES,

AND BOUNDARIES IN CLASSICAL AND HELLENISTIC

LAKONIKE

The contributionof classical writersto our knowledgeof Lakonike is mainlylimitedto by particularly passingmentionsoftownsand harboursin the courseofmilitarynarratives, Thucydidesand Xenophon. Epigraphymakeslittleimpactin thisrespect,eitherin Sparta beforethehellenistic or in theperioikicterritories, period.Spartawas apparentlynotwholly passed by in the developmentof classicalGreekgeography:Anaximander(c.610-540 BC) is - evidence of an awareness of said to have set up a sundial in or near the town30 fora citythatwas a colonizingstatebothwithinGreece geographicalissues,appropriately and a reminderthatthepolisat thisdate was not so cut offfrommainstream and overseas,31 Greek culturaldevelopmentsas it later became. In the classical period we begin to have about administrative more information geography,thoughwe are heavilydependenton post-classicalsources(and, as has oftenbeen observed,none of the survivinghistoryof bya Spartan). Spartawas written In archaic and classical Sparta it appears that real propertywas adjudicated through traditionallaw,32and scholarlyopinion suggeststherewas no centralregistryof land.33 - the conquestof new territory, Occasions forcompilingcadasterswere not lacking treaty of and of the redistributions with allied land, states, redrawing drawing possible arrangements and the disposalof the propertyof political the boundariesof Spartanterritory, mortgages, exiles- but no suchdocumentssurvive.In the eighthand seventhcenturieswe maysuppose land.34The notionof thatthe Greekcolonial experienceprovidedmodelsfordistributing BC a fiction of third-century attack as has come under inalienable plots 'Lykourgan' core or all of the that some it seems view but whatever Spartan likely prevails propaganda;35 and therefore some or all of the surveyarea, was dividedintocitizens'plotsat the territory, and Roman periodsthese In the classical,hellenistic, timeof the Messenianwars or later.36 thepolis;there level of the at the control to were politicalcommunity, subject socio-legal plots was no feudalpyramidto negotiatetheparcellingof land. Althoughthe exact denotationof of 242 BC is unclear as far as it concernsthe redivisionof land 'in the Lysander'srhetra directionfrom(την από) the ravineat Pellana towardsTaygeton(sic),Malea, and Sellasia' Agis,8. 1),the textmakesit likelythatsome land withinthe surveyarea willhave (Plutarch, formedSpartiateplots.37It is possiblethatthe klaria(ibid. 13) delimited,or even mapped, of the mechanicsof the land distributions mortgagedland. All the same,our understanding 29'Serapna',fr.14(Page/Campbell);wine,fr.92; Graces,fr. testimonium 62 (Paus.iii. 18. 6); nightingales, 9; senseofnature, and esp.89 (a landscapeall asleep). e.g.frr.26 (thekêrylos) 3°O. A. W. Dilke,Greek andRoman Maps(London,1985),23.

34A.J. Graham,'The colonialexpansionofGreece',CAH2 iii. 3, ch. 37 (pp. 83-162),at 151-2. 35Hodkinson,'Land tenure',382. 36Cartledge, SL 135, contraΚ. Μ. Τ. Chrimes,Ancient

(Cambridge,1994). 32Hodkinson,'Land tenure'; MacDowell, SpartanLaw. Hodkinson, Property, appeared too late to be taken into accountsystematically. 33Cartledge,SL 168.

37Malea maydenotetheParnonridge(Bölte,'Geographie', polisin 1322),ratherthaneithertheformerSpartanperioikic sectionofParnonthat SW Arkadiaor thesouthern, peninsular formsCape Malea. Taken in thisway,the textcould denote orpossibly ofSpartaitself, thecoreterritory onlyitsΝpart.

31 I. Malkin, Mythand Territory in theSpartanMediterranean

oftheEvidence(Manchester, 1949), 424. Sparta:A Reexamination


proposedbyAgisIV and carriedout by KleomenesIII and Nabis38is so nugatoryas to make Recordstheremusthave been, but no ancientauthority seemsto have speculationfruitless. referred to them. In general,it seemspossiblethatperioikictownswere firstdemonstrably founded,or at no earlier than the sixth The leastbecomearchaeologically recognizable, century. mid-fourthattributed to of or Circumnavigation, calls falsely Skylax Karyanda explicitly centuryPeriplous, eightplaces in Lakedaimonpoleis(ch. 46 Müller)39and names a furtherthreesettlements, the authoralso besidesSparta itself,thatwe knowor believeto have been perioikicpoleis'^0 aversthatthereare 'manyother'poleisin the interiorofLakedaimon.41 It is uncertainwhen the traditionof one hundredLakedaimoniancitiesfirstsurfaced.Strabo (viii. 4. 11. 362) 'townships'(πολίχναι)in his own day and notesthatLakonikeis said speaksofabout thirty in olden times.Froma combinationof to have been called 'hundred-citied' (έκατόμττολις) archaic or classical sourcesand archaeology,we can identifyat most twenty-three places (besidesSparta)thatweredefinitely, probably,or possiblypoleisbeforethehellenistic period. A further settlements existedbeforehellenistictimesbutmaynothave beenpoleis. thirty-two namesfromarchaicto Roman times,the Even ifwe includeall knownor allegedsettlement Of these,nine are probablyspurious,whileanothernine totaldoes not exceed eighty-four. were probablygeographicallocationsor cult places ratherthan nucleated settlements.42 we have onlyan imperfect JacobyconsidersthatStephanosof Byzantion,of whose Ethnika and who several times describes a Laconian as 'one of the hundred',43 polis may epitome fromAndrotion,who wrotein thefourthcenturyBC,44though have derivedhis information The figureofone Stephanosalso uses otherauthorsof similardate,such as Theopompos.45 hundredis certainlynotional,not to say bookish,but listsof perioikicpoleisdo appear to havecirculated. The loss of individualpoleisafterthe battleof Leuktrain 371, and theirincorporation, (Paus. viii. 27. 4) and into the Arkadian presumablyby name,intoMegalopolitanterritory broke down their as apparenthomogeneity a unitedmassunderSpartanhegemony, league,46 and preparedthegroundforPhilipII ofMacedonia'sfurther oftheboundariesof redrawing theSpartanstatein 338.47 Traditionalterritories, were probablydistinguished earlier: especiallyin the borderlands, and Belbinatis52 and Skiritis,48 certainly Kynouria,49 Thyreatis,5° Maleatis;51 probably Aigytis;53 38Fordiscussionsee Cartledgeand Spawforth, chs4-5. 39 Las, Boia, Kythera on its island, Side, Epidauros (Limera),Prasia,Methana(i.e. Anthana?),and Sparte. 40MessenianAsine,Mothone,and Gytheion. 41See P. Flensted-Jensen and M. H. Hansen, 'Pseudoj, 137-67. Skylax'use ofthetermpolis' in CPC Papers 42Data in Shipley,'Laconia'. 43This or a similarphraseis used ofthefollowing poleisin Lakonike(somein theMessenianpartthereof): Aithaia(from Philochoros), Amyklai, Anthana (perhaps from Philostephanos),Aulon, Aphrodisias,Epidauros Limera, Krokeai,and Tenos(possiblyspurious). 44FGH 324 F 49. Androtionis citedbyStephanosforthree Laconianpoleisor allegedpoleis:Aitolia(existencedoubtful), Oinous,and possiblyThyrea. 45Theopompos(4thcent,bc) is citedbyStephanosforthe Laconianplaces (notall necessarily poleis),and may following have listed many more: Aigys, Eua, Karya(i), Helos, Messapeai,Sellasia,and Thalamai.

4a Or Belminatis,Polyb.ii. 54. 3 (224 bc); Belbinates, Livy, xxxviii.34. 8 (189 bc). ForBelbina(or Belemina),see Shipley, '"OtherLakedaimonians'",237no. 22; Shipley,'Laconia'. 53Polyb.ii. 54. 3.

20

Chapterι

lesscertainly Dentheliatis54 These are sometimes, notnecessarily (butprobablynotKaryatis).55 If territories of the for the annexation of always, arguments perioikicpoleis. Aigytisin the hold the the good,56 territory probablypreceded Spartanpoliticalconstitution, eighthcentury whilethe mainpolisin the Skiritiswas Oion (not Skiros,if any such townexisted).57 It may evenbe thatlaterin theirhistory theSpartansfoundit convenient notto identify suchregions witha singlecity,as in the case of the Skiritanhoplites,58 who mightbecome a dangerif with one The identified obscure of Pellana59likewisefalls tripolis specifically perioikicpolis. mosteasilyintothisgroupofgeographicalunitswhich,at leastbeforethefourth need century, nothavecorresponded to anypoliticalunit. Boundary-stones maywellhave markedsanctuariesand agricultural holdings,but it is not if a clearwhen, ever, preciseline came to be used to delimitthestate'sterritory; thisis all the moreproblematic since'wildland' and commonpastureprevailedin the maquis-dominated eschatiai thatoftenmarkedthe boundaryareas betweenGreekcity-states. In the (outfields) ofthepolisthesacredlandscapeseemsto havebeen important in thisconnection; earlyhistory hence, no doubt, the existenceof the archaic and later sanctuaryof the Hermai on the northern borderof Lakedaimon,6° thoughin Pausanias'sday the riverAlpheioswas also the border(viii.54. 1).LikewisethesanctuaryofArtemisLimnatis,at leastin latertradition,61 was the focusforthe disputebetweenSparta and Messenia.In a somewhatparallelfashionthe sanctuaryof Poseidonat Tainaronservedas a liminalsanctuaryat the southernend of the notleastin itsroleas an asylumforfugitive helotsand slaves.62 territory, IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATION

AND IMPERIAL GEOGRAPHY: LAKONIKE IN ROMAN TIMES

SpartalostMesseniaand mostof the helotpopulationin 369 and 338 BC,and manyof the The perioikictownsat thesedates and at variousjuncturesduringthe nexttwo centuries.63 was to an end in the Macedonians and the 222, independent monarchy effectively brought by Romans enrolledSparta in the Achaean league in 192. Some fifty later the whole years Péloponnèsecame under Roman sway,thoughthe provinceof Achaia was not formally created until the end of the firstcenturyBC. From this period we have only scattered information about Spartanterritory,64 such as the townsmentionedin Polybios'snarrative, and are again relianton laterauthors.There are more epigraphicdata fromthe formerly perioikictowns,manyofwhichwerenow enrolledin a Lakedaimonianleague.This endured intoRoman timesand was reorganizedas the Eleutherolaconian (FreeLaconian) league by Augustus.65 Sparta itselfbecame more integratedinto the empire-wideélite networkthat formedthe skeletonof Roman rule,exemplified by contactswiththe philhellenicemperor 54 Tac. Ann. iv. 43 (ager Dentheliates),referringto

in thetimeofPhilipII ofMacedonia.Steph. arbitration Byz. has an entryon Denthalioi.See furtherG. A. και το οδικό της δίκτυο: Pikoulas,'Ή Δενθελιατις Messenian σχόλιαστηνIG Vl5Ι431''3r

Asopos Jf '

Minoa

y* /Irfem/s Limnatis

^'

ν ^

Messa^Á (Ù j ThyridesK ^/

V

'

^^ ' ^Vf

' )

^>

S

V.

V

γ V

Xî

^

S

^-^

Achilleios^p ^ Psamathous Plutunistous

iP^Tainaron

'

Kythera

ç

0

10

^_______^

^~X

50 Kms

S

^

Skandeia

S

or botli(Underlined) III. i.ii. SitesmentionedbyStrabo,Pausanias(italics) (I). Taylor).

Malea

24 Chapterι

Pausanias'sdescriptionof Laconia occupieshis thirdbook. (The places he mentionsare in ILL.i.n.) As suggestedabove,thereare pointsofcontactbetweenhisprogramme illustrated and that of earlierwriterssuch as Strabo and Pliny.The culturalworld of the Second Sophistic,however,was consciouslyarchaizing,even escapist,82and sets the contextfor Pausanias's rejectionof the contemporaryworld.83In politics this cultural settingwas important: of the Panhellenionlay chieflyin itsprovisionof a new It was suggestedin PanhellenionI thatthe significance outletforthe social and politicalambitionsof upper-classGreeks.. . . the league's importanceshouldalso be tiesof soughtin the 'ideological'plane. Its termsof reference emphasizedthe recollectionof foundation-legends, and thehistorical kinship, primacyofcertaincentresin old Greece.84

Nevertheless,althoughPausanias mentionsGreek colonial foundationsin his historical to Book iii, the likesof the Synnadansand Alabandanscertainlyfindno place introduction of Lakonikethroughthe separate there.85 He adoptstheliterary deviceof relatingthehistory storiesof the Agiad and Eurypontidroyaldynasties.Their extinctionbeforethe Roman givenhis literaryaims,manydetailsof the conquestallowshim to glossover,appropriately ofthelandscapedescriptions byPausanias, periodbetweenthenand hisownday.The contents and theirhistory, worksofart, embracedtopography, monuments and indeedotherperiegetes, Pausanias'sreligious votiveofferings, and anthropological characteristics.86 landscapeis rootedin and heroeswhoseveryrepresentation thepast;87 itis inhabitedbygods,goddesses, posesto him, in theage oftheSecondSophistic, a cruxofbelief.88 This criticaldistance,increasedbyhisrole eventhough as a 'tourist', to ascribea senseofreligiousspace to hiswritings; makesit difficult in the text,89 thereare cross-references the progressis linearas each monumentis met.His thegreatmajority is in markedcontrast withthatofStrabo;nonetheless, coverageoftheinterior of his sites are in townsand the coverage of the countrysideis sporadic, with marked ofthe concentrations aroundSpartaand to a degreearoundLas.9°At theend ofhisdescription in of the and the cities each he 'those are the divisions division, Péloponnèse, Péloponnèse, says and the mostmemorableand interesting thingsin everycity'(viii.54. 7). He describesthe While agreeingwithLeake that outsidethe cities,but sees it as less important. countryside 82See E. L. Bowie,'Greeksand their past in the Second Sophistic', in M. I. Finley (ed.), Studiesin AncientSociety 46 (London,1974),166-209(earlierversionin PastandPresent, B. suggests(pp. 173-4= (1970),3-41),forthegeneralsetting. werealtered:'Longus's to thecountryside p. 9) thatattitudes DaphnisandChloe(? late secondcenturyAD) showsthe same fortheprimitive and "unspoilt"lifeof the Greek hankering countryside (now considerablyaffectedby imperialestates) thatwe findin Dio of Prusa'sEuboeanTaleand in Herodes Atticus'scultivation oftherusticAgathion'(cf.p. 197= p. 30, ii. 1,pp. 552-3). to Philostratos, LivesoftheSophists, referring 83See Habicht (η. 23), eh. 5 and passim:'He is almost in the historyof independent Greece' (p. interested exclusively 102;cf.Bowie(n. 82), 188-90 = 22-4). 84See A. J. Spawforthand S. Walker,'The worldof the Panhellenion,I: Athensand Eleusis',JRS 85 (1985),78-104; 'The worldofthePanhellenion,II: threeDorian cities',JRS 86 (1986),88-105 (quotationfromp. 104).They also observe that'admissionto thePanhellenionwas based on theability of member-communities to provetheirGreeknessin terms, not only of culture,but also of race' ('Panhellenion,Γ, p.

82); see also 'Panhellenion,ΙΓ, 88-92, on kinship;92-4, on cultural ties. Note also Polyb.'s referenceto works on of cities,and tiesof kinship'(ix. 1. 4, 'colonies,foundations 2. 1-2).

85Cartledge and Spawforth, 114. 86Habicht (n. 23), 2-3. 87Κ. W. Arafat, 'Pausanias' attitude to antiquities', BSA 87 ^992), 387-4!0· 88 See Habicht (η. 23), 158, on Paus. vii. 23. 7-8: 'In this passage Pausanias seems not to conceive of the gods ... as divine beings with distinctpersonalities ... as ... in the old myths.They exist, they are venerated, but their true nature is beyond human comprehension.' For Marcus Aurelius and his view of the supernatural, see R. B. Rutherford, The MeditationsofMarcusAurelius:A Study(Oxford, 1989), 178-220.

09e.g. the linkbetweenthe rhoibaionand rlatamstas(111. 14.8-10),or theChitonand Amyklai(iii. 16. 2). 90ImpressiveR remainshave been foundin the area of Las; could it be thatPaus, was entertainedat a villa in the vicinity?His account containsa good deal of hearsayand observation (iii.24. 6-25. 10).


to us is farsuperiorto thatofStrabo,we mustrecognizethathisvaluefor Pausanias'susefulness ofplace-namesand cults. as a recorder an analysisoftheLaconianlandscapeis chiefly POST-ROMAN LACONIA

The Eleutherolaconian league endureduntilthe laterthirdcenturyAD,by whichtimethe Péloponnèsehad been invadedby the Gothsand Heruli.91The need fortaxesto defendthe in thecountryside, empireproveda heavyburdenupon thegeneralpopulation,particularly oftheplague thatassailed tiedto theland.92The effects wereincreasingly wherecultivators Corinthin the early540s may have been feltin Laconia.93The easternemperorJustinian (525-65)recapturedItalyand NorthAfricaforthe empire,but the 'barbarians'overranthe Greek peninsula. Ultimatelythe imperial economy systemcould not save itself,for Justinian'sgains were soon lost. By 590 the Avars had separated the Péloponnèse from and itwouldremainseparateformorethantwohundredyears,beingviewedas Byzantium, Slav land.94 can be foundin Chapter7. Here the aim is to A fullaccountof Byzantineadministration setthesceneforthesurveyin termsof changingperceptionsofthelandscapeof Laconia. In theanarchicyearsofthelate sixthand seventhcenturiesAD,Byzantinesourcesperceivedthe and the empire.It was Péloponnèse,and indeedmuchof the Balkans,as lostto Christianity of Leon the of civilization. Skleros, appointedgovernor the Péloponnèseby beyond pale controland ecclesiastical I started the processwherebygovernmental Nikephoros (802-11), were reimposed;the two wenttogether.Sparta appears once more to have administration operatedas the bishopricof Lakedaimonfrom£.810.A vague and incompletepictureof saints'lives,95 and listsof sees. In time,however,it is Laconia emergesfromthe chronicles, and ecclesiastical and the variouslandholders, machine of that the fiscal Constantinople plain of the land and the of a close and had throughout quality lay, preciseknowledge landholdings in its fullestdetail fromthe the empire.A pictureof thisapparatuscan be reconstructed archivesof the variousmonasteriesof Athos in northernGreece,96thoughotherarchives tax containrelevantpapers.The documentsincludeedicts(chrysobulls), probates(diathekai), records(such as the 'Cadaster of Thebes'), legal judgements,and contractssuch as those Such documentscan listthe listingthe obligationsof peasantsto theirlandlords(praktika). to in modii of £.0.08-0.10 extentoflandholdings ha), varyingfromestates(proasteid) (measured More are and sometimes these defined (periorismoi). by perambulations (staseis), smallholdings theByzantinestate'srevenues as putbyHarvey,97 generally, were largelybased on a verycomprehensivesystemof land taxation,whereland was graded accordingto its of everyfiscal unit were revised qualityand use and the tax paymentfixedaccordingly.The tax-registers regularly. . .

was used in officialdocumentsto mean 'fiscalunit' as well as 'village', The word chorion of the whole structure, that the though building-block villagewas a fundamental indicating 91See further Chapter6.

92 See C. M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece:A ShortHistory*

(London and Boston,Mass., 1984),36, and workscited in Chapter6, n. 183. 93Corinth:Avraméa,Péloponnèse, 46. 94Woodhouse(η. 92), 37-8. For the Péloponnèsein this M. Whitby, 'The period,see generallyAvraméa,Péloponnèse;

Balkansand Greece,420-602',in CAHZxiv,ch. 23 (pp.701-30). 9">Though note the usefuldetail in the Vitaof St Nikon, outlinedin Chapter7. 94H. Waterhouse,'PrehistoricLaconia: a note', BSA 51 (1956), 168-71; followed up by Waterhouse and Hope Simpsonin PL i-ii. Ι(>Γ) Υ. C. Goester,'The plain ofAstros:a survey',Pharos,1 (1993),39-112(including pp. 97-106,'Surfacefinds',byC. T. F. VermeulenWindsant). 'Eua et la Thyréatide: J. Christienand T. Spyropoulos, topographie et histoire', BCH 109 (1985), 455-66; J. Christien,'Promenades en Laconie', Dialoguesd'histoire ancienne, 15 (1989), 79-105; ead., 'L'invasionde la Laconie in 3rd (370/69a.C.) et les routesdu nordde l'étatSpartiate', Pelnbonnesian Conpress. ii. Q2^-q6: and otherworks. I()7Phaklaris, Κυνουρία*. I()H See thereviewofPritchett, CR SAGTv'iWû, byG. Shipley, thevariousLaconianpapers. 107[η.s. 43] (1993),I3I^4, listing I()()Amongmanyrelevantworks,see esp. G. A. Pikoulas, 'ΤοπογραφικάΑϊγυοςκαι Αίγύτιδος',ist LaconianTreatises . . .' (η. 72); Pikoulas, Congress, 257-67;'Tabula Peutingeriana

Ή νότιαμεγαλοπολιτική 'Skiritis'; χώρααπότον 8° π.Χ. ώς τον4° μ.Χ. αιώνα(Athens, 1988);'Ή ανατολική ακτή Λακ.σπουδ.g (1988), τουΜαλέα:κόλποςΜονεμβασίας',

has developedthisworkin new 36 (1970),1-37.Bintliff Society, and directions: e.g. Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey';id., 'Settlement of territory',in G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia (Londonand New York,1999),i. 505-45. Archaeology 174See interalia L. Moschou, 'Τοπογραφικά Μάνης: ή πόλις Ταίναρον', ΑΑΑ 8 (ΐ975)> 160-77; L. Moskou, 'Topographiedu Magne: à proposde la régiondu Ténare ii. Κιστέρνες-ΆγιοιΑσώματοι', ist Peloponnesian Congress, 45-54; L. Moschou and T. Moschos, 'Κιόνια Α': μια τοπογραφική και αρχιτεκτονική ερευνά', Πελ. 13 (1978-9)5 72 U4; iid., 'Το αρχαίο φρούριο της Τευθρώνης', Arch.Eph. (1981), 10-22; L. Moschou, 'Μια αγροτική περιοχή της ανατολικήςλακωνικής Μάνης στην κώδικα AmbrosianusTrotti373%XVI- Internationaler

(Wien, 4.-9. Oktober1981): Akten,ii. 4 ( = Byzantinistenkongress Jahrbuchder Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 32.4; Vienna, 1982),

and P. N. Moschos,'The 639-56; L. Moschou-Tsiomi Palaeomaniatika:the transition fromancientpolis to chora',Ekistics, Byzantine 295 (1982),261-71;L. MoschouTsiomiand T. N. Moschos,'ΚιόνιαΒ': προβληματική κατασκευής τηςύστερηςελληνιστικής δωρικών κτιρίων περιόδουκαιτωνπρώτωναυτοκρατορικών χρόνων.Ή περίπτωσητων δύο ναών στα Κιόνια της νοτίας Λακωνικής', 12th Classical Archaeology Congress,iv. 140-7; L.

'Οικιστικά τωνπεριοικίδων Moschou-Tsiomi, συστήματα καιτωνέλευθερολακωνικών πόλεωνστηνχερσόνησο '7° Bintliff, του Ταινάρου',ibid.148-54;eacU 'Πόλειςκαι μνημεία NaturalEnvironment. 171 C. Vita-Finzi, TheMediterranean της αρχαιότηταςστην λακωνικήΜάνη',Αδούλωτη 1969). Valleys (Cambridge, 172 M. Chisholm, RuralSettlement andLandUse(London,1062). Μάνη,ΐ9 [1997-3] (July-Aug. 1997),17-32. I7:ie.g. E. S. Higgs and C. Vita-Finzi,'The prehistoric 1/;) Kounnou, e.g.Kaítopoulou (n. 130);mostimportantly ofthePrehistoric Σπάρτη. economyof the Mt Carmel area', Proceedings 277-8^

34

Chapterι

In thelast thirdof the twentieth centurythe BSA resumedexcavationat perioikiccentres.176 in personnelbetween whilethereis a continuity theMenelaionand the Spartanacropolis,177 our survey,the Dutch excavations at Geraki, and the British-French collaboration at Kouphovouno.178 CONCLUSIONS

REGARDING SOURCES AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Certainlythe body of historicaland archaeologicalevidence summarizedabove, though and in somerespectsextensive, givesneithera completepictureofland use in past impressive historyof the surveyarea. We are not,forthe mostpart,told periodsnor a fullsettlement about the 'silentmajority'of Laconia throughthe ages, but about the top of the social architecture behind,or whosenames pyramid:thosewho livedin townsand leftmonumental that are recordedin historical annals.Our multi-disciplinary projectaimedpartlyat rectifying imbalance. above a history ofstudyoftheLaconianlandscapein thepast.There We havesummarized is an obviouspointin recordingthehugegaps in our understanding caused,notleast,by the destructionand loss of historicalarchivesover the centuries.One hope in settingup the Laconia Surveywas thatarchaeologycould in some degreemake good thoselosses,indeed supplyforthe prehistoricperiod the data that were never recorded. There is another and echoes of thisliterarypast have struckchordsdown the motivation: the reverberations corridorof time.The westerntraditionof antiquarianresearchwas largelypredicatedon of Roman writings, and thosesourcesthemselvesechoed the earlierwritingand re-writing the constant reinventions of the state the from Homer, during through Spartan Sparta'spast of Roman classicaland hellenistic periods.Spawforthhas shownhow the heritageindustry with serious for the nurtured this Sparta myth, consequences Spartan economythrough Nicol has givenus a timelyreminderthatthistraditiondid not patronageand tourism.179 flockedto Sparta,'not to rub shoulderswiththe alwaysdominate,and thatmedievaltourists shadesof Lykourgosor Leonidas but to sniffthe odour of sanctityof the greatSt Nikon'.l8° The attitudesof sentiment,religiousawe, or antiquarianreconstruction not only have a of the but could be forces whichin part for the scholarly interpretation landscape, significance that shaped landscape. The Progress

of the Survey, 1983-9

field-walking and study seasons took place in 1983-5 and 1987-8. Seasons usuallylasted five Explorationof new territory it was usuallyearlier.A weeks.In 1983the seasonwas in Augustand September;thereafter of a the identification task was the creation of existingtrigonometric surveygrid, preliminary 176e.g. E. Zawou, 'Ή χώρα της Επιδαύρου Λιμηρας', ii. 497-508; Α. Α. Themos, 'Tò ßthPeloponnesian Congress, ρωμαϊκό υδραγωγείο του Γυθείου: μία πρώτη επανεξέταση των στοιχείων', ibid. i. 4ΟΟ~9· See ^so see Bonias,Αιγιές.For otherworkon Laconian settlements, Shipley,'"OtherLakedaimonians'";Shipley,'Territory'. 177H. W. Catling,'Excavationsat the Menelaion,Sparta, 1973-76',AR 23 (1976-7),24-42; id., 'Excavationand study at the Menelaion,Sparta 1978-1981',Λακ. σπονδ. 6 (1982),

28-43; G· Β· Waywellandj. J.Wilkes,BSA 88 (1993),219-86; 89 (i994)>377-432;9° (i995)>435"6°; 92 (i997)>4OI~34; 94 (1999), 437-55; iid., 'The ancient theatre at Sparta', in Cavanaghand Walker,97-111. 170 Preliminary reportsin Pharos:}.H. Crouwel,M. Prent,et al, 'Geraki1' to 'Geraki6'; BSAAnnual Report, 2000-1,28-q. 179 Cartledçeand Spawforth, esp. ch. 8 (pp. 10^-26). 180D. M. Nicol, 'ByzantineMistra:Spartain themind',in Cavanaghand Walker,157-9.


and themarkingup of the Greek1 : 5,000 map seriesforuse in pointsusingthe theodolyte, thefieldand in the apothiki (the'store'of the dig-house,wherethe surveyarchivesand finds weretemporarily housed).181 in threelocalities.The three Aftertrainingexercises,field-walking began simultaneously teamsoffour(from1984five)memberseach, designatedRed, Blue, and Yellow,wereled by Cavanagh, Crouwel, and Catling respectively.The Red Team startedin the northern (Am)- bothamongthesites includingPalaiogoulás(Ai18) and AgiosKonstantinos highlands, designatedas Large Sites, to which special samplingstrategieswere applied and then The Blue Team workedsouth,laterroundingoffthe southernlimitof the surveyterritory. coveredtheriverplainand theadjoiningspurs,pausingto carryout severaldays'samplingof acrosstheNeogeneplateau.The YellowTeam theGeladariLargeSite(H45)and laterworking in around Kokkinorachi and workedeast,eventually the lowlands coveringtheeastern began and the basin. The rate of varied Neogene plateau Chrysapha coverage greatly;a typical a team was hectares took on for 5-10 per day.Field-walking place Monday to Friday range 1 from sunrise to when the teams returned to Aphysouto and partofSaturday, p.m. generally was usuallyoccupiedin completingthe notebookforthatday from rest.The late afternoon in themorning, an area surveyed thefinds,or revisiting or on themorning's notes,processing a previousday,in orderto examinespecificsites. in separate Sherdspickedup werebagged and labelledwitha unique 'zembil' number,182 seriesof one hundredeach. Zembil numbers,in fact,formthe primarydata seriesof the survey, beingused to allow the separatelabellingofpotterycollectedin areas provisionally of deemedto be Όη-site'and 'background'withina singlesequence,and thedistinguishing areas of a site. Zembil numberswere also used forspecial groupsof findsfromdifferent finds,certain small finds or other non-ceramic material such as chipped stone and obsidian,and so on. Any noteworthy 'stray'artefactsor groups of findsfromareas not sites were collected and as broughtback foranalysis.Findspotsprovisionally designated deemed to be 'sites'were numberedin separateseriesof one hundredeach.183Small finds were recordedin separate series,and 'sample' numberswere created formiscellaneous materialsuch as ore or plaster.A continuousnotebookwas keptby each team as it moved across the landscape; thesehandwritten records,as well as being the primarydata set of the survey, containa sketchplan of each 'site' as well as outlineplans of standingremains Material collected was transferredto Sparta such as rural stores and folds (mandres). Museumat theend ofeach season. In orderto understandthe 'given' landscape, it was decided to investigatethe surface sediments,vegetationhistory,and recent population and land use of the surveyarea. Rackham'ssurveyof thehistoricalecologyof Laconia (1984),and the soilssurveyby Fiselier and van Berghem(1986),werecarriedout duringfield-walking seasons,muchto our mutual In addition,thecollectionofsamplesforthesoilphosphatetestingexercisetookplace benefit. in 1984-7.The soil sampleswereprocessedin thedig-houseand duringnormalfield-walking theresultsprocessedin theUK.184WagstafT's surveyofthevillagesin thesurveyarea, usinga

181These taskswere performedby the late David Smyth and byGuy Sanders. 182 'basket'. ζεμπιλι, 183Site numbers1-99 and 300-369 wereused by theBlue Team, 100-194bytheRed Team, and 200-299 and 400-534

by the Yellow Team. During subsequent study and the creationof a computerdatabase,zembilsof 'off-site' pottery had 10,000added to theirserialnumbersto forma nominal continuation ofthesitenumberseries. 184See Chapter22 forresults.

36

Chapterι

of Southampton,tookplace duringthe Eastervacationof 1985. team fromthe University in carried outtheresistivity surveyon selectedsites.185 Finally, 1988-9,Jones one thatdifferentiates itfromsomeearlierprojects, ofthesurvey, It was alwaysan intention to and otherfindsin fullin orderto allowfutureresearchers thatwe wouldpublishthepottery criticizeand reevaluateour conclusionsas necessary.In 1986, therefore,we suspended of the finds,so thatthe final to beginthe long processof studyand interpretation fieldwork in information directed the of the generated.The light mightbe best stagesof field-walking in in and was concluded firststudyseasontookplace 1986;'on-the-spot' studycontinued 1988 in 1989. had alreadybeen recordedbyteammembersin The potterycollectedduringfield-walking a preliminary fashion,usingworksheets('pot sheets')to recordsherdnumbers,formand searchesweremade beforethe and provisionaldates.Extensiveliterature fabricdescriptions, studyproperbegan, to establisha workingcorpus of comparanda. In the studyseasons themselvesthe potteryspecialists,startingfromthe 'pot sheets',studiedmaterialof their period,comparingnoteswithone anotherand, in particular,discussingthe assignmentof betweenadjacentperiods.Preliminary materialthatseemed transitional 'studytypes'were created(theseare theST numbersappendedto thefinalpottery typesin Chapters11-18). collectedfromthe and sculpturalfragments The studyand cataloguingofthearchitectural field,and of the chipped and ground stone (includingthe large collection of obsidian fragments), began in 1986. So did the studyof the epigraphicmaterial,some of whichhad been recoveredfromthefieldand someofwhichhad to be studiedwhereitwas found(in the We also undertookat thistimea major case of inscriptions builtinto standingstructures). a selectionof all classesof finds, of and programme drawing photographing representative Betweenstudyseasons, whichwenton throughout the remainingstudyand fieldseasons.186 workalso wentahead on a summarycatalogueofknownsitesthroughout Laconia, designed to providethenecessaryregionalcontextforthesurvey'sown sites(a revisedformappearsas Chapter23). Duringthelastfewseasons,plansor elevationsofa selectionofstandingremains weredrawnand finalplansofseveralLarge Sitesdrawn. a BBC Acorncomputerwas To assistin theanalysisof thefinds,bothon-siteand off-site, used to beginassemblinga detaileddatabaseof siterecords.Map coordinatesand toponyms werechecked,zembilnumbersand potterydata enteredundersites,selecteddata fromthe extendedand continually and so on. The databasewas subsequently notebookssummarized, in the UK between and research 1987 1994;thisprocessinvolved, updatedduringfollow-up sherd information about other everysingle keptfromthesurvey(some among things, entering in thousand all). twenty To facilitatethe studyof the survey'sown sites,the area was dividedat thisstage into topographiczones, letteredfromA to U (omittingI and O), beginningin the northand endingin the south-east(ILL. 1.13).A choice had to be made betweendividingzones at sitesin watershedsor at watercourses.Eitherchoice would have placed some neighbouring remata at the bottom of were often the watercourses but since different zones, steep-sided valleys,and were hard to cross,whereaswatershedswere oftenflat-toppedridges,it was feltthatto dividezones at watercourseswould createfeweranomalies.(Zone K, however, 185See Chapter22. The Laconia RuralSitesProjectled by fromtheseexercises. Gavanaghand Mee developeddirectly 186Also in exercisein collectionof 1986,an experimental

dendrochronologicaldata was carried out on standing the resultswere buildingsin the surveyarea. Unfortunately, negativeand are notpresentedhere.


III. ι.13.Zones and subzonesofthesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams).

38

Chapterι

straddlesthe Kelephina.) At a later stage in the preparationof the Site Catalogue, each relatedsites zone was further subdividedinto numberedsubzonesso thattopographically would be presentedas groups in the Catalogue. During furtherstudy,the zones were amalgamatedintothree'sectors'to facilitatebroaderanalysis(ILL. 1.14). in the 1988 season we combinedstudyand fieldwork. In 1987we resumedfield-walking; WhiletheYellowTeam concludeditsfield-walking, forthesetwoyearsmembersoftheRed and a selectedtractsof Blue Teamswerecombinedinto PurpleTeam forthepurposesofrewalking land,samplingthetworemaining 'LargeSites'(Menelaionridge,Q360; PanagíaChrysaphítissa, sites.(Further detailsoftheseexercises are givenbelow.) 'out-of-area' U490),and recording Followingthefinalstudyseason in 1989,researchworkcontinuedat home in theUK and the Netherlands.Given the constraints on researchtimeforthosein academic postsor in thatprogresshas been slow; but it may be otherfull-time it is not surprising employment, and a usefullessonforfuturesurveyors, to realizethatmanydaysofstudyhavebeen sobering, generatedbyeach dayoffieldwork. 'OUT-OF-AREA'

EXPLORATION

In 1988,withthe aim of settingthe findingsof the intensivesurveyin a somewhatwider sitesand localities immediatecontext,we selectedforspecialexaminationsome twenty-seven walked,but stillwithinthe area alreadyintensively beyondthe boundariesof the territory coveredby the surveypermit(see ILL. 24.1). We referto these as 'out-of-area'sites.To from themfromsitesin the core territory we gave themserialnumbersstarting distinguish 3000. Theyare listedin thesitecatalogueofthesurvey(Chapter24),wheretheyare giventhe prefixletterofthesurveyzone closestto them(e.g.U3005,just outsidezone U). The treatment of these'out-of-area' siteswas morecursorythanin themain survey:there We are nevertheless was, forexample,no attemptto record sherd densitiesstatistically. satisfied thatthenatureand extentsof the sitesare recordedwithsufficient accuracyforour in Our out this exercise included whether aims purposes. carrying testing regularpatternsof As it turnedout, the distribution could be predictedfromsiteswithinthe main territory. and the numberofsitessampledwas probablytoo smallto formthebasisforreliablestatistics, list of twenty-seven sites (two of which were later demoted fromsite status)was overofsitesat the'upper'end ofthegeneralspectrum. representative The majorityof thesesitesare attachedto zones A and U, at the northernand southwalked area. Amongpreviouslyunknownsitesare several easternlimitsof the intensively substantialones of prehistoricdate (e.g. U3005-6,A3018-19)and the potentiallyimportant archaic hilltop site of Phagia (U3002).187We also took the opportunityto examine sites noted during earlier work, including Hope Simpson's classical hilltop site of Palaiókastro(U3001). Field-walking

and Sampling

Procedures

The aims of thesurveyhave grownout of thehistoryofpreviousresearch.The collectionof the identification of major sitesfromhistoricalsourcesand throughextensive inscriptions, The and research excavationhad provideda base map of settlement. and survey, emergency in the work in a next Within Greece of detail was clearly stage. pioneering systematic filling 187 See also inscription i, LS'n. 214.


III. ι.14.Sectorsofthesurveyarea (D. Miles-Williams, L. Farr).

40

Chapterι

thesouthernArgolid,188 on Melos,189 and in BoiotiaI9°providedmodels.There has developed an extensiveliterature on all aspectsoffieldprocedure,fromtheselectionoftheregionto be and thesamplingofthatregion,to thedetailsoffield-walking surveyed, methodology. SITE

PROSPECTION

Withintheboundsof the surveyarea, our methodwas guidedby the aim of locating'sites'. Even in 1983,and perhapsmore so in the lightof recentprogress,thisaim was possibly and theterm'site'mayappear to need further definition.191 These pointswillbe contentious, in whatfollows. discussedfurther Our procedurein thefieldwas to coverthecountryside and as completely as systematically torrentbeds frequentthroughout possible.In the eventcertainareas,such as the overgrown the area and some tractsof impenetrablemaquis, were not walked. Even where brave was so low as to attemptswere made to fightthroughthe vegetation,the groundvisibility make the attemptseem pointless.Part of the northernmost tractof the area had in recent yearshad been bulldozedintoterracesand plantedwithpines:it,too,was eventually givenup it was concludedthatthe surfacewas so when,aftersome daysof unproductive exploration, disturbed thatno remainswouldsurvive. hopelessly The pathfollowedbya teamoffouror fivewalkerswas rarelya straight one. In viewofthe in theseplaces to adjust highlydissectednatureofmuchofthearea, it was farmoreefficient theline of travelaccordingto the contours,oftenproducingcurvingtransects whilekeeping the spacingbetweenwalkerseven,ratherthan to tryto imposerectilinear movementon a oftensteep,and highlycomplexland surface. recalcitrant, The backgroundscatterof materialwas registeredby team memberscallingout when and a roughscale of backgrounddensitywas measuredon every theyobservedartefacts, transect.Other relevantfeaturessuch as land use, visibility,and angle of slope were recorded.An increasein the frequencyof calls was takenas a possiblewarningsignalof a concentration offinds. In prospecting,the success of field-walking and recordingprocedureswill relate to a numberof considerations.Spacing the field-walkers every20 metres,as we did, oughtin m a of or moreare pickedup, three-quarters of to ensure that all sites with diameter 20 theory thosewitha diameterof 15 m, halfof thosewitha diameterof 10 m, and so on. Indeed, allowinga range of good visionof,say,3 m on eitherside of each walker,thesenotional diametersbecome 14, 10.5,and 7 m. Giventhata halo of findsnormallyencirclesthe main concentration ofa site,thisspacingshouldhavebeen stillmoreadequate. takenacrossareas designatedas When we look at the 956 artefactdensitymeasurements falls at 16 and the lower of site diameters m, 'sites',192 only10per centofsitesare less quartile than 14 m acrossin both directions.This 10 per cent can be explainedin fourways.(1) It sitessuchas sanctuaries, (2) bridges,and isolatedtile-graves. partlyrepresents special-function 188See van Andel and Runnels, BeyondtheAcropolis]see also GreekCnuntrvsidc

189IslandPolity. definition NoteJ.F. Cherry,Ά preliminary of site distribution on Melos', ibid. 10-23, esP· ϊ6-ι9>w^tn references to earlierliterature J. W. Mueller(ed.), including inArchaeology (Tucson,1975);S. Plog,F. Plog,and W. Sampling in M. B. Schiffer Wait,'Decisionmakingin modernsurveys', Methodand Theory,i (New York, (ed.), Advancesin Archaeological

1978),383-421.

190Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition'. 191V. L. Gaffneyand M. Tingle,'The tyranny of the site: method and theoryin field survey',Scottish Archaeological Review, 3 (1984),134-40;R. C. Dunnelland W. Dancey,'The sitelesssurvey:a regionalscale data collectionstrategy',in Methodand Theory, M. Schiffer(ed.), Advancesin Archaeological

vi (NewYork,1983),267-87. 192i.e. 428 locationswithtwodiameters.Note thatnot all werejudged to be truesitesin thefinalanalysis.


In othercases, vegetationcoverand artefactvisibility may explainthe limitedextentof the and (4) the burialof sites.The last threefactorsin measurescatter,as may (3) the erosion discussion. meritfurther particular Visibility

can be affected It has been pointedout thatvisibility by weatherconditionsand the timeof in Our surveyseasonwas always the summer(theonlytimeavailableto us), so these year.193 factorsoughtto be broadlyconstantfromyearto year,ifimpossibleto calculateon present evidence.Some variationwas notedfromyearto yearin how advancedthe cropsor steppe plantswere at the startof our season. Otherwise,apart froma possiblegradual trendto cultivatedland (see next paragraph),therewas no increasinggroundcover on formerly coverin anygivenarea. The weather, too,was reliablysunny changein vegetation perceptible almostall our seasons;therewere onlya fewcloudydays and veryinfrequent throughout thunderstorms. smallsiteswerelocatedin a small,clearpatchofland thatwas otherwise Some apparently (e.g.G160,E308); theywerefoundthroughaccidentsof disturbance.It was noted overgrown thatthe neglectof cultivationis leadingto the colonizationof manyfieldsby a wild flora, of are no longerploughedand are thusleftwithan undergrowth whilemanyolive-groves be would otherwise which the surface (and incidentally high visibility grasses,reducing fire:cf.p. 9 above).It was also foundthat a readysupplyoftinderforuncontrolled providing citrusorchards,forsome reason,tendedto be sterileof finds.194 Unfortunately, vineyards, have been whichare normallyverycarefullytendedand hence give highsurfacevisibility, almostentirelygrubbedup in the surveyarea.195The naturalvegetationis a mosaic of the typesdescribedbelow by Rackham,even thoughon the 'dryside' of the Péloponnèsethe maquis can be dense. In short,the numberof sitesmustin generalbe under-represented. is anotheraspectof thisproblem:obsidianwas of certainkindsof artefacts The recognition to distinguishfrom foundonly rarelyin schistareas, perhaps because it can be difficult of schist. splinters Erosion

fromerosion.Certainly severely periods,havesuffered Manysites,especiallyoftheprehistoric excavationhas shownthatlargepartsofmansionI at theMenelaion(siteQ360) havebeen lost to erosion.196 Among sites found by the survey,clear cases of the movementof sherds include hilltopproducedjust a fewEarlyHelladic G154,wherethe (overgrown) downslope The majority LS the on the 'non-site' while sherds, 10170 steepslopebelowwas richin pottery. have washed downfrom to fromsiteM322was likewise oftheMiddleHelladicpottery judged an originallocation.A less certaincase was thatof M349,whereit was thoughtthatthe was Middleto Late Helladicsitehad once crownedtheridge,eventhoughmostofthepottery foundon the terracesbelow.The EH site C126 measuredjust 4 X 8 m, yetit was richin 193A. J. Ammermanand M. W. Feldman, 'Replicated collection of site artefacts',American 43 (1978), Antiquity, 734-40. 194This may also be due to methodsof cultivation. Ν. Τ. W. Mills,'Surveyin Provenceand Languedoc',in Kellerand 165 7, at 166,has notedhow the Survey, Rupp,Archaeological ploughingregimein vineyardshas affectedartefactvisibility in S. France.

195Soteriadesmentionsthevineyards whichexistedbefore the firstworldwar in the Ν sectorof the surveyarea: G. Soteriadis,'To πεδίοντης εν Σελλασία μάχης (222 προ Χριστού)', BCH 34 (iQio), 5-57,at 8-9. It)(> It has been observedofmansionI at theMenelaionthat the detailof the southfacadeand the 'erosionhas destroyed havefaced'. courtyard(s) uponwhichit mustin all probability H. W. Catling,'Excavationsat theMenelaion'(n. 177),29.

42

Chapterι penod Byz

R Hl Ar + Cl MBA + LBA EBA

count 1,187

^050 I,Ö54 1,829 297 211

average 5-41

3-02 3-03 2.66 0.99 1.55

Table i.i. Countand averageofpottery and tileper sq m fromsingle-period sites.

thatit was not a 'non-site'but the vestigesof a pottery;thissuggestedto the field-walkers eroded settlement. Severe erosion also affected theEH sitesC126,P263,P265(possibly severely not a 'site'),R280,and 8448,and theMH and LH sitesR424,R457,and R525.In thesecases we imaginenot onlythe loss,throughdeflation,of the soil matrix,but also a breakdownof surfaceartefacts, especiallypottery.197 For the earlierprehistoric period,it was clear thatthe Late Neolithicsite E48 was also and it is doubtful whether thereare anyarchaeologicalcontextsintacton thesite,let eroded, alone architectural remains.SitesBin and B116produceda greatdensityand varietyofLate Neolithicchippedstonetools,butno potterythatwas diagnostically unlikeE48. It prehistoric, in be that the difference is due to differences but erosion and the total function, may destruction of the evidentlyfriableLate Neolithicpotteryis not improbable.198 These cases make findssuch as LS 10496,an isolatedcache of Neolithicpottery, perhapsrathermore than isolated concentrations of classical and later finds.A similar similarly significant EH of finds seems to be the case at the site and it is R289, depletion possiblethatsomeofthe obsidianscatters notedelsewhereare all thatremainfromoriginalsites. The sherdcountsalso supportthe idea thattherehas been a gradualerosionof pottery. The table (TABLEi.i) showsthe averageof potteryand tile countsper square metrefrom single-periodsites(Middle and Late Bronze Age figuresare combined).There is a clear decreasingtrend,as one goes back in time,in the numbersof ceramicfinds.Makingevery allowance forpossible complicatingfactorssuch as different durationsof occupation in different phases,degradationof findsstillseems periodsor the absence of tilein prehistoric the best generalexplanation.The low counts on Middle and Late Bronze Age sites are it appearsthatpotteryis especiallysparseat thesesites,forreasonsthat especiallynoteworthy; are notyetclear. Burial ofsites

to instance,thoughthe geomorphologicalstudyhas The burial of sitesis more difficult in the Aphysoubasin thatmust and glacisd'accumulation revealeda patternofglacisd'érosion involvesiteburial.At M194the siteitselfwas onlyrecognizedwhena mechanicalexcavator of findshad earlierbeen notedbut recordedas exposedthe subsoil;a smallconcentration Likewisetrenchesin the glacisarea, excavatedto lay water-pipes,revealeda insignificant.

197See T. M. Whitelaw, at theNeolithic 'Investigations sitesof Kephala and Paoura', in Landscape Archaeology, 199-216, esp.204-6. 198Note the carefullydocumentedcase recently E. discussedbyJ. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis,A. Demitrack,

Mantzourani,T. F. Strasser,and L. E. Talalay, 'Archaeological surveyin an artifact-rich landscape:a MiddleNeolithicexamplefromNemea,Greece',AJA92 (1988),159-76.


forburiedsiteswouldbe by clusterofsitesaroundM325.The onlyeffective wayofprospecting shoveltestsor trialtrenches.1" SITE SAMPLING AND AUTHENTICATION

The main effortof registrationwas concentratedon the sites themselves.The normal procedurewas to make a sketchof the extentof the main site,beingguidednot onlyby the on the sherdscatterbut also by any otherindicationjudged reasonableby the archaeologist of the densityof sherdson the sitewas takenby countingall spot.A reliablemeasurement sherdswithin1 sq m at 2 m intervalsalong fourtransectsat rightangles to one another, The limitsofthesitewere usuallydirectedtowardsthefourcardinalpointsofthecompass.200 butwhenthereadingswerelaterenteredontoa databasea cutdecidedby thefield-walkers, offpointwas selectedwhen a continuousseriesof zero readingswas found:wherethree cells contiguouscellshad zero and therewas no indicationthatthesitecontinued,all further on thebasis of artefactcountsand the siteplan, thesize of wereomitted.Duringlaterstudy, thesitewas calculatedby assumingthatit was an ellipsebased on thelengthand breadthof thescatter(usingtheformulaπ X ab,wherea and b denotethesemi-majorand semi-minor axes respectively). a generousselectionofthemostdiagnosticbeing The siteswerethensampledforartefacts, and (where tilefragments, were made ofpotsherds, counts later for analysis.Separate bagged In the the site. A was also made of sketch stone tools. 1984 samplesofsoil plan found)chipped forphosphateanalysiswerecollectedat thesame timeas the1 sq m sherdcountsweremade. Mediumto largesitesweresubdividedintosmallerareas accordingto thejudgementofthe field-walkers.Each of these areas was then treated in the same fashion as the 'sites' Each 'area' ofa sitewas denoted and sherdedseparately. themselves: thatis,itwas transected In it was in a few cases A118 a letter judged expedientto separateoffthe pottery (as B). by numberdenotesthesub-area(e.g.U500B4). intolocalities,in whichcase a suffix further The fieldproceduresput at our disposala numberofcriteriathatcan be used to recognize a site as 'authentic'.First,and in particular,the orthogonaltransectcountsindicatethe densityof sherds,whichis recordedin the Site Catalogue as the averagenumberof sherds plus or minusthestandarddeviation.Some 329 sites(countedby theoriginalserialnumbers; themeansherdcountwas 2.8 sherdsper somehavesincebeen amalgamated)weretransected; a to It is difficult the median 2.1. pointbelowwhichsitesbecome suggest singlecut-off sq m, in sitesthe the case of prehistoric and of are discussed Problems above; visibility 'suspect'. countsseemlow,notleastbecause oftheabsenceoftile.The Menelaionridge(siteQ360),for occupationsite(withtile),yetit example,had been provenby excavationto be a multi-period scoredonly1.14overall,the densitiesrangingfrom0.4 to 1.8 per sq m in the variousareas counted(somewereheavilygrassedoverwhensampled).The MH-LH siteN410-13had very low densities(0.63,0.68, and 0.45),yetsuch a richassemblageofpotterywas recoveredthat LikewiseEH siteswerenotabundant therecan hardlybe anydoubtthatit was a settlement. 199K. W. Kintigh,'The effectiveness ofsubsurfacetesting: a simulation Antiquity, 53 (1988),686-707; approach',Amencan M. J. Shott,'Shovel-test samplingin archaeologicalsurvey', ibid.54 (1989),396-404; N. Terrenatoand A.J. Ammerman, Cecina valleysurvey, and siterecovery: 'Visibility Italy',JFA 23 (1996),91-109;J. M. Steinberg,'Ploughzonesamplingin site signaturesfrom Denmark: isolatingand interpreting disturbed contexts', 70 (1996),368-90. Antiquity,

200 Orthogonaltransectsare less accurate than grids;in particular,theyare sensitiveto an incorrectplacingof the site centre. However,theyare more rapid. The Boeotia transected sitesat 2.5 Survey,usingclickercounts,effectively m intervals:Bintliff and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition', and gridshavebeen used at 134-5.Bothorthogonaltransects Nemea: Cherryetal. (n. 198),163.

Chapterι

44

in pottery, siteshavingdensitymeasuresrangingfrom1.23to 2.27.But siteswith single-period or ofprehistoric date are plainlyspecialcases. For theremainderof sparsesites low visibility the with fewerthan 1.25 sherds per sq m) we are leftwith rival lower (say quartile, The of sherds humanactivity other maybe theresultofsomeintensive explanations. presence than permanentsettlement,such as manuring,201 or storagehuts,202 seasonallyoccupied of animalshelters.Alternative explanationshave been advancedin termsof the destruction habitationremainsthrougherosionand potterybreakdown.203 Althoughrecentresearchhas advancedour understanding of thesefactors,204 it is stillfarfromclear how to discriminate betweendifferent The statistical analysisdiscussedbelowwas unableto separate hypotheses. M356,witha countof 1.03,fromthebackground.In thecase ofsiteswithlow densities(notto mentionsiteswhere,fora varietyofreasons,it was decidednotto recordsherdcounts),their statusas permanent habitations mustbe in doubtunlesssupporting evidenceis available. Second,as an indicatorofthespreadofsherdsthereis thearea ofthesite,as calculatedon in thefield.Third, thebasisofthetransectcountsand, whereappropriate, otherobservations ofsherddistribution, calculatedas theindexofcellswithzerocountsas thereis thecontinuity a proportion ofthetotalnumberofcells.205 thereare theconsistency and thevarietyof Finally, the potterycollected:the more consistently the potterybelongsto a givenperiod,and the greaterthenumberoftypesofthatperiodthatoccur,thegreaterthechancethata truesiteis represented.Thus it was the experienceof the NorthernKeos surveythat amphorae of and wereoftenthe onlypotteryat locationsthat Saraçhanetype61 werewidelydistributed, in suchcases thesupporting werenotsites;206 evidenceofotherpottery typesand tilewouldbe to confirm a site's status. required Where all four criteria are met we can be very confidentthat a habitation site is however,giventhe problemsof visibility, erosion,and burialoutlinedabove, a represented; a score on even one criterion is indicator that thesiteis authentic. high good The essentialproblemfacedin the interpretation of the resultsof fieldsurveyis how well whatis observedreflects the'true'archaeologicalpicture.Forconveniencetwoaspectscan be how well whatis on thesurfacerepresents thearchaeologyofwhatis buried (1) distinguished: - and (2) how well whatis recordedin the fieldreflects below- the problemof representation - theproblemof visibility. since whatis presenton thesurface (In fact,thedivisionis artificial thetwointerconnect; butitaids discussion.) The problemofrepresentation can onlybe fullyaddressedby a programmeofexcavation, in sites different whereby physicalsettingsand of variousperiodsare excavatedand their with surface counts.Even thenit mustbe conceded thatmanysitesare findings compared As the nowcompletely erodedor ploughedout,and thedesiredinformation beyondrecovery. 201S. E. Alcock, F. J. Cherry,and J. L Davis, 'Intensive survey,agriculturalpracticeand the classical landscape of Greece', in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece:AncientHistoriesand

ModernArchaeologies (New Directions in Archaeology; Cambridge,1994),137-70,withA. Snodgrass,'Response:the archaeologicalaspect',ibid. 107-200. 202R. G. Osborne, 'Buildingsand residenceon theland in classical and hellenistic Greece: the contribution of BSA80 (1985),119-28. epigraphy', 203Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',137-8. '"* Whitelaw(n. 197); r. A.James, U. 15.Mee, and U. J. Taylor,'Soil erosion and the archaeologicallandscape of ...

.

t

ι τι

·

1

/

'

-w-v

L·

-w

*~ **

t~±

■»

m-

1

s~*

-w

Methana,Greece',JFA21 (1994),395-416;A. M. Snodgrass a regional and J. L. Bintliff, 'Off-sitepotterydistributions: and interregional Anthropology, 29 (1988), perspective',Current 506-13. 205The ideas of densityand continuity in relationto Όηsite' and background are discussed by T. W. Gallant, 'Background noise and site definition:a contributionto surveymethodology', JFA 13 (1986),403-18. His continuity indicesare calculatedon the basis of 25 sq m, not 1 sq m, cells(p. 416). 206 LandscapeArchaeology, 356-7: they may have been beehives.


accountof our morespecializedstudieswillhelp to illustrate(Chapter22), geophysicaland thepicture. conditions, helpto clarify geochemicaltechniquescan, in favourable In above. orderto correctforthe some consideration has received The problemofvisibility wouldbe processesofburialand erosion,an extensiveresearchprogramme geomorphological necessary.Not only would the broad factorsof soil type and angle of slope need to be would need to be taken calculated,butverylocal details,forexampleof reliefand terracing, intoaccount.As faras densityofvegetationand relatedfactorsare concerned,mostsurveys on a to assess visibility have attemptedto cut the Gordianknotby requiringfield-walkers simplescale, say from1 to 10. Again, ideallymore researchis needed, essentiallyinto the scoreis,say,2, 5, or thatthevisibility howdoes an assessment ofsuchobservations: psychology on into20, 50, and 70 per cent)correspondto whatis objectively 7 (whichmightbe translated the ground?Equally,it is clear that methodsof recordingaffectsherd count totals:our at siteU490,in comparingcountsmade on handsand kneeswithinan area of 1 sq experiment while walking30 X 15 m transects,showed a m with those taken using event-counters in The visibility issuewas also confronted the former case. by the considerably higherdensity exercisedescribedin thenextsubsection. area rewalking EXTENDED

AREA SHERD COUNTS AND BACKGROUND DENSITIES

To givesome controloverour field-walking, quite eighttractsofland (TABLE1.2),distributed of different and land-forms,land uses, and archaeological widely representative were chosenforrewalkingin a season subsequentto theirinitialrecording. characteristics, to recordtheartefacts and used event-counters Walkerswerespacedat 15m intervals (pottery and tile)observedovereach stretchof 30 m walked.A totalof twelvepasses (actuallythree passes by a team of four,the fifthmemberkeepinga record)were made along parallel transects600 m in lengthand 15 m apart,so thatin ideal conditions240 countswould be tract

lar 01

background density 7.0

on-site

sites

date

size (ha)

326 327 328 356

H cHb CrB b

0.30 0.45 0.28 0.05

4.22 1.03

density 44

density

continuity index

2.28 0.33

LAR02

0.5

52

230 367

c Cb

0.08 0.22

1.67 3.63

0.35

LAR04

0.2

16

142

H

0.03

1.77

0.36

lar 05

0.2

433 443

C Cb

2.12

444

C

0.18 0.02

0.32

6.40 2.03

0.20

2.6

LAR06

1.9

113

29O

Β

0. 20

LAR07

0.4

13

184 186 188

C H C

0.05 0.03 0.06

LAR08

0.6

0.13

II

R = Roman,Β = Byzantine. Lower-caseletterindicatesminimalpresence. TABLE1.2.Rewalkedareas.C = classical,H = hellenistic,

46

Chapterι

/

LAR4 !^ ρ

/^Tlar3'ΙΊν

^"Λ '

LAR2 '^

^'^^

/ /

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

/';-=09

)(8*=-0/']

SOIL MAP OF LACONIA SURVEY AREA (Laconia Survey,vol. i, annexeto Chapter2). D. Miles-Williams,froi

r 2). D. Miles-Williams,froman originalby J.-W.van Berghemand J.Fiselier.


recordedwithinan area a fractionunder10 hectares(0.1 sq km).In additionto makingthe on a five-point scale (o, 25, 50, 75, artefactcountsthewalkerswereasked to assessvisibility such as fenced-inareas or buildingspreventedsome and 100per cent).Variousimpediments countsfrombeingtaken;thesewerenotedas missingvalues. thereis no standard,accepted correctionfactorforvisibility, and further Unfortunately, workneeds to be carriedout. Reluctantly, we concludedthatit was wiserto experimental sherddata. Wherethedata are complexwe haveproduced publishanalysisoftheuncorrected change-point analysesoftheartefactcounts;but,especiallywherethebackgroundis close to and a simpletableofthecountsis presentedhere. zero,sophisticated analysisis notjustified, The eighttractsare shownon themap (ILL.1.15),and are discussedin turn. LAR01 (ILL.ι.ι6). Close to Aphysou,thistractis located on the marlglacis,in one of the most area.A group usedpartsofthesurvey intensively in the of threesites(M326-8) was distinguished ofthearea; theircentresall lie originaltreatment In addition,M365 within30-50m ofone another. lies at theNE cornerof thearea, M356near the centre.On analysingthe sherdcountsthrough analysis, M326-8arepickedup as a change-point single block, as is M365, but M356 is not itsstatusas a sitemaybe therefore distinguished; be questioned.The statistics suggestcountsof44 (+ 17) sightingsper 30 m as indicatingthe presenceofsites,7 (± 6) as background. LAR02 (ill. 1.17)again agreeswiththeprevious J230,a small, not veryprolific field-walking. classicalsite,is pickedup;J367andj36g are not on sherdcountsbutin factbelong distinguished to two different periods, classical and Byzantine.Sites are indicatedby countsof 52 (± 31),thebackground by5 (± 5). LAR 03 (ill. i. 18) is a special case. H45 is confirmed as a contiguousLarge Site (Geladari) with some very high and some very low it has highand low concentrations of visibility; sherdwithinit. LAR04 (ILL. ι.ι9) is situatedon a spurrunning N-S in an area ofverylow background. The site in is SE the with counts corner, F142 pickedup of30 artefacts. There is an anomalouscountof 16 close to a modernhut,and in the western halfthebackground is as low as 0.21. LAR05 (ILL.1.20)is on thelimestonefoothills of Koutsoviti.The backgroundsherd densityis

III. i. 16.Change-pointanalysisofartefact densitiesin tract LAR01. Uncorrectedforvisibility.

48

Chapterι

000020000000 000000001

000

10000000*

000

00

oooooooo* 00000000000* 16

1000000

o*

0*

122000001322 000000010001 00000000000* 0*·

0*

00

00*

0*

000*'

0*

000000000000 010010002000 040010000000 000000000000 000000000000 000000000000 0*

0000000100

1

III. ι.17.Change-point analysisof artefact densitiesin tractLAR02. forvisibility. Uncorrected

III. ι.ι8. Change-pointanalysisof artefact densitiesin tractLAR03. Uncorrectedforvisibility.

1

31

104

000021 1

0

2

0

1

7

12

1 28 28

9

III. 1.19.Artefact densitiesrecordedin tractLAR04.

3), while those units includingR290 have an averageof66 sherds.

verylow (0.2). Disregardingthe high counts associatedwitha modernbuilding(45 and 95), concentrationscan be linked with sites S433, T443, and T444, respectivelyat the NWend, centre, and SE end of the tract. T444 in particular is not well supported, though conditionsof severe erosion in this area may explaintheverylow backgroundand low on-site density.

LAR07 (ill. 1.22)includesN184,N186,and N188. The firstand second have counts ranging between16 and 24 in areas of low to medium whereasN188has some highercounts. visibility, The averageof unitsincludingsitesis 25. The backgroundis low,about0.3 on average.

LAR06 (ILL.1.21) includesR294,centredupon a ruined building in the SW corner, with archaic-classicalpotterynot directlyassociated withtheruin;and R290,a Middle Helladic site, whichshowswell in the NWcorner.There are due to modern highcountsin the centre-west, material.Backgroundnoise in thistractis 2 (±

LAR08 (ILL.1.23)is setin an area wherewe had judged thereto be no sites.The highestreadings, 30 and 63, are anomalous.The averageoverthe whole tractis 2 sherdsper unit. Some of the highercounts are to be explained by modern features:forexample,the stringin the second rowindicatesthelineofa moderntrack.

Backgroundand methodology 49 3^

2

50

4|

1|

5

18 2

16 21

2600000

0030001

1

1

0

24

1000000

1

20000000000

21

0001

000000000000

000000000000

000000001

3:

0

0

0

000000000

39 1 1

1

1

'

000

101

1

0! *

1 45

00040002

101

95

II. I., i.jo.

31 0

1

101

1

Oj 0

0

0

0

oj

ojo

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

00000000 420

1

0000

0001

Artefact densities recorded tract '..''' o").

000

10

0

2

014

1

0

0

1

0000

21 10

4

0

4

0

63

13

0

25

0070406

17

050:'

0011000

13

061!'

0

00

003042200000 211001*'

1

0000

30

1

0Î00000000200 1

Oj

000092001100

0000300001

1!

0

000000041

2000000

Õ" 0200000

0

0001

0000

1030000020

•JO

o|

4

0

004004

000000000000

125200000000

0

430002000100

0000000000

01 r- -

4

0000

030002300000

00000

000000100100 1Í0000

5

701

14020000

1

' ; *

0

0

0

0

0

0

12

12

0

3

1

2

1

1

4

15

19

4

6

2

0

6

1

2

8

26

1

2

2

0

1

1

'

2|

9 j

4

Il.l.. i.'j'j. Artefactdensities recorded in tract l.AR07.

in

ι. ( lliante -point analysis of III., ι.·_> artefact densities in tract Ι.ΛΚ o(». I nc< »rrected lne 1989.

212Statistical analysis is still at an early stage, but the image processingtechniquesdevelopedforphosphateand othersuchdata have herebeen successfully appliedto sherd countdata, wherethe data warranttheiruse. Plainly,where the backgroundis close to zero,image processingis simply C. E. Buck,W. G. Cavanagh,and C. D. Litton, unnecessary.

Data (Chichester, Archaeological BayesianApproachto Interpreting

i996)>253-92.


as meriting at an early dealtwithin 1988,thoughtheyhad been identified specialtreatment in the Site the results are set out outline the We here only samplingproceduresused; stage. Catalogue. is a special case, clearlydelimitedby its fortification (Bin),2'3a hilltopfortification, AgiosKonstantinos LN1-EBA and classical-hellenistic. The samplingareaswere wallsand occupiedin twodistinct periods, ratherlarge,but sincethematerialfrombothoccupationperiodsis spreadoverthewholesite,notto itis notclear mentionthatlargepartsofthesurfaceoftheuppercitadelhavebeen gradedbybulldozer, ofthesite. thatfinerprecisionwouldhaveyieldedmoreaboutthehistory (A118),214 Palaiogoulas probablyancientSellasia,was dividedintofiveseparateareas. This was the first Whilewe are confident thatwe have a reasonableoverviewofthe largesiteto be treatedbythesurvey. site,itis plainthata moredetailedsurveywouldyieldusefulresults. Geladari (Η45),2Ι·Γ) possiblyancientThornax,is an altogethermorecomplexsite:largerin extent(some The extremely variable 12 ha), witha numberof standingmonumentsand architectural fragments. visibility, largelydue to the lush grass cover when surveyed,in some ways lent itselfto the 'area' different and sherdswerecollectedfromsometwenty-nine locations,thoughsome approachto sampling, of thesampleswereverysmallbecause of thepaucityof the material.In a subsequentseason,clicker countsweremade overthemainarea ofthesite(see LAR03 above),butit is notclearthattheycan be thanthatthevisibility is patchy.This problemis compoundedby made to conveyanymoreinformation In particular, therarityofcertainclassesofpottery. diagnosticLate Helladicsherdswererecoveredin a and thecentralpartsofthesite.Elsewherein thesurveyarea LH smallnumberfromboththenorthern siteslikeH45. materialtendsto be verysparse,and maywellbe swampedin largemulti-period TheMenelaion withmore intractable ridge(036o).210In treatingthissite in 1987,we were confronted nature.The siteis a narrowN-S ridgeabout terrainthanat Bin or A118,mainlybecauseofitsirregular 1 kmlong,frequently in manyplaces,either interrupted bygullies.The groundwas denselyovergrown withtallgrasseson theupperterracesor withgarigueand maquison slopes.It was, however, possible to walka seriesoftransects coveringthespineofthehillfromsouthto north.Countsweretakenofthe sherd densitiesin each 30 m transectby fourwalkersspaced at 15 metres,each grid-blockthus measuring30 m S-N by 60 m W-E. The resultsare illustratedin ILL. 24.51 and indicatethe very in blocks1,3, 11-13,16,23-5,31-5,and distribution ofthesherds,withmarkedconcentrations irregular however,thatformanytransectsthe countsare verylow indeed:valuesof o or 1 43. It is noteworthy, occur,low even for'background'.It mustbe concluded that,because of the poor and extremely variablevisibility, as wellas otherfactors,thisprehistoric and archaic-classicalsitedoes notlend itself method. to investigation this by The site was next sampledfordatingevidenceusing the methodapplied to medium-sizedsites elsewhereon the survey:it was subdividedinto 'areas' suggestedby the contoursor vegetationcover. excavatedMenelaionsanctuaryand theMycenaean (Samplingdid nottakeplace withinthepreviously A reasonable of material was recoveredfromthese areas, allowing a mansion.) sample dating oftheridge'ssettlement reconstruction history. At thissitethe terrainis even and the visibility was extremely PanagiaChrysaphitissa (U490).217 good in X A m of 60 was set as at and walkers 1987. grid sixty-five 30 rectangles Q360, up, sampledby spacedat

*KiLS'n. 32^ 8 (plan, ILL. 24.4 on p. 326). 214LS'û. 321-3. **■> LS 11.352, 355-7 (plan, ill. 24.23 on p. 354).

2I()LS'û. 4.01-^ (plan, ill. 24.^1 on pp. 4.02-3). 217LSû. 428-9 (plan, ILL. 24.58 on pp. 430-1).

52

Chapterι easting 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1578 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1581 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1584 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 1587 !59O !59O 1590 !59O

northing

1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282

clicks

tHein 2 sqm

sherdin 2 sqm

ιHie+ sherdin 2 sqm

ο ο ι

ο ο ο

ο ο ο

2

I

2 I

I

ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο *

ο

1285 1288 1291 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294 1255 1258 I26I 1264

ο ο ο ο ο ο Ι

12

7 * 2

3 22

67 98 93 35 3' 46 II

8 5 ι 3 5 7 194 35 ! 88

ο * ο ο Ι

ο 4 4 Ι

ο 3 Ι

ο ο Ι

*

ο 2 Ο 2

5

II

4

50

2

131 112

3 3 4 ι

37 9 6

Ι *

4 ο

ο

2

2

27

Ι

58 !53

149 164

64

223

98

Ι

3 5 7 4 4

2

5

ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο 2 Ι

3 4 ο ο ο ο *

4 4 Ι

Ι

ο Ι

*

ο 2 Ο 2

5 ΐ3 5 5 7 3 4 ι Ι *

ο

5 ο 8

ΙΟ

13

ι7 4 ο

ο

Ι

3

3 5 i8 60

Ο Ι

Ι

ο

ο ο ο ο ο

Ο

3

ο ο

Ι

ο *

19 32 27

Ο

Ι

ο *

ο

2

12

Ι

ο ο ο ο ο ο

ο ο ο ο ο ο ο ο

2

2 *

Ι

Ι

*

ο ο ο ο

2 Ι Ι

3 7

12

4 3 * ο ο Ι

3

Backgroundand methodology 53 easting !59O 1590 !59O

!59° !59O

!59° 1590 !59O !59O 1590 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 !593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1593 1596 1596 1596 1596 !596 1596 !596 1596 1596 1596 1596 1596

ι$Φ '596 !599 1599 !599 1599 !599 1599 1599 *599 !599 1599 1599 *599 1599 1599 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602

northing 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1255 1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1255 1258 1261 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 !255 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294

I255

1258 1261

1264 1267 1270 1273 1276

clicks »5 166 371 348 524 212

158 154 67 77 6

tilein 2 sq m

sherdin 2 sq m

tile+ sherdin 2 sq m

6

ο ο ι

6

5 6 4

5 3 3 1 * I

4 60

I

85 5!5 342 454 631 695 381 239 278 70 61

I

7 24 16 40 181 169 293 340 773 291 500 154 106

33 5 5

32 7 47 129 169 307 434 531 386 343 42 l9

I

5 6 2 12

6 2

4 ο 2 * I Ο

5 ο

5 3 3 11

3 ο *

ο ο ο ο ο 8 8 5 5

2Ο

4

II Ι *

ο ο ο ο

8

14 6 ι * I I I I

5

14 10 l7 II 22

8

II

3 * 1

ο 5 ο

I

Ι

2

2

3 2

5 8

3 3 4

i4 ίο

6 6 II 6

9

I

7

4 8

I *

2 *

3 *

2

2

2

Ο

2

Ο

Ο

Ο

2 Ο

ο ο

Ο

Ο

Ι

Ι

ο ο

Ι

Ι

Ι

Ι

5 5 3 5 4

Ι

6

2

7 3 7 5 4 * * *

ο 2 Ι

1

*

3 3 8

*

2 * * *

39 13 45 74

5 7 9 14

2 *

Ι

Ο

Ο

Ο

3 ο ο

Ο

Ι

2

ι ο

ο

3 ο

3 3

3 4

54

Chapterι easting 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1602 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605 1605

northing 1279 1282 1285 1288 1291 1294 1258 I26I 1264 1267 1270 1273 1276 1279 1282 1285 1288 I29I 1294

clicks 234 462 288 187 22

7 5 ο 2

ϊ3 5 36 27

59 170 490 625 i38 80 II

tilein 2 sq m 3 4 8 6 2 * *

sherdin 2 sq m 11 2

6 1

ο *

tile+ sherdin 2 sq m 14 6 14 7 2 * *

ι ο

I

ο ο ο ο

4 4

3 5

1

2

3

7 9 3

7 5 ι ο

1

ο I

2 1

ο *

I I

10

7

2

ο *

Table 1.3. Site U490: comparisonof resultsof 'clickercounts'and 'hands and knees'countsfor140 squares,each 30 X 30 m. Coordinatesreferto S'v cornerofeach square(cf.ILL.24.58).

thenumberofsherdsseen every30 m. These countswererecordedusingevent 15m intervals, totalling countersand are referred to, in whatfollows,as clickercounts.At the same time'hands and knees' countsweretakenovera gridin samplingpointsmeasuring1 sq m in area; thegridcovered260 (26 X 10) samplingpoints,though8 could not be sampled,leavinga totalof 252. Tile and potsherdswere countedseparatelyat each samplingpoint.In whatfollows, pairsof clickercountshave been summed forsquaresmeasuring30 X 30 m, and thetwo1 sq m samplesare also summedforthesame squares(as in both cases, of averagingout the sampleswere countedby different individualsthishas the effect, The data are givenin TABLE1.3. variations betweenindividualrecorders). In a statistical sensethereis no close correlationbetweentheclickercountsand thosetaken,in the same squares,by collectingand countingthe artefactsat 1 sq m samplingpoints.In thiscrudesense the two methodsof recordingsite densitiesare not comparable.Whythisshouldbe so is not clear, moreresearchis requiredon thisproblem. but it is probablybound up withtheproblemofvisibility; Such a crudecorrelationtest,however,takesno accountof the spatialdimension.In ILLS 1.24-5we illustrate contourplotsfortheclickercounts(column3 in the table,TABLE1.3)on theone hand, and forthetotaltileand sherdcountsmade in thesamplingpoints(column6 in thetable).The contours are plottedin the formerat 90, 250, and 500 artefactsper 900 sq m, and in the latterat one, four, and eightcountsper 2 sq m. The maps of siteU490 are broadlysimilar,thoughthe samplingpoints technique probablyunderestimatesthe extentof the site. We are thereforeencouraged by this in thebeliefthat1 sq m spotsamplesgivea reasonablerepresentation of surfaceartefact experiment concentration. in was collected,and thedensitiesaccordingto thedifferent periodsare illustrated Diagnosticpottery foreach rectanglegive ill. 24.58.Totalsofpotterydatableto thevariousperiods(Neolithic-Byzantine) an indicationoftheintensity ofoccupationduringtherelevantperiods.

Conclusion offieldsurveyhas advancedrapidlyin thelastfifteen The methodology years.In particular, and sherd of distributions has been laid on the recording background increasingemphasis

III. 1.24.Contourmap ofclickercountsat U490.

III. 1.25.Contourmap oftotaltileand sherdcountsat U490.

densitiesovertheentirelandscape.The aim has been twofold:firstto definemorerigorously and second(or,perhapsmore themfrom'non-sites', theoccurrenceof 'sites'and distinguish the first to human what is intended by activityoverthe whole strictly, approach) investigate The intensive of artefacts has the artefact concentrations. analysis 'off-site' landscapethrough withtheirsystematic collectionand dating.On theLaconia Survey, moveda stepfurther only highlyselectivecollectionsof 'non-site'materialwere made. Though thesehave produced - forexamplea fewMycenaeansherdsfroman ill-defined collectionin occasionalsurprises - theΌη-site'materialseemsto reflectreasonablythedistribution sector of thenorthernmost areas more intensive described above. as was borne out the of sites, by sample investigation has focusedon theissuesofthedispersion ofsherdsand howeffectively the attention Recently In theirrecentreviewof artefact surfacematerialcan reflectthe archaeologyunderground. Yorstonand othershave suggestedthatthereis no room for movementdue to cultivation, considerations havebeendiscussedbyWhitelawin hisimportant Further analysis complacency.218 of the sitesof Kephala and Paoura on Kea:219he focuseson the destructionof potteryby and abrasion,thedeflation of soil througherosion,and theproblemsofvisibility comminution discussedabove. In the currentstateof knowledgeit seems unwiseto claim over-refined withinsites.We hopenevertheless thattheLaconia conclusions on thebasisofartefact dispersion will both its and as a be valued for and indication Survey findings methodological technological forfuturework.As in all surveyprojects,the definitionof any one site is a judgementof in thesitecatalogue(Chapter and theevidenceforourjudgements is summarized probabilities, and of the Laconia The 24). samplingstrategy Surveywerea carefulcompromise projectdesign betweentheneedtomaximizearea coverage(inpursuitoftheoverallaims)and therequirements whiletakingaccountofpracticalconstraints. of investigative We are confident thatthe rigour, in and broader set will essential conclusions out the robust. findings following chapters prove 218R. M. Yorston,V. L. Gaffney,and P. J. Reynolds, 'Simulationof artifactmovementdue to cultivation', JAS 17 (ϊ99°)>67-83.

219Whitelaw(η. 197).

2 SOILS AND LAND USE POTENTIAL vanBerghem andJasperFiselier Jan-Willem The LANDSCAPE as perceived today is not what early settlerspenetrated in search of as a resultof naturalprocesses,in which land; it has been changedcontinuously agricultural humansplayeda roleas well.Whichsitesfarmers and occupiedthroughout theages preferred was largelyinfluencedby theirown agriculturalactivities.Erosion may have sweptaway fertilesoils,leavinghillsbare and dissected;terraces,arduouslyconstructedand formerly maintained, mayhave accumulatedenoughsoil to makeagriculture possibleon slopeswhere flourished before. onlywildvegetation Ruined houses or shatteredpotteryare not the only marksleftby human occupation. Truncatedsoils,colluviallayers,and alluvialdepositsare man-inducedhistoricalevidenceas well. These marks,thoughoftenbarelynoticeableand difficult to interpret, may help to ofsherdsand ruinedfarmsteads. A landscapeanalysismayevenallow explainthedistribution foran estimationof the capabilityand importanceof the ruralareas in sustaininglarger settlements suchas Sparta. The mainpurposeofthesoilsurveyconductedwithintheframework oftheLaconia Survey was to studythe suitability, and of the soils within which artefactsare stability, history embedded, in order to facilitatethe interpretationof site patterns. In the following paragraphs, methods of landscape reconstructionand land evaluation will be briefly described,and thentheiruse in analysingsitepatterns. Landscape

Reconstruction:

Methods

and Tools

general method of soil mapping The entireLaconia Surveyarea was mapped,usingair photointerpretation (at ι : 25,000)and fieldsurveys,in the summersof 1986 and 1988. A physiographicsoil map at a scale of 1 : 20,000was made,witha legendadaptedin sucha way that,in additionto soil suitability, soil age and soil stability werealso differentiating Since differences of parent characteristics. in land-formsand soil types,severalland-systems materialgeneratedifferences have been on the basis of theirgeology.For the land-system distinguished designated'hills,ridges,and have been combinedinto one footslopesin limestone',two different geologicalformations - a hard crystalline - forthepragmatic limestoneand a softerlayeredlimestone land-system reasonthatsimilarunits(e.g. steep slopes) show similarcharacteristics withrespectto soil and slopestability. The SOILMAPand legendare presentedat theend ofthevolume, suitability and represent an annexeto thischapter. Soil profiles,mostlyexposed along road cuts, eroded terraces,incisions,and recently bulldozedterraces,were describedin more detail,while auger bores were set to map the

58

Chapter2

coverage of the importantsoil units. Detailed soil descriptionscovered (among other colour,texture,structure,and carbonate content.In manyplaces, multicharacteristics) ofseverallayers,eithercolluvial so-called layeredprofiles, 'palaeosols'- consisting (depositedby erosion on slopes) or alluvial(deposited by rivers),representingdistinctphases in soil - wereencountered.Profileexposurewas, however,erratic,and development auger samples do not allow detailedanalyses;coverageof soil chronosequences,therefore, was farfrom In the distribution of older covered is still unknown. However, complete. particular, sequences theexposedprofiles theidentification ofdifferent permitted phasesin landscapedevelopment, ofdifferent periodsoferosionand stability. INTERPRETING

SOIL

PROFILES

Theformation ofsoilprofiles

Recordingthe featuresof ancientlandscapesis subjectto muchspeculation;the land-forms and soils found today functionmerelyas starting-points for reconstruction.The most reveal of soil indicators are soil important profiles.They stages developmentduringperiods of stability, erosion,and subsequentsedimentation. Stages of soil developmentare mainly recognized by soil colour, texture,structure,and the presence of calcite, CaCO3. In Mediterranean climates,soil developmentstartswith the leaching of CaCO3 and the formationof a soil structure.Gradually the soil becomes more reddish owing to the caused by the oxidationof clay-minerals, and clay is washed out formationof ferro-oxides in in of soil. soil accumulated distinct lower the After due timedifferent and layers parts Ά and the an characterized humus formation horizon', by layerscan be distinguished: in 'B of eluviationofclayand minerals;a horizon',eitherreddish colourbecause weathering or ofheaviertextureand distinctstructure as a resultofclayaccumulation;and a 'C horizon' of largelyunweatheredparentmaterial.Soil developmentis fasteron easilyweatherable parent materials,in stable positions where natural erosion is limited,and under high (ILL.2.1). precipitation Acceleratedsoil erosion

can mature,non-eroded, deep Only on flatsurfacessuchas terracesand broadwater-divides soilsbe encountered.Owing to erosionon mostslopes,formerly completeABC profilesare nowadaystruncated, exposingtheΒ horizon;in thecase ofsevereerosioneventheΒ horizon U-shapedval ey (N4c) Steep transportation slopes (N2d) Plateau remnants Colluvial footslope (N4b) ^* A> Middle glacis level(N3b) Upperglacis level(N4d) Middle glacis level(N3b) y τ gr Youngerlowerterraces(A2a) V-shapedsteep /Γ^ΑίΜΕ U-shapedvalley valley(N2d) 4//'^^^^^^ EvrotasyoungestAlluvialfandeposits(N3c) , . (?4c) level , , ' Α οφβκΚ^^^^ Upperglacis riverbed(Ala) O|(jer higher ν _^-«^^^^^^^^^

Il.I.. 'j.i. Examples

ni a elironoseíjuenee

and toposequenee

from the field.

Soils and land use potential 59

may have been washed away. Erosion is most intenseon steeperslopes withtheireasily soilswhichhaveonlya limitedinfiltration erodible,oftenfiner-textured capacity. As a resultof the impactof raindrops, Different kindsof erosioncan be distinguished. smallersoil particlesin particularare slowlyand graduallycarrieddownslope,forminga homogeneouscolluviallayer;thisprocessis generallycalled 'rain-splasherosion'.When the exceedstheinfiltration soil is saturatedor rainfallintensity capacityofthesoil,overlandflow will transportsoil particlesin a sheet of water; this is 'sheet-washerosion'. In thiscase, tonnesof soilsper velocitiesallow the transportation onlyof smallerparticles;nevertheless, hectaremaybe displacedannually.In thiscase also, thetransported particlesare depositedin texture.When overlandflowconcentratesin one place, rillsform, finelayersof different whichmay deepen into gullies.The flowvelocitiesin rilland gullyerosionalso allow the of largersoil particles,whichare normallywashed directlyinto streamsand transportation rivers.Each kind of erosionresultsin a different typeof sediment(colluvium):fineand formsof homogeneous,layered,or largelywithoutany sorting.Besidesthe aforementioned soilsmaybe transported forceswithoutthehelpofflowing erosion,(saturated) bygravitational water,whichalso leads to unsortedand unlayeredtypesof colluviumin whichlargerstones and boulderscan evenbe embedded. Undervegetation, onlylimitedformsof rain-splasherosionoccur,and erosionis normally theresultof accelerated The exposureof a B horizonis therefore slowerthansoil formation. soil erosion,oftentriggeredby sparse vegetationcover resultingfrom(over)-grazingby or ploughingby man. Agricultural domesticanimals,deforestation, expansionhas resultedin in erraticbutintense basin.An increase,however, intenseerosionall overtheMediterranean in otherwise rain-showers semi-aridconditionswillalso lead to an increasein erosion.Intense neverbe ruledoutcompletely. erosionofclimaticorigincan therefore Theformationofpalaeosols

Eroded materialmay be depositeddownslope,coveringformersoil profiles.In thisnewly severalcolluviallayers depositedcolluviuma newABC profilewillform.On somefootslopes someoftheformercharacteristics oftheerodedsoilssuch havebeen deposited,stillretaining as theircolourand theabsenceofcalciumcarbonates.The repeatedcoveringofsoilsleads to ofcomplex,multi-layered theformation palaeosols.In placeswithintheLaconia Surveyarea, colluvial especiallyon gentlyslopingfootslopesand old terraces,more than threedifferent Some ofthemmaybe datedbypotteryand maybe attributed layershavebeen distinguished. to human activitiessuch as wood-clearingand ploughing.Others, especiallythe oldest colluviallayers,mayreflectclimaticchanges.Superimposedalluvialsoilsare presentin some smallervalleys,and appear to coverlargeareas in the Evrótasvalleyand the intermontane alluviallayerscan be distinguished. basinsouthofChrysapha.Oftentwodistinct Soils may show characteristics thatreflectformerclimaticconditionsor ground-water levels.Soilswithan intensered colourwereoftenformedduringperiodsofhightemperature and excessiveprecipitation.Higher ground-waterlevels resultin continuousor seasonal saturationof the soil; thistriggerspedogeneticprocessesresultingin greyishhues and the ofsmallconcretions ofmanganeseand iron.Examplesoftheseindicatorsofformer formation are presentin a coveredpalaeosol near the Evrotasriver.Ground-water levels soil saturation also determinethe flowand depositionof dissolvedmineralssuch as calcium carbonate. Layersof precipitatedcalciumcarbonatehardenupon exposureto the air intopetrocalcic ('carbonate-rock') layersthatlook likelimestone.On the Neogene plateau withinthe survey levels.Today in area, severalpetrocalcichorizonsindicateformerly higherground-water

6o

Chapter2

soil has been eroded,exposingthepetrocalcicwithlargerstones severalplaces the overlying on top. and artefacts The aforementionedpedological indications,however,do not allow accurate dating. studies,usingpollen and wood as datingindicators, Palynologicaland dendrochronological have not been carriedout in thisarea forlack of suitablesitesand materials;neitherhas encountered radiocarbondating.Only in a veryfewplaces were datable potteryfragments more withinexposedsoilprofiles, precisedating(ILL.2.2). permitting INTERPRETING

LAND-FORMS:

THE FORMATION

OF GLACIS

Severalgeomorphological processeshave playedan importantrole in formingthe Laconia creation of 'glacis'- flatland-formswithverysmall angles of slope- is area. The Survey erosional processes.These glacis, therefore,normallyslope largelydue to retrogressive towardsthe river,whereasalluvial terracesslope in a downstreamdirection.Glacis can fromolderalluvialterraces.Usuallytwotypesofglaciscan be therefore easilybe distinguished is characterized The so-calledglacisd'érosion byshallowsoilsand occasionalrock distinguished. directions. The glacisd'accumulation generallyhas outcrops,and sometimesslopesin different ofa glacismayhavebeen deepersoils,and slopestowardstheriver.Sometimestheformation influencedby a harder,nearlyhorizontalgeologicallayeror petrocalciclayer.Examplesof determined thesestructurally glacisare presentneartheMenelaion(Q360). in the Laconia studyarea. The A minimumof threeglacis levels can be distinguished the smoothing Neogeneplateauis in facta glacisformedin alluvialfandeposits,thusfurther Alongthe easternside of the Evrotastwomoreglaciswere originalgentlyslopingfan-form. formedand then largelyeroded, leaving only relativelysmall remnantslike secondary watersheds pointingtowardstheEvrotas. The Landscape

History

of the Survey Area

geological history a chronological For thepurposeoflandscapereconstruction, sequenceof severaldistinctsoil profilesof differentage has firstbeen established (TABLE2.1). Soil units have been whilethepresenceofartefacts and land-form, on thebasisofsoilcharacteristics differentiated indicatestheirpossibleage.

Section J

J

Originalsurface

*L^^

/^S^^^^^^^^^^^^^SCî^

II.I.. -2.2.Λ palaeosolon a terracewithpotteryfragments.

Soils and land use potential soil colour(B horizon)

soil unit

limestone(Lia, Lib) Neogene(Nia, Nib) schists(Sia, Sib) glacisι (N3a/S3a) glacis2 (N3b/S3b) alluvialfanlower1 alluvialfanupper(N3b/S3b) basinfilllower1 basinfillupper(L4a)2 colluviumι (N4.C/S4.C)2 colluvium2 (N4.b/S4.b)2 colluvium3 (various)2 colluvium4 (various) riverterrace1 (A2b) riverterrace2 (A2a) riverterrace3 (Aia)

2.5 YR 2.5 YR 2.5 YR 5YR 5 YR-2.5 YR 5 YR-2.5 YR 7-5 YR 2.5 YR 5 YR 2.5 YR 7.5 YR-5 YR 10 YR 10 Y 10 YR 10 Y 10 Y

struc. Ca content

ontop) (oldest artefacts

Bt Bt,slsi Bt Bt,pris. Bt Bt,ang. Bw Ca-, platey Ca+ Ca-, ang. cc, CaCa+, Bw Ca+ Bw,Ca+ Bw,Ga+ none,Ca+

Nl Nl Nl EH LH notfound Cl notfound ^ ΧΒ3025

,'

S '

r3/' t/^^h ι

ι

;

f

''

^y

^Js ^>f£ (If (ζ^10083

X10112

>

1

Λ

I

mm

I Metres

*i 10815 UM0-iU5,4^ ^^*>^y

III. 4.3. Middleand Late BronzeAge sites(D. Taylor).

^S ν

'

Prehistoricperiods 139

cultivationin laterperiods(forexample the archaic),and the intervalof severalcenturies betweenthe abandonmentof the EH sitesand the reoccupationof the area in the Middle haveallowedthefertility oftheland to return. BronzeAge wouldcertainly of sitesis to be foundon theMenelaionridge(Q360), The main site- or conglomeration highabove theeastbankoftheEurotas.The ridgein factcomprisesfourconnectedhills:the NorthHill, the Menelaionitself(withthe remainsof the Iron Age sanctuaryof thatname), the north-southaxis of Q360 extendsover about a ProphitisIlias, and Aetós. Altogether, MH has been found all overit; thewidthis at presentnowheremore and material kilometre, thanthat. than300 m, and in placesmuchnarrower MH surfacematerial, end oftheridgeyieldedsomeEH II pottery, Whilethesouthernmost a likeMycenaean,was dispersedover verymuchlargerarea (Q360,areas Α-D, G,J-L, AA, Thus thesurveyfindsneatlyaugmentthe 1973-82excavationswhichhad revealed AC-AF).114 scrapsof MH wallson theMenelaionand NorthHill, as well as two smallkilnsfollowedby several burials on the south flankof Aetos."5 It is not clear, however,how denselythe Menelaioncomplexwas occupiedin MH (or in LH), because of the oftendensevegetation and highlevelof erosion.The questionalso remainswhetherthevariousareas of settlement as theyprobablydid in Mycenaeantimes.Excavation alreadybelongedto a singlecommunity, thattheMH Menelaionwas notunlikeMH Lerna or Asine: suggests The appearanceofthesettlement wouldhavebeen similarto thatofmodernGreekvillageswithruinssidebyside withhousesin good repairand newlyconstructed ones. Open spaceswereused forgravesor as disposalareas for rubbishand as grazinggroundfordomesticanimals."6

All the same,fromits size alone, we believethatthe Middle Helladic marksthe startof a whichwas well processby whichthe populationconcentratedwithinone large settlement, its east and west sides. With its protectedby steep dropsalong commandinglocation,the in of the Menelaion a definite interest defenceas well as in the occupation ridgesuggests Evrotasvalley. Furthernorththereare twoothersites(M349and M322)in a similarpositionon theglacis and foothillsoverlooking the Eurotasvalley,thoughnot protectedby steep drops.In both surface material of MH and laterdate, foundover an area of 0.07 and 0.05 ha the cases, have washed downfromtheoriginalsite. respectively, may No otherofthesurveysitesofMH date remotely compareswiththeMenelaionin size,but itis possibleto recognizetwolevelsofsitehierarchy belowit. (1) N413(plus associatedsites)and R291(+ R292) representsitesof 0.25-0.5 ha in extent. eroded,and hencesubjectto thelossofpotterydue to Althoughthesesiteshavebeen severely abrasionand comminution, we believethatthesettlement was originally ofthismagnitude, as is partlyconfirmed oftheland. They can be interpreted as small bythenaturalconfiguration hamletsconsisting ofa numberofhouseholds.In bothcases,liketheMenelaionitself, theyare defensible sitesprotectedby cliffs. Site N413represents theamalgamationofa series naturally ofpotteryscatters(N413,N412,N410,N411),and mayhave had theratheropen plan suggested 114 LSÛ. 402-3,ILL.24.51. 115Catling,'Menelaion', 28-9; id. (n. 108), 16 withfigs 23-5· 116 Nordquist(n. 112),29. W. D. Taylour,'Excavationsat AyiosStephanos',BSA 67 (1972),205-63, at 240, 244, has

commentedon breaks,at varioustimes,in theoccupationof thedifferent sectorsexcavatedat AgiosStephanos.

140 Chapter4

in the previous paragraph for the Menelaion. It commands the route fromSparta to Chrysapha,thoughthis is a route of only local significance,while R291 dominatesthe Loutsoremavalley.Because of theirdefensive locations,neitheris surroundedby agricultural is describedas 'largelyuncultivable5 and N4i3'sveryimmediatecatchment land,117 (LS ii. 390), though,againliketheMenelaion,thereis arableland in thevicinity. oferosionin destroying (2) The remainingsitesare smaller(0.1 ha or less;again theeffects sitesmustbe bornein mind).They are wellsitedforagriculture, and generallydo notseemto be locatedin naturallydefensiblelocations:M322,M349,N191,R457(evidently a satelliteof R291),S434(locatedalso to exploitgrazing?),and S478. The Menelaion(Q360),M349,M322,and N413forma stringspacedjust overa kilometre one fromthe other.In the Chrysaphaarea, the spacingis less regularbut the sitesare still separatedbylessthantwokilometres. Elsewherein Laconia, severaloftheEH II sitesshowno signsofMH occupation.Others, such as Amyklai,Palaiopyrgi,and Agios Vasileios(all on the chain of hillsin the Evrotas valley),and the acropolissitesof Geraki(adjoiningthe south-western slopes of the Párnon MH and the Helos have At all except plain), produced range) Agios Stephanos(in pottery. Geraki,as at the Menelaion ridge,occupationmay well have been continuousinto Late Helladictimes.118 ECONOMY

A mixedagricultural economymay be assumedforthe Middle Helladic occupationof the soilsin thesurveyarea. Sitesare quitewelllocatedforarable and limestone-derived Neogene we have soils,though suggestedthatdefenceratherthaneasy access to good land governed thechoiceoflocationfortheMenelaion(Q360),N413,and R291.Some explanationin termsof thesubsistence sector,for economyseemsdemandedbythepaucityoffindsfromthenorthern to reasonaway entirelythroughthe loss of sitesunderthe forcesof erosion. thisis difficult of the schistsoils,theirinstability Perhapsa combinationof the relativeunproductiveness the at the and, (demandingterracing?), highestelevations, dangeroffrostdamageto olivesis sufficient to explainwhythearea was avoidedin theMiddle BronzeAge. On theotherhand, in werelargelyoverlooked do notapplyto zonesΡ and U, which,similarly, suchconsiderations likethosein zones the Middle BronzeAge (or at least do not seem to have had settlements M-N and Q,-S). Access to arable was not the only factorin deciding the location of a numberof the sitesare close to good sitedon ridge-tops, settlements. Althoughfrequently watersupplies:Q360, M349,and M322to the Evrotas;N413to the Kelephína;R291-2 to the wellsin TsiliotouRéma; Ni91 near therichspringsin Kastorórema;and S434 and S478 near the copious springsin Kataphygiórema.Perhapswateringanimal stockwas particularly to theseMiddleBronzeAge villagers. important Schistslabs encounteredat N413may have servedas lids forstoragevessels.In general, vesselsare wellrepresented amongMH potteryfromthesurveyarea. The variety pithos-type of table,kitchen,and storagewaresfoundat the sitesindicatesgeneralizeddomesticactivity is indicatedbya claycrucible.119 ratherthanspecializedloci.At M413,metalworking As forthe Menelaionridge,nowadaysthereare not a lot of good soilsin the immediate some of the terraceson the ridge environs.If theMiddle BronzeAge houseswerescattered, 117 LSii, ills 24.46,24.^2. 118 See PL i and ii; GAC107ff.withmap C.

119 LS ii. 194,SF 102. Forcruciblesand otherevidencefor in MH Greece,see Nordquist(n. 112),44. metalworking


itselfcould happilyhavebeen cultivated.Otherwisetheinhabitants presumably exploitedthe Evrotasvalley,sharingtherichsoilsto the northwiththe inhabitants of siteM349and using the riverforwateringanimals(shepherdsstillbringtheirflocksfromas faras Chrysaphato waterthem).The floodlands near (classical)Limnai may also have been exploited.On the otherhand,itwouldnothavebeen convenient to haveto crosstheEvrotasin orderto exploit the area southof Sparta. It is possiblethatalreadyin the Middle BronzeAge producewas afieldas a consequenceofthesite'simportance. broughtin fromfurther The studyarea was clearlyin touchwithotherpartsofLaconia and ofthePéloponnèseat large,judgingfrompotteryfindsand theshaftgravetypeoftombfromtheMenelaionridge. fromthatin EH II withits remarkableuniformity in Still,the situationis quite different wares,types,and decoration.Insteadoftheclassic'Minyan'waresoftheArgolidand pottery central Greece, we findimitationsof their shapes and incised decoration, as at Agios Local pottery Stephanosand elsewherein Laconia.120 productionis indicatedby thetwokilns excavatedon theMenelaionridge. findsfromthesurveyarea indicatecontactswithMinoan Creteor with Some ofthepottery its colonyon Kythera.This minoanizingpotteryhas counterparts at the portsite of Agios or to earlyLH.121 Stephanos,whereitmostlydatesto theMH-LH transition POPULATION

It is veryuncertainwhethertherewas continuedhabitationfromEarlyto Middle Helladic times,thoughthe balance of evidence suggeststhatthe surveyarea- and otherparts of - wererepopulatedin theMiddleHelladic Laconia and indeedofthePéloponnèse period.We haveseen thatMH sitesare notat all numerousin our area as comparedwithEH II and are a notableexception.The usuallyof smallor mediumsize,the Menelaionridgerepresenting overallpictureis offairly lowpopulationnumbers, limitedto thesouthernpartofthearea and concentrated on theMenelaionridge,in thesmallvillagesN413and R291,and in a apparently scatterof smallersites.What evidencewe have may well suggestan increasein population duringand at theend ofthisperiod. SOCIO-POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

CONSIDERATIONS

Afterthewidespreaddistribution ofEarlyHelladic sitesofmoreor lessequal status,thereis a in our studyarea in theMiddle BronzeAge. The Menelaionridgeis the notablecontraction major settlement,or cluster,as it was to be in Mycenaean times.Smaller sites at other locations,mostlynewlyfoundedin MH and also inhabitedin LH, are presumably subsidiary. WhiletheMenelaionridgeclearlyranksabove thislevel,too littleis as yetknownto attempta settlement rankingwithMH siteselsewherein Laconia, includingthosein the Evrotasvalley and to thesouthoftheMenelaion.Here,as in thesurveyarea, sitesare oftensituated opposite on hilltopsor ridgesthatcontinuedto be occupiedin theLate BronzeAge.122 Possibleevidencefora hierarchy of settlement, whichis providedin Messenia and other of Middle Bronze Greece the occurrence of burial tumuli,is absent from parts Age by Laconia. We do have a smallcemetery, a shaft including graveand fourinhumations nearby, excavatedon the Aetos hill of the Menelaion complex.Burial giftshere are confinedto a 120See Rutterand Rutter (n. 112),6-10; R. E.Jones, Greek and CypriotPottery: A Reviewof ScientificStudies(Fitch LaboratoryOccasionalPapers,1; Athens,1986),416 (withC. B. Mee).

121 Ibid. 122 FortheMH periodin Laconia, see especiallyDickinson (n. 61),109-12.ForMH sites,see PL i and ii; GAC107ff.with map C.

142 Chapter4

terracottaspindle-whorl and a minutescrap of gold- the onlypre-Mycenaeangold from Laconia- bothofwhichare associatedwiththesingleburialin theshaftgrave.Such signsof materialwealthare rare,anotherbeingthedecoratedbronzepin fromone ofthreecisttombs (Schistslabs fromM349,not farnorthof the Menelaion dug on the acropolisof Geraki.123 - cist graves.)Slightas theseindicationsare, they to have ridge,may belonged destroyed to confirm would whatwe help judge simplyfromits size: that,at least by the end of the Middle BronzeAge,theMenelaionwas developingas an important centre.It is probablyno coincidencethatthesefindscome fromtombsdatingto late Middle Helladic,whichis also a timeofincreasingevidenceforMinoan potteryconnections, at thecoastalsiteof particularly northin Laconia,includingour surveyarea. AgiosStephanosbutalso further The Late Bronze

Age

the general setting ShaftGraveera, The earlyMycenaeanperiod(MH III-LH III Ai),includingthetransitional is characterized withideas and craftsintroduced by a blendingof Middle Helladic traditions fromMinoan Crete.At the head of the variousprincipalities fromthe Aegean,particularly stooda wealthywarriorélite,whichwas also involvedin economicand religiousactivitiesas well as in the procurementand manufactureof prestigegoods. For reasons stillnot well understood,some of the centresof powerdevelopedintofull-blown palatial establishments The palaces,withor ceremonial,and a varietyof otherfunctions. combiningadministrative, statewerein turnthecontrolling centresofhighlystratified, withoutimpressive fortifications, thatthispoliticalsystemoperatedon thesame lines likesocieties.124 It is notcertain,however, in everypartoftheMycenaeanworld. oftheMycenaeanstatesofthemiddleMycenaeanperiod(LH The stability and prosperity III A2-B)in the Péloponnèseand in centralmainlandGreece began to be disturbedin the laterthirteenth centuryBC. By the end of the centurythe palatial centres,as well as many other sites, had been destroyedand/or abandoned, resultingin the break-up of the LH III B-c). As yetthereis no fullexplanationforthese Mycenaeanpalace system(transition developments:a combinationof factorsratherthan any singlecause, whetherhuman or The demiseof Mycenaeanpalace organizationwas natural,was mostlikelyresponsible.125 in othersby continuedhabitation,albeitat a lowerlevel followedin some areas by desertion, and contactsin the later Aftera fairlybriefperiod of increasedprosperity of complexity. twelfth century(LH III C Middle),the end of the BronzeAge is markedin much but not all of the mainlandand the Aegean by seriousdepopulation,a declinein materialwealth, and disruption ofcommunications. CHRONOLOGICAL

OVERVIEW

Late Helladic has been foundat variouslocations.Ten of these Potterythatis diagnostically as definite be Mycenaeansites(H45,M349,N413,Q360, R292 and R424,S434 may regarded I23H. W. Catling(n. 108), 16 (Aëtoshill);A. J. B. Wace, 'Laconia, II: topography. EarlypotteryfromGeraki',BSA 16 Nadelnder (1909-10),72-5, at 75 fig.4; I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer,

frühhelladischen bis archaischen %eit von der Peloponnes

xiii. 8; Munich,1984),no. 103, Bronzefunde, (Prähistorische pl. 4 (Geraki);see also Dickinson(η. 6ΐ), ΐΐΐ-ΐ2.

124For an importantrecentoverviewof the Myc palatial period, see C. W. Shelmerdine, A review of Aegean VI: the palatialBronzeAge of the southernand prehistory, centralGreekmainland',AJA101(1996),537-85. 125See O. T. P. K. Dickinson, The AegeanBronzeAge (n. 124),580-4. (Cambridge,1994),307-8; Shelmerdine


and S478,U490 and U514;see TABLE4.4). At certainsitesoccupied in otherperiodssome thattheywereoccupied forus to be confident was found,butinsufficient Mycenaeanpottery at thattime (K414B, 1^515,Mi72, M322,N418,R425, R3025,U520). In addition,thereare isolatedfindsofMycenaeanpottery(ls 10083,10112,10179,10493,!O7o8,10815,10824,IIIO75 sites(U3006,Q3009,R3025). 12503)and threeOut-of-area' In one case, the Menelaion ridge (Q360), excavations confirmactual continuityof at theend ofLH III B,or ratherin habitationfromMH downto a large-scalefiredestruction LH III B2-C Earlyphase,apparently followedbybriefand partialreoccupation a transitional in early LH III C.126At the other sites,known only fromsurfacematerial,the typical Mycenaeantableware usuallydates to the middleMycenaeanperiod(LH III A and III B), later.On the butnotdefinitely N410/77), rarelyearlier(a possibleLH II alabastronfragment, withtwo 'out-of-area' sites otherhand,all but threeofthesesites(H45,R424,U490),together in MH much have also Indeed, material, usually greater quantity. yielded (U3006,Q3009), certainMH potterytypeslasted into earlyMycenaeantimes,and on currentevidencewe wouldsuggestcontinuedratherthaninterrupted occupationat thesesites.Certainofour MH sitesappearto havebeen abandoned,perhapsa littlewayintoLH II. Thus theN413complex and M322producednone of the verycommonLH III ceramicssuch as kylikesand deep be dated to LH III.127R457likewise bowls,or,indeed,any sherdthatcould withcertainty LH III. producednothingdistinctively Elsewherein Laconia, severalof the MH sitesshow occupationin early(LH I- II) and while other sites seem to have been newly middle Mycenaean (LH III A-B) times,128 At one extensivelyexcavated site, Agios Stephanos in the Helos plain, established.129 habitationlasted untilearlyLH III C.I3°In her studypublishedin 1982, Demakopoulou LH III Β sites in Laconia estimatedthat only betweennine and sixteenof the fifty-two continuedto be occupiedin LH III C. The Middle and Late LH III G sitesare widelyspread, includingEpidaurosLimeraon thecoast,and Amyklaiand Pellana in the centraland upper AfterLH III C (£.1050BC) thereappears to be a hiatus in Evrotasvalleyrespectively.131 126GAC no. C 1; Catling, 'Menelaion', 24-35; (n· I0^), 16-19;id. and E. A. Catling,'"Barbarian"potteryfromthe Mycenaean settlementat the Menelaion', BSA 76 (1981), 71-82; R. Catling, 'Excavations at the Menelaion: 1985', Λακ. σπουδ. 8 (1986), 205-16, at 207-9; Ε. S. Sherratt, 'Regionalvariationsin potteryofLate HelladicIIIB', BSA 75 (1980), 175-202, at 189. For the revised dating see P. A. Mountjoy, 'The destruction of the palace at Pylos BSA92 (1997),109-37,at no-11, 123. reconsidered', 127 n4.11/1 mightbe therimof an LH III Β basin (FS 294), buttheattribution is uncertain;thealabastron^10/77 could be LH II. M322/67-8 were body sherds of Myc fabric, M322/78a jug fragment,M322 A/187a large wheelmade bowl;noneneed implyoccupationin LH III. C 37,C 39, C 58; theseall continueintoLH III. Sitesknown onlyfromsurveyand withevidenceforbothMH and LH III maywellhavebeen occupiedin theinterim period:C 7, C 12, C 18-21,C 26, C 30, C 32, C 57 (?), C 62 (?). On thesefigures, some43 percentofsitescontinuein use.

For Myc Laconia in general,see GAC,are new foundations. especially GAC 107 ff.with map C; PL i and ii; Bintliff, chs 3-4; Cartledge, SL 40-5, 60-73; NaturalEnvironment, Dickinson(n. 61), 112-14.For recentGreekexcavations,see Th. G. Spyropoulos, A. Delt.36 (1981),Chr. ι, 111-13,126-9, 130-1, and A. Delt. 37 (1982), Chr. ι, 111-12,127-30. For recentpublicationsof earlierfinds,see W. D. E. Coulson, 'Mycenaean potteryfromLaconia in the collectionof the American School of Classical Studies at Athens', in Φίλολάκων, 87-94; K. Demakopoulou, 'Some early MycenaeanvasesfromAsopos,Laconia', ibid.95-107. ■3°GACno. C 17. P. A. Mountjoy,'The LH ΠΙΑ pottery fromAyiosStephanos,Laconia', in Frenchand Wardle(n. 54), 185-91,at 186; Mountjoy(n. 126),123;Dickinson(n. 61), 114η. 33. 131For LH III C Laconia, see K. Demakopoulou, To μυκηναϊκον Ιερόν στο Άμυκλαΐον και ή ΥΕ ΠΙΓ of Athens, περίοδοςστη Λακωνία'(Ph.D. diss.,University 1982),withfig.1 (map); P. A. Cartledge,'EarlyLakedaimon: themakingofa conqueststate',in Φϋιολάκων,49-55, at 51;

c 33, c 34 (?), c 36, c 40-5, c 47-8 (?), c 49, c 59-61, c 63. in LH II (nos C 8, C 14, Includingprobablenew foundations C 35 (?),C 38, C 56), some57 per centofsites,on thebasis of

der MykenischenKommission, 17; (Veröffentlichungen Vienna,1998),92-8.

128G^CnoS

C q-4, C II, C 16-17, C 24, C 27, C 2Q, C Qc: (?)

I29GAC nos C 2, C b, C 13, C 15, C 22-3, C 25, C 28 (?), C 31,

Dickinson (n. 61), 114; B. Eder, Argolis,Lakonien,Messenien:vom Ende der mykenischen Palastzeit bis zur Einwanderungder Dorier

144 Chapter4

or 'Laconian Dark occupationin thewholeof Laconia down to £.950,whenProtogeometric to at and one or In two other sites.132 our Age' pottery begins appear Amyklai surveyarea, the 133 first IronAge findsdo notdatebefore£.700. SETTLEMENT

(ILL.

4.3,

TABLE

4.4)

The distribution ofLate Helladic sitescompareswellwiththatin theprecedingperiod,since halfofthemor morehave also producedmaterialofMiddle Helladic typesand are similarly situatedon the Neogene and limestonedepositsin the southernpart of the surveyarea.134 part,apartfromH45downbytheEvrotas.To Againthereare no certainsitesin thenorthern the sitesabove the Loutsoremavalley(R292,S434, S478) is now added R424, close to the modernroad to Chrysapha.Two more are foundedin the centralChrysaphabasin (U490 and U514;also Out-of-area5 siteU3006).The low,broad hillofU490, Panagia Ghrysaphitissa in EH a in the historicalperiod, was to become II, previouslyoccupied major settlement in ha some times.135 here 7.0 reaching Byzantine Mycenaeanoccupation appearsto havebeen scattered an area ha the few surface finds over of £.0.1 limited, (areas AM, AN, AQ, being AX). AnotherLH sitewithoutMH finds,H45 Geladári,is exceptionalin beingsituatedin the morenorthern partofthe studyarea; it lies on gentlyslopingfieldsby the Evrotasriverand commandsa routeto the north.This sitewas also firstoccupied in EH II and was to see extensiveoccupationin latertimes;Mycenaean surfacefindsare fewin number,if rather fromMH to LH we mightpointout widelydispersed.Againsttheoveralltrendofcontinuity thatthe'acropolis'N413was abandonedin theearlyMycenaeanperiodand thatthenewsites (H45,R424,U490, U514,U3006) tend to occupy shallowspursor flattishhill tops withno defensivepotential;onlyQ3009 is protectedby a steepbluffand a gully,and even thissite couldhardlybe calleddefensive. The acropoleisoftheMenelaionand R291(perhapsreduced in size- no LH pottery was recordedfromR292)continue. sparsein the surveyarea. Even whenwe are reasonably Mycenaeanmaterialis altogether sureof a site,the concentrations are usuallythin.Amongthe exceptionsto thisis the newly founded 'out-of-area'site of Melathriá (Q3009), not far south of the surveyarea. The locatedby theLaconia Surveyon fairlygentleslopesin a corridorlinkingSkoura settlement, withthe Chrysaphabasin,belongswitha groupof six chambertombsthatwas excavatedin 1966.13βThe spreadof the fairamountof surfacepotteryis sharplydefinedby thelie of the land and coversroughly0.7 ha. ConsequentlyMelathriaseemsto be at theupperend ofthe scale of sitesizes;theMenelaionapart,sitesin the surveyarea are small(0.2 ha or less),and onlythe 'out-of-area'sitesQ3009 and U3006 (0.6 ha?) could be describedas villages.The belowthat alreadyobservedfortheMH period,oftwolevelsofsettlement pattern,therefore, in LH III; the can also be distinguished of theprimarycentre(sc. 'village'and 'farmstead'), SE oftheMenelaion,thesmaller fiveand tenkilometres 'villages'Q3009and U3006lie roughly and thatthe 'village'at N413mayhavebeen suppressed, R291about5 kmNE.Note,however, On the other thatR291is reducedin size. The remainderof our siteswould be farmsteads. 132W. D. E. Coulson, 'The dark age potteryof Sparta', BSA 80 (1985), 29-84; id., 'The dark age potteryfrom Sparta,II: Vrondama',BSA 83 (1988),21-4; P. G. Calligas, 'From the Amyklaion',in Φιλολάκων, 31-48, at 40-6; Cartledge(n. 131),51-5; Eder (n. 131),99-113.. •33See Chapter5. 134 see also Cavanagh(n. 113),84-7. Forwhatfollows,

I35LS'û. 430-1,ill. 24.58.

136GACno. C 5; W. G. CavanaghandJ. H. Crouwel, inLaconia', a smallMycenaean ruralsettlement 'Melathria: in Φιλολάκων, 'Μυκηναϊκον 77-86;K. Demakopoulou, Arch. νεκροταφειονΜελαθριαςΛακωνίας', Eph.1977, 29-60 (tombs).


hand, the variousisolatedfindspotsof Mycenaean potterymay be regardedeitheras the activities of some sort,or all thatremainsof sitesthathave been totally residueofsubsidiary lostto erosion.137 As in the Middle BronzeAge, thereis one primarysettlement: the Menelaion (Q360) on cornerofour the chain ofhillsrisingsteeplyabove the Evrotasvalleyin the south-western studyarea. Mycenaean surfacematerial covered an area as large as that of MH finds (some 20-25 ha), while being much greaterin quantity(areas Α-D, F-G, J-L, Q, AB, AD- AI, AL- AM). Excavations,firstin 1909 and then in 1973-82,have broughtto light extensivebuildingremains,datingto LH II B-III Ai and LH III B2. There can be little doubt thatthe variousareas of settlement, severelydamaged by erosionas theynow are, - the resultof a processof concentrationthathad apparently formeda singlecommunity startedin MH.^8 The spacingofsitesvariessubstantially, as a lookat thedistribution map willshow(ILL.4.3). Sitesmaybe isolated(H45),whileothersare in clusters(R292and R424,U490 and U514are in LH - as in MH - is farlessdensethanin EH sitedistribution 250-300m apart).Altogether, II (thoughin thesurveyarea thereis no siteofthatperiodto matchtheMenelaionin extent); on thefaceofit,thisindicatespermanentMycenaeanhabitationon onlya smallscale.Apart fromsettlementsites,the Laconia Surveymay have located the remainsof Mycenaean chambertombsat thefootoftheMenelaionridge(Q360,area E), recallingthegroupofsuch tombsfromMelathria(Q3009). Elsewherein Laconia, severaloftheMH sites,suchas Kouphovouno,Amyklai, Palaiopyrgi, - and and AgiosVasileios- one hour'swalkapart on a seriesof hillsin the Evrotasvalley139 AgiosStephanosin the Helos plain,had alreadybeen occupiedin MH, ifnot in EH. In the showremarkablelongevity surveyarea we have seen thatquite smallsitescan, nevertheless, and medium size was no (M349,R291,S478,U514(?)), guaranteeof durability(N413).To a such histories can in Mycenaean Laconia: we be elsewhere degree unexpected paralleled MH a centre such as Geraki to have been ofsomesignificance mightexpect possible regional in LH III, butrecentfieldwork has yieldedno certainfindsofthelatterdate.140 On theother characterized a as centre of hand,Amyklai, by Bintliff, debatably, secondaryimportance,141 showsremarkable Othersitesseem to be newlyestablished, such as the complexof tenacity. low hillscomprisingancientSparta.142 In additionto settlements, plentyof LH gravesand cemeterieshave been discovered.Chief among them are the characteristicMycenaean chamberand tholostombs,whileothersappearto be local variantsofthesetypes.143 Pendingmore excavationof settlementsites and more intensivesurfaceresearch,it is difficult to establishnumbersand sizes and to detectpatternsamong the LH sitesin the different of Laconia.144 Howeverthismaybe, certaintypesoffind,likeelaborate sub-regions 137 Cf.thepatternrecently described,fortheNemea valley and thevalleysto theS ofit and Mycenae,byj. L. Davis, 'If there'sroomat thetopwhat'sat thebottom?Settlement and hierarchyin early Mycenaean Greece', BICS 35 (1988), 164-5.Here theexcavatedsiteofTsoungizais theonlyMyc settlementof any large size, while numerousfindspotsof isolatedsherds,locatedbysurvey, clusteraroundit. 130ror erosion on the Menelaion ridge, see Catling, 'Menelaion',29; R. Catling(n. 126),209. 139For walkingdistances,see Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 407.

140'Geraki 3', 72. Accordingly,the oft-repeatedLH III date ascribed to the enceintewall may now be seriously nnestinned. 141Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 407.

'^ ror aparta,see UALno. C 2. 143Dickinson, 'Parallels' (n. 104), 135; id. (n. 61), 112 to findsat Pellana, forwhichsee n. 145 below). (referring Add Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Delt.36 (1981),Chr. 1, 126-31 and at Ansrelona). (chambertombsat SpilákianearAmyklai, 144For a division of Laconia into a dozen or so subsee Shipley,'Perioikos',214-21. regions,based on land-forms,

146 Chapter4

tomb architectureand/or burial gifts,indicatesitesof higherthan average status.Good examplesare the tombsof Pellána and Vapheio, in the upper and middle Evrotasvalley The well-known wealth,no doubtbelonged respectively.145 Vapheiotholos,withitsimpressive in EH and MH times. which had been inhabited withtheprominent hill, already Palaiopyrgi This mustsurelyhave been a large and importantsite, estimatedto cover some 20 ha. only7 km(one hour'swalk)to thesouthis AgiosVasileios,anotherlarge,multiInterestingly, hill period site.146 theLaconia Surveydid notproduceevidencefora clearincreasein thenumber Altogether, of sitesin the Mycenaeanperiod,such as has been noted by surveysin otherpartsof the wereabandonedand othersnewlyfounded. Instead,somesitesapparently Péloponnèse.147 ECONOMY

As in earlierperiods,a mixedagriculturaleconomycan be assumedforthe Late Helladic occupationof the Neogene soils in the surveyarea. Most sites,includingH45 (Geladari) further northin theEvrotasvalley,are welllocatedforarable soils.Such a mixedeconomyis attestedfortheMenelaioncomplex,itselfwithouta lotofgood soilsin itsimmediate explicitly environs:excavationshave yieldedbone refuseof domesticanimals,spinningand weaving and some remainsof lentils,olives,and grapes,as well as storagefacilitiesand implements, at thesite.)148 vessels.(The excavationshave also producedevidenceformetalworking pottery At thisperiodtheMenelaioncomplexmusthave controlleda considerabletractofcultivable land, both in the Parnon hinterlandand in the Evrotas valley below, to support its itwouldstraintheevidencefromtheLaconia Surveyto claimthat Nevertheless, population.149 in the exploitationof the landscape accompanied the rise of a palace changes significant in the Chrysaphabasin occupyan area which,in new settlements the economy.Certainly, fortranshumantshepherdsexploitingParnon. historicaltimes,servedas the kephalochóri forthepalace Moreover,we knowthatin someMycenaeanstateswool flockswereimportant But it would be merespeculationto claim thatsitessuch as U490 and U514 textileindustry. in the survey None of the newlyfoundedsettlements werefoundedto servesuch an end.150 area or nearby(Sparta, Melathria, our U3006) can plausiblybe linkedwith specialized undera palace. production as well as the Mycenaeantable-warepotteryand otherfinds The Menelaionarchitecture, fromthe surveyarea, testifiesto close connectionswithotherparts of Laconia and the in early Péloponnèseat large. There is also evidenceforcontactswithCrete,particularly have Menelaion excavations times. the Thus, yieldedimportedpotteryand a Mycenaean of dressed with reused terracotta porosblocksveryreminiscent figurine, together Minoan-type :45For Pellana (GACno. c 56 Pellanes),see PL ii. 125-7; A. Belt.371 (1982),Chr. 1, 112-13;id., Th. G. Spyropoulos, centreofprehistoric 'Pellana:theadministrative Laconia', in Cavanagh and Walker,28-38. For the Vapheio tholosand the adjacent Palaiopyrgihill (GAC no. C 4), see esp. PL i. 76-8, 80; Spyropoulos(above), 112(recentexplorationson Palaiopyrgi);I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer,'Das Kuppelgrab von Vaphio: die Beigabenausstattung in der Steinkiste. in späthelladischer zur Sozialstruktur Zeit', Untersuchungen JRGZM34 (1987),197-212. 146GACno. c 7; PL i. 80-1. 147See Cavanagh(n. 113),81-7,withtables1-2; Rutter(η. 47), 748, table ι; Shelmerdine(η. 124),õõ1"^ witntable 2;

also A.-L. Schallin,'The Late Helladic period',in Wellsand Runnels, Berbati-Limnes,123-75; Rough and RockyPlace, 52; GreekCountryside, α.^ί.

148Catling, 'Menelaion', 27-8 (animal bones, etc.), 31 (metalworkine·). 149So also Bintliff, Natural Environment, 408-9. '5° On Taygetosthe sitesat Arkines(PL ii. 128-30) and Árna (ibid.; Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Delt.37 (1982),Chr. 1, m- 12)suggestexploitation ofthehighmountain(800 m asl), thoughWace's findof celts(PL ii. 128 and n. 105) hintsat pre-Mycoccupation.


Cretan connectionsare, of course,clearlyapparentin the burial Minoan craftsmanship.151 assemblagefromanothersitein centralLaconia: theVapheiotholos.We can evenpointto an LM III kylixstemrecoveredin thecourseofthesurvey,152 surelya case ofcoals to Newcastle. and tombfindsthroughoutLaconia- and thusincludingour survey Indeed, settlement area showthatformuchoftheLate BronzeAge theprovincewas notonlyquiteprosperous intothewiderMycenaeanworldand,byassociation,intoan economy butalso wellintegrated In thisconnection, infrastructure and a networkof trade.153 whichsupporteda redistributive referencemay be made to quarries in southernLaconia which were firstexploited in and anticorossowere in Mycenaeantimes;the finestoneslaterknownas lapisLacedaemonius demandin bothCreteand theArgolid,to whichtheywereprobablymovedbysea.154 POPULATION

overthe ofBronzeAge siteshas been totallydestroyed, thata proportion We can be confident whatproportion has thereis no reliableway of calculating and lostto archaeology; millennia, Relativefluctuations are less survived,and absolutepopulationestimatesare not possible.155 to argue,in thefairly difficult grosssense,advancedabove,thatthenumberof sitesdiscovered and theirrelativesizes are knownforthe Middle and Late BronzeAge. Even grantedthat wereratheropen in plan duringthe earlierperiod,and moredenselyoccupiedin settlements LH III, it is difficult on thisevidenceto envisagea markedrisein population.Of course,there MH sitesare morelikelyto havesurvived and to havebeen in be some biaswhereby may theory LH III covers butitis hardto imaginewhatsucha bias mightbe. Certainly, foundin thesurvey, but a shorterspan thanthelaterMiddle Helladic and earlyMycenaeanperiodsput together, in our sites the relative difference of at most of the duration time-span occupation given long wouldseemnotto undermineour conclusionthattherewas no dramaticrisein populationin the surveyarea. Thus we have seen above thathabitationat the Menelaionridgecontinued fromMH, and thesameis trueofotherlocationsin thestudyarea. We havealso uninterrupted seen thatLH sites- like those of MH - are not at all numerousand usuallyof small size. ofoccupationat sitesas smallas M349,whichmaywellhavepersistedthrough 500 Continuity is ofcourse,itneednotimplycontinuedoccupationbythesamefamily. years, striking; site'ofMelathria Some notionofthenumberofinhabitants maybe givenbythe'out-of-area a Here the sherd material covered well-defined area of about 0.6-0.7 ha. This could (Q3009). families five members havehousedat mostsomefifteen (of,say, perfamily), probablyfewerthan in small chamber-tomb associated with the six the that; settlement, tombshavebeen cemetery and a maximumpopulationfora siteofthissize. excavated.156 These suggesta minimum 151Catling, 'Menelaion', 28-9, 31-2 with figs. 7, 13; id. (n. 108), 19 with fig. 30; id., 'Minoan and "Minoan" pottery at the Menelaion, Sparta', in D. Evely, I. S. Lemos, and S. Sherratt (eds), Minotaurand Centaur:Studiesin theArchaeology of Creteand Euboea Presented toMervynPopham(BAR int. ser. 637; Oxford, 1996), 70-8; R. L. N. Barber, 'The origins of the Mycenaean palace', in Φίλολάκων, 11-23; S. Hood, 'Cretans in Laconia?', ibid. 135-Q, at 137. 152LS1ii, FIG. 13.1./0. 153See esp. Dickinson (n. 61), 112-13. For the Myc (palatial) economy, see recentlyP. Halstead, 'The Mycenaean palatial economy: making the most of the gaps in the evidence', of the CambridgePhilologicalSociety,n.s. 38 (1992), Proceedings 57-86.

•54 PL i. 105-7; υ- XI9? I21? R· A. Higgins, R. Hope Simpson, and S. E. Ellis, 'The façade of the treasury of Atreus at Mycenae', BSA 63 (1968), 331-6; P. Warren, 'Lapis lacedaemonius', in Φίλολάκων, 285-96; C. Gorgoni, I. Kokkinakis, L. Lazzarini, and M. Mariottini, 'Geochemical and pétrographie characterization of "rosso antico" and other grey-whitemarbles of Mani (Greece)', in M. Waelkens, N. Herz, and L. Moens (eds), AncientStones:Quarrying,Trade and Provenance (Leuven, IQQ2), 155-66. 155Though note the work in Messenia, where the Linear Β tablets help; see J. Bennet, 'Space through time: diachronic perspectives on the spatial organization of the Pylian state', in Laffineurand Niemeier (n. 105), ii. 587-602. 156See n. 136.

148 Chapter4

In otherpartsofLaconia, populationmaywellhave been increasingin LH, tojudge from and whatis knownoftheirsize.AfterLH III Β or earlyLH thenumberofsitesand cemeteries III C thepopulationleveldeclinedthroughout it seems,by to be followed, Laconia, eventually a periodofvirtualdepopulation. SOCIO-POLITICAL

AND RELIGIOUS

CONSIDERATIONS

ofthesurveyarea,and ofLaconia as a whole,at thebeginning The socio-political organization As forotherpartsofthePéloponnèse, thisis a oftheLate BronzeAge is notwelldocumented. ofthedistinct, Cretantimeofincreasing contactswithMinoan Creteand oftheintroduction influenced, By the LH II A period,centresof wealthand earlyMycenaeanpotterystyles.157 in theEvrotasvalley,to as Pellana and Palaiopyrgi have been established at such places power tomb architecture and/or burial from their elaborate gifts.The Vapheio tholos, judge of an with the latter testifies to the existence associated site, earlyMycenaeanwarriorélite in Messenia and theArgolid.158 knownalso fromburialselsewhere, and particularly in Anothersuchcentreofpower Laconia was situatedon theMenelaionridgein our survey not by tombsbut by a seriesof buildings,includingthe monumental area. It is represented mansionsI and II on theMenelaionhillitself, (The datingto LH II Β and III Ai respectively159 reused dressedporos blockswill have belonged to an otherwiselost structureantedating laid out, consisting of threeparallelunitsseparatedby mansionI.) Mansion I was carefully The centralunitwas ofmegarontype,itsmainhallprecededbyan anteroomand a corridors. court.There is evidenceforan upperstorey, porchwhichopened onto a (largelydestroyed) and somewallsweredecoratedwithpaintedplaster. The ambitiousbuildingprojectsofLH II B-III Ai on theMenelaionand adjacentAëtoshills findparallelsof similardate at sitessuchas Nichoriain Messeniaand Tirynsin theArgolid. of The plansofa buildingat Tirynsand ofmansionI at theMenelaionare clearlyprototypes thecentralpartsofthemuchlargerpalacesofTiryns,Mycenae,and PylosofLH III B.l6° and Thanksto the Linear Β tablets,we knowthatthesepalaces servedas administrative It is verylikelythatthe Menelaion complexand as well as culticcentres.161 redistributive as regionalcentresby the fifteenth centuryBC. The PalaiopyrgiVapheioalreadyfunctioned model and of of a house or a of few female terracotta sanctuary figurines fragments recovery to recognizean It is more difficult at the Menelaionpointto religiouspracticesas well.162 withinits catchmentin the impactof the rise of the Menelaion on subsidiarysettlements

157See Dickinson, Origins(n. 104), 90-1 (Laconia); id., Origins' (n. 106); id. (n. 61), 112 (Laconia); also Demakopoulou(n. 129)(LH I and II A Laconia). It has been suggestedthatthe LH I potterystyleactuallyoriginatedin thispartof the Péloponnèse;see Rutterand Rutter(n. 112), 63-4;Jones(n. 120),441 (withC. B. Mee). 158 I. Kilian-Dirlmeyer, 'Beobachtungen zu den von Mykenaiund zu den Schmuckbeigaben Schachtgräbern JRG^M 34 (1986),159-98;ead. mykenischer Männergräber', (n. 145). ■59 For what follows,see Catling,'Menelaion', 28-32; id. (n. 108), 16-18; id., Some Problems in Aegean Prehistory

BC (J.L. MyresMemorialLectures,14; Oxford, 0.1450-1380 Hausarchitektur 1989), 7-10; also G. Hiesel, Späthelladische (Mainz am Rhein,1990),134-5;Barber(n. 151),11-13. 160K. Kilian, 'L'architecture des résidencesmycéniennes:

origineet extensiond'une structuredu pouvoirpolitique pendantl'âge du bronzerécent',in E. Lévy (ed.), L· Système

palatial en Orient,en Grèceet à Rome (actesdu colloquede Strasbourg

ig-22juin ig8j) (Leiden,1987),203-17;id., 'The emergence ofwanax ideologyin theMycenaeanpalaces', OJA7 (1988), 291-302; Hiesel (n. 159), 133-8, 246, 249; Barber (n. 151); McDonald and Wilkie(n. 112);also Shelmerdine(n. 124), 558-9. For an overviewof the LH II B-III Ai period,see H. W. Catling,SomeProblems (n. 159). 161 See esp. Halstead(n. 153). 162 Catling, 'Menelaion', 31-2; id., Ά Late Bronze Age house- or sanctuary-modelfromthe Menelaion, Sparta', BSA 84 (1989), 171-5.The Laconia Surveycollectedone or on theMenelaion twofragments ofMyc terracotta figurines: see ridge(Q360, area A) and at Geladari (H45)respectively, LS il 189,SF56-8.


surveyarea. SitesN413and M322bothdeclineat aboutthetimemansionI is built,so thatitis to interpret the collapseof thissubsidiaryacropoliscentreand its satellite(?) as a tempting of the Menelaion's rise. Equally,giventhe close controlthatthe Mycenaean consequence to have exercised over theirimmediateterritories, centresseem the foundationof new settlements can hardlyhave takenplace withouttheircognizance. Nevertheless,central controlseemsto haveoperatedlargelythroughpre-existing settlements and centres.163 Byway Bennethas proposeda three-tier ofcomparison, ofsitesin thePylosregion:(1)large hierarchy - theMenelaionwouldstandat thetop ofsucha group;(2) ca middletierofsitesof2 ha sites or smaller'- thismightencompassR291 and the cout-of-area5 sitesQ3009 Melathriaand U3006;and (3) thebottomend,whichwouldcomprisetherestofour sites.164 The Menelaionseemsto have gone intodeclineafterLH III Ai withthe abandonmentof mansionII, therebeingno tracesofLH III A2-Bi architecture. This is preciselythetimewhen Mycenaean culturegenerallywas at its height.Laconia, too, appears to have been quite witha proliferation ofsettlement sitesand cemeteries.165 The Surveyhas collected, prosperous, at the Menelaion and othersites,fragments of potterytypesfallingwithinthe LH III A-B datableto LH III A2-Bi comesfromthecemeterybelongingwith morefirmly range.Pottery 'out-of-area' siteQ3009Melathria.166 At the Menelaion, excavationshave produced ample evidence forrenewed building in LH III B2.167 activities terraceand a largebuilding Thus,on Aëtoshillarosea monumental withpaintedplaster.Anotherbuilding(mansionIII or 'Dawkins5House'), on the Menelaion hill,clearlyhad an administrative function,to judge fromjar sealingswithmultiple-seal and of impressions fragments largestoragestirrup jars.168 It has been suggestedthatat thistimethe Menelaioncomplexwas the chiefsettlement in In thisconnection,attentionhas been drawn the centralpart of Laconia, if not beyond.169 to itsnaturally location.It commandsa wide viewhighabove the particularly well-protected Evrotasvalleyand withtheParnonmountainrangein itsback,and is therefore moresecure thantheseriesofhillsitesat Sparta,Amyklai, and in Vasileios the centreof Palaiopyrgi, Agios thevalley170 while the Menelaion was an administrative in centre However, clearly important LH III B2 as in earlierMycenaeantimes,it is notclearexactlyhow fardownintotheEvrotas valleyits authorityextended.Here the interestsof the Menelaion communitymay have clashedwiththoseofAmyklai, knownas a hillsitesanctuarybut recently called a previously centre on the basis of the LH excavation of a of III A-B palatial brieflyreported group 163See J. Bennet, 'The structureof the Linear Β administration at Knossos',AJA89 (1985),231-49;id. (n. 155). 164 Bennet(n. iÔ, SQS-6. 165 See GAC 107 ff. with map C; PL ii. 170-3; Demakopoulou(n. 131),102;Dickinson(n. 61),112-13. 166 Demakopoulou(n. 136),47-^8. 167For whatfollows,see Catling,'Menelaion', 33; H. W. Catling(n. 108),16-18. 168R. M. Dawkins, 'The Mycenaean city near the Menelaion',BSA 16 (1909-10),4- 11,at 9- 11,fig.5 and pl. 3 = CMS ν suppl. i B, no. 348; BSAAR 1989-90, 25 (another sealing,fromtherecentexcavations).Cf. also the seal found in a dumpof LH III B2 date,but includingearliermaterial: Catling,'Menelaion',14; CMS ν suppl.i B, no. 339). Two of the coarse-ware stirrup jars appear to have been in or nearChania in Crete;see H. W. Catling, manufactured

J. F. Cherry,R. E.Jones, and J. T. Killen, 'The Linear Β inscribedstirrup jars and westCrete',BSA 75 (1980),49-113, at no, nos 107-8 (SM 1-2);Jones (η. ΐ2θ), 489 withtables 6.10b, nos 107-8, and 6.12. For mansion 3 ('Dawkins's House'), see also Hiesel (n. 159),131-4,249. 169Forwhatfollows, see Catling,'Menelaion',28, 34-5 (JC is mostgratefulto Dr Catlingforallowinghim to read the textofhislecture,'Wherewas MycenaeanSparta?',givenat the Mycenaean Seminar,London, 15Jan. 1992); Bintliff, NaturalEnvironment, 403-14; Cartledge,SL 65-6, 338; id. (n. 131),51; Demakopoulou(n. 131),103. 170None of these or otherLaconian sitesseems to have had fortifications in Myc times.It is onlyat theacropolissite of Geraki (GAC no. C 12) that the defenceshave- almost - been thoughtto go back to this certainlyincorrectly period;see now 'Geraki3', 72.

150 Chapter4

On presentevidence,then,it is chambertombsand buildingremainsof similardate.171 to decidewhethertherewas anysinglecentralplace in Laconia comparableto Pylos difficult in LH III Β Messenia.Otherpossiblerivalsin centralLaconia rangefromAgiosVasileiosat end. to Pellanaat itsnorthern thesouthend oftheEvrotasfurrow other thataffected Our surveyarea- and therestofLaconia- did notescapethedifficulties BC onwards. from the later thirteenth Greece as a whole and of the century Péloponnèse parts oftheMenelaioncomplexweredestroyed Excavationhas shownthatthebuildings byfirein late At three LH III B2/III G Earlyphase,and not rebuilt.172 LH III B, or ratherin a transitional a characterized are of brief there on the Menelaion locations by reoccupation, signs ridge to earlyLH III G and by the appearance of so-calledDarkMycenaeanpotteryattributed not onlyby itsnew surfacedHandmadeBurnishedor 'Barbarian'ware.This is distinguished if even it is probablylocallymade.173 butalso by itsshapesand (plastic)decoration, technology ofthiswarehavebeen recognizedin otherpartsofmainlandGreece,thefind Smallquantities contextsrangingfromLH III B2 to LH III C. So far,no convincingargumentshave been letaloneDorians.174 as evidenceforforeign thisnewpottery forregarding immigrants, presented oftheMenelaionbuildingsmusthavemarkedthebreak-upofthepolitical The destruction systemin the Laconia Surveyarea, and in those parts of the Evrotas valley that were controlledby the Menelaion complex.Accordingto excavationand surfaceresearch,the surveyarea was desertedcompletelyafterearlyLH III G, sometimein the earliertwelfth centuryBG.This indicateshow closelythe historyof Mycenaeanoccupationin the area was boundto thatofthecentreat theMenelaion.A similarpicturehas been revealedbysurveyin theregionofthepalace of Pylosin Messenia,whichwas also destroyed by fireat theLH III and the concomitant Nemea B-G transition.175 the Tsoungiza Valley survey Equally, excavations in Korinthia, as well as the Berbati-Limnes surveyin the Argolid, have - and collapseof the largercentresof the demonstrated close linkswiththe development north-eastern Péloponnèse,and Mycenaein particular.176 In the Laconia Surveyarea, findsreappeararound700 BG,whenthe one-timesettlement site of the Menelaion sees the foundationof a shrinearound a naturaloutcrop.By being thatthereis indeeda gap in the Laponia Surveyhas demonstrated intensiveand systematic, On presentknowledge, havedone forotherpartsofmainlandGreece.177 as surveys habitation, thatsitesand potterypreciselyofthisintervening theprobability period as ofEH III have seemssmall. missedor goneunrecognized been systematically 171GAC no. c 3. Th. G. Spyropoulos,A. Belt. 36 (1981), Chr. 1, 126-9 (localitySpilakia). For LH III A-B material fromearlierexcavationsat the site,see Demakopoulou (n. 131),54, 66, 70-1;Dickinson(n. 61),113n. 31. 172Sherratt(n. 126),189,201-2;K. Kilian,'Zum Ende der mykenischenEpoche in der Argolis',JRG^M 27 (1980), 166-95; id., 'La caduta dei palazzi micenei: aspetti dei Greci(Rome, archeologici',in D. Musti (ed.), Le origini iq80, 7^-1Ie»;and see nowMountiov(η. 126). I73Η. W. Catling and Ε. Α. Catling (η. 126); Ι. Κ. Whitbread,'Pétrographieanalysisof barbarianware from theMenelaion,Sparta',in Φιλολάκων,297-306. 174jHOr recentdiscussion,seej. b. Kutter,bornecomments on interpretingthe dark-surfacedhandmade burnished potteryofthe 13thand 12thcent.BCAegean',JMA 3 (1990), 29-49; D. B. Small, 'Handmade burnished ware and Aegean economics:an argumentforindigenous prehistoric

appearance', ibid. 3-25; id., 'Can we move forward? Commentson the currentdebateoverhandmadeburnished ware'. IMA 10 (1007).22Q-w. 175 Davis etal, 'PylosΓ, 422-4,451-3. 176Wrightet al, 'Nemea', 641; Μ. Κ. Dabney, 'Craft as an economicindicatorof sitestatus productconsumption in regional studies',in R. Laffïneurand P. P. Betancourt

in the and Craftsmanship Craftswomen (eds), Τέχνη: Craftsmen, Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedingsof the 6th InternationalAegean 18-21 April igg6) Philadelphia, Temple University, Conference,

(Aegaeum,16; Liège, 1997),467-71 (Tsoungiza);Schallin(n. 173;B. Wellsand 147),in Wellsand Runnels,Berbati-Limnes, ibid.453-7,at 457. C. Runnels,'Some concludingremarks', 177 , 041; Greek 372-3; Wells Countryside, Wrightetal, JNemea and Runnels(n. 176),457; Davis etai, 'PylosΓ, 424, 451-2; Bintliff and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition',139. But cf.

Roughand RockyPlace, 53-4.

5

THE SURVEY AREA FROM THE EARLY IRON AGE TO THE CLASSICAL PERIOD {c.1050-^.300bc) R. W.V.Catling1 This CHAPTER coversa periodforwhich,at least in its latterstages(£.550-360),thereis a relativeabundanceofevidencefromliterary sources,coincidingwitha timewhenSpartawas a leading politicaland militarypower in a regionmuch wider than Laconia or even the Péloponnèse.Therehas been a correspondingly largevolumeofresearchdevotedmainlyto its and social whose elucidation proves to be a continuing political, institutional, history, to historians. The contribution of challenge archaeologicalevidenceto thestudyofSpartaand from the fifth Laconia, especially centuryon, has been surprisingly slight.The reasonforthis is that remains from this are ratherscarce (in Sparta neglect partly archaeological period overlain of the hellenistic to middle largely by deposits Byzantineeras) and, witha few are features of the exceptions, inconspicuous contemporarylandscape. But much more left no cultural significantly, Sparta great legacy in the formof monumentalbuildings, and the other material arts to match thoseofitsgreatrivalAthensor otherleading sculpture, centressuchas Argos,Corinth,or Thebes. In thiscontext,the surveyhas been important in one of the few bodies of data for the studyof archaic and providing large archaeological in itsway as thepioneeringworkof Britisharchaeologists classicalLaconia, as important in thecityofSpartaat thebeginning ofthetwentieth century. This chaptersetsout to describein detailthe evidenceforsettlement, land use, and other in thesurveyarea. Beyondthat,itpointsto someofthewaysin which formsofhumanactivity thesurveydata can be understood to relatechangesin patternsofsettlement and byattempting land use to theirhistorical contextand by placingthemagainsta widerregionalbackground to in thetext).Close attention is givento evaluationofthetypes (see ILL.5.1 forplacesreferred ofsettlements and, as faras is possiblewithsurfacefinds,ofthematerialassemblages, relating 1I shouldliketo thankthe directorsof the W. G. survey, Cavanagh and J. H. Crouwel, for allowing me to participate in the original fieldworkand subsequently forthestudyand publicationofthe givingme responsibility archaic to classical pottery,as well as the writingof the presentchapter.In thelattertaskI have benefitedfromthe valuable suggestionsand criticismof the same two and of my thirdfellowauthor,D. G. J. Shipley. I have greatly appreciated their encouragement and patience in the course of its long gestation,due in large part to my own deficiencies,but made no easier by workingforthe past elevenyearsin an academic environment in whichthereis no provisionforresearchleave. My greatregretis thatmy so muchto the mother,ElizabethCatling,who contributed

illustration of the potteryin volumeII of the surveyreport, did not live to see completion of its publication. I am indebted to several scholars for providing information about theirown fieldwork and forgenerouslyallowingme to consulttheirwritingsin advance of publication:Susan Alcock,John Bintliff, Cyprian Broodbank,and Jeannette and Björn Forsén. I am also gratefulto David Hibler, Robin Osborne, Ioannis Pikoulas,and Eleni Kourinoufor readingand commentingon a finaldraftof thischapter.I am gratefulto the GoverningBody of Lincoln College, Oxford, the Craven Committee,and the Committeefor of Oxford Archaeology(Meyerstein Fund) in theUniversity forgrantsthatmade it possibleforme to take part in all sevenyearsoffieldwork and study.

152 Chapter5

L. Farr). territorial boundariesin centralLaconia (D. Miles-Williams, III. 5.1.Toponyms, mainarterialroutes,and hypothetical

Early Iron Age to classical period 153

theseto theirenvironmental The setting(landscape,soils,waterresources,and accessibility). in integrating difficulties the archaeologicalrecordwithhistoryderivedfromliteraryand sourcesinevitably mean thatthe historicalinterpretation of the surveydata is documentary if The has been to a range of advance rarely, ever,straightforward. general approach firm in alternative often without at conclusion favour ofone or the explanations, arriving any other.Whilein somerespectsunsatisfactory, suchcautionis reasonablewhereso muchremains uncertain or unknownand wherecomparative data are largelyor whollylacking. Forthesakeofconvenience, thislongperiodis dividedintofoursub-periods, which,witha fewminordifferences, culturaldivisionsused in Greek correspondcloselyto theconventional archaeologyand history:the Early Iron Age (£.1050-700BC), the early archaic period classical(£.600-450BC),and theclassical(£.450-300BC). (^.700-600BC),thelaterarchaic-early The Early

Iron Age (c. 1O5O-£.7OO bg) Ifitis no longerquiteappropriate to referto thisperiodas a DarkAge in otherpartsofGreece, thetermremainsapt to Laconia and thecentraland western In Laconia therewas Péloponnèse. desertion ofsitesoccupiedduringtheLate BronzeAge,and isolation fromtheleading widespread culturaldevelopmentsoccurringin the Aegean. In the plain of Sparta the breakwiththe oftheprimesettlement fromtheMenelaionto the Mycenaeanpastis markedby therelocation low groundaroundtheacropolisofSparta.Dependingon thechronology adoptedforLaconian it is that even at and there Protogeometric pottery, probable Sparta Amyklai mayhavebeen no substantial settlement beforethesecondhalfofthetenthcentury.2 In thisrespectthearchaeological evidenceis at oddswiththelatertraditions, whichplacedthearrivaloftheHerakleidaiand the of dual several aftertheTrojanwar.On a morepositivenote, origin Sparta's kingship generations it is worthstressing the apparentculturalhomogeneity withinLaconia fromthe earlieststage, the existence of links its scattered communities. Itscultural relations suggesting uniting laywithina WestGreekkoine, the western North-West and the Ionian islands. Greece, embracing Péloponnèse, Contactsseemto havebeenprimarily directed towardstheneighbouring of Messenia and regions southern close in in involvement these areas later maritime Arkadia,3 prefiguring Sparta's periods; linkswiththeoutsideworldwouldappearto havebeenminimal. Evidenceforcloserrelations with thewiderGreekworldis foundonlyfromthemid-eighth at a time it is when, century, generally thought, Spartabeganitsterritorial expansion beyondthebordersofLaconia.4 The surveyhas, in a negativesense,amplyconfirmed thisimageof a 'Dark Age' Laconia. There is no indicationof occupationin thisperiodwithinthesurveyarea, evenin theeighth whensignsof settlement century growthmighthave been anticipated.Not a singlesherdcan be ascribedto thisperiodofsomethreehundredand fifty that years.It is especiallynoteworthy thelargestsite(A118),consideredin latertimesto have been a perioikictown,was apparently notsettledat thisdate.The onlytraceofactivity in thesurveyregioncomesfromexcavations at thetwolargestcultsites,theMenelaion(Q360)and thesanctuary ofZeus Messapeus(N415), and is confined to theveryend oftheeighthcentury.5 The possibility thatthematerialevidence 2

Cartledge,SL 83-90; W. D. E. Coulson, 'The darkage potteryof Sparta',BSA 80 (1985),29-84, at 63-6; B, Eder,

Palastzeitbis Argolis,Lakonien,MessenienvomEnde dermykenischen zur Einwanderung der Dorier (Veröffentlichungen der

Kommission,17;Vienna,1998),99-113. Mykenischen 3 Cartledge,SL 92 ff.,112;Eder (n. 2), 100-2. 4 Cartledge,SL 102ff.The date ofthefirstMessenianwar

is reviseddown to thefirsthalfof the 7thcent,in V Parker, 'The datesoftheMessenianwars',Chiron, 21 (1991),25-47. 5 Menelaion: (H. W.) Catling,'Menelaion', 35; R. W. V fromthe Catling,Ά votivedepositofseventh-century pottery Menelaion',in Φίλολάκων,57-75.Zeus Messapeus:(H. W.) Catling, 'Messapian Zeus', 34. Subsequent studyof the has produceda fewLG sherds. pottery

154 Chapter5 forthis period has not been recognized mustbe discounted. Protogeometricand Late GeometricLaconianpotteryare normallyverydistinctive and, had theybeen present,should in identification.6 have providedno difficulties The conclusionmustbe eitherthatthe survey area was inhabitedin sucha wayas to leavefewmaterialtracesor,morelikely, thatthiswas an era ofextremesettlement with the in nucleation, populationofthe Spartaplain concentrating thearea of Spartaitselfand at Amyklai.The size ofthispopulationmusthavebeen relatively ofProtogeometric and Late Geometricpottery overthesite small,thoughthewidedistribution of Spartashouldbe a warningagainstunderestimating the numbersof itsinhabitants. Most likelythefourvillages(κώμαι)ofclassicalSpartahad theiroriginsin thisformative period.The location of the site in low-lyinggroundand the absence of defensivewalls indicatethat was notthereasonforthisconcentration ofhabitation. insecurity Withonlytheabsenceofevidenceto workon, one can butspeculateabout thesurveyarea in thisperiod.It is likelythattheforestnaturalto muchof theuplandsquicklyreestablished itselfat theend oftheLate BronzeAge: deciduousoak in theschistarea ofthenorth,maquis overtheNeogeneofthesouthand east.Agriculture was probablyrestricted to the vegetation plainofSparta,leavingthehillsas thepreserveofhuntersand herdsmen.The narrowstripof theplainon theeastsideoftheEurotaswas presumably farmedfromSparta. foundin thesurveyarea is typicalofmostpartsofGreeceuntilthe By and large,thesituation finalphase oftheEarlyIronAge. This was characterized of a few,often by thepredominance thebulkofthepopulation, locatedin widelyspaced,nucleatedsettlements, apparently containing an underpopulated come as an So it should no that area so close to twoof landscape.7 surprise theseearlynucleatedsites(Sparta and Amyklai)remaineduninhabiteduntilthe mid-eighth ofsettlement centuryFromthemiddleoftheeighthcentury divergent patterns beginto emerge in variouspartsof Greece.In manyareas therewas an expansionof settlement, apparently an increasein thenumberofnucleatedsites,beginning accompanying risingpopulation, through theprocessoffilling thevacantspacesoutsidethecatchment oftheearliestsettlements. Forthe mostpartthesewerethesitesthatwereto evolveintothecentralplacesand subordinate villages In a fewplaces,therewas a notableexpansionofdispersed ofthearchaicand classicalperiods.8 in thisperiod(suchas in theBerbativalleyin thehinterland ruralsettlement oftheArgiveplain, thereare someregionsin whichthereis no and on Melos and Thera).9At the otherextreme, with evidenceforsettlement ofanykindearlierthantheseventhor sixthcenturies.10 Continuity 6 The principal studies of Laconian EIA potteryare Coulson (n. 2), for PG; J. N. Coldstream, GreekGeometric

A Surveyof TenLocal Stylesand theirChronology (London, Pottery:

1968), 212-19, forMG-LG. See also I. Margreiter,Frühe

lakonische Keramikdergeometrischen bis archaischen £eit (10. bis 6.

v.Chr.)(Schriften aus dem Athenaion der Jahrhundert KlassischenArchäologieSalzburg,5; Waldsassen-Bayern, 1988), 19-56, fora morewide-ranging survey.Some of the fromtombsat Amyklaiis rather newlydiscoveredPG pottery less diagnostic, consisting largelyof monochromedecoration metallicsheen. I am gratefulto lackingthe characteristic Elena Zawou forshowingme someofthismaterial. 7Fora wide-ranging ofsettlement, ofregionalpatterns survey see Bintliff, esD.q-io on thelateEIA. 'Regionalsurvey', 8 See and Snodgrass,'Boeotian Expedition', e.g. Bintliff 'Patternand processin thecitylandscapes 139;J. L. Bintliff, of Boeotia fromgeometricto late Roman times', in M. Brunet (ed.), Territoires des citésgrecques:actes de la table ronde

internationale organisée par l'Ecole Françaised'Athènes(ji octobre-^

novembre iggi) (BCH suppl.34; Paris,1999),15-33,at l5~I7'i GreekCountryside, 374; Roughand RockyPlace, 57; Wright et al,

'Nemea', 616-17. 9 G. Ekroth,'The Berbati-Limnesarchaeologicalsurvey: the late geometric and archaic periods', in Wells with Runnels, Berbati-Limnes, 179-227, at 219-22. Melos: M. Wagstaffand J. F. Cherry,'Settlement and population change', in IslandPolity,136-55, at 142-4, with R. W V. Catling'sreviewin CR 98 [n.s. 34] (1984), 98-103. Thera: in 1980. author'sownfieldwork 10 F. J. CherryandJ. L. Davis, 'NorthernKeos in context', in L. G. Mendoni and A. I. Mazarakis Ainian (eds), (Proceedings of an Kea-Kythnos:Historyand Archaeology International 22-25 June igg4) Kea-Kythnos, Symposium, (Μελετήματα,27; Athens,1998),217-26,draw attentionto the absence of EIA settlementin the resultsof intensive in SE Attica,S. Euboia, and NW Keos. surveys


characterizesour surveyarea and perhapsLaconia in the preexisting patternof settlement in the settlement little evidence for theprofound there is where changesthattransformed general, the and of moreadvancedpartsof the north-east Attica,Boiotia, many Aegean Péloponnèse, islands.In thisway Laconia has muchin commonwiththoseareas in whichthe evolutionof was retarded.To whatextentthiswas influenced settlement by Sparta'sconquestof Messenia the for the first Messenian war,butif,as is normally thought, adopted dependson thechronology have substituted for external the warbelongsto thelastquarterof eighthcentury, expansionmay In a later the to much whichcouldbe postponed ofinternalresources, thedevelopment period. sitesin thoseextra-urban oflargecultsitesat theend oftheeighthcentury, including emergence whichhavebeenwidely thesurvey area,itis clearthatSpartawas notisolatedfromdevelopments and thestructures ofthenascentpolis.11 associatedwiththeearlystagesofstateformation The Early

Archaic

Period

(c.700-£.600 bc) The late eighthand seventhcenturiesare a crucialstagein the developmentof the Spartan are normallythoughtto havetaken state.Duringthisperioditspoliticaland socialinstitutions shape, largelyas a response to territorialexpansion in Laconia and Messenia and the acquisitionofextensivearableland workedby a subjectlabourforce(thehelots).At thesame timethe isolationthathad characterizedmostof the EarlyIron Age is brokenand Sparta Furtherterritorial expansion,especiallyto the northand emergesinto the lightof history. in southernArkadiaas well as with its into conflict north-east, neighbours broughtSparta in cultural are reflected Its wider connections developments. Althougha certain Argos. in Laconian whethermaterial manifest itself of to continues culture, manyaspects idiosyncrasy is a much greater there or architecture, Alkman), sculpture)12 literary(Tyrtaios, (pottery, mention of not to awarenessof mainstream and, perhaps,the developments, imports goods wealth of the and other artists. The increased skilled craftsmen of Spartanélite immigration of the first manifests itselfin the dedicationsmade at its sanctuariesand the construction in Messenia and the The of estates prosperity derivingfrom templebuildings.13 acquisition themperhapsengendereda rapidincreasein population. 11A. M. Snodgrass, Archaic Greece:The Age of Experiment (London, 1980), 52-65; F. de Polignac, La Naissance de la cité grecque:cultes,espaceset sociétéVIIIe-VIIe sièclesav. J.-C. (Paris, and the Originsof theGreekCity-state 1984); id., Cults, Territory,

(Chicagoand London,1995). 12On Laconian architecture, see R. A. Tomlinson,'The Menelaion and Spartan Architecture',in Φίλολάκων,

Terracottas from the 247-55; N· A. Winter, GreekArchitectural Prehistoric to theEnd oftheArchaicPeriod(Oxford, 1993), 95-109;

R. W. V. Catling,A fragmentof an archaic templemodel fromArtemisOrthia, Sparta', BSA 89 (1994), 269-75; id., 'ArchaicLakonian architecture:the evidence of a temple see C. M. Stibbe, model',BSA 90 (1995),317-24.On pottery,

LaconianMixingBowls: A Historyof theKraterLakonikos fromthe BC (Laconian Black-glazed Pottery,1; Seventh to theFifthCentury Allard Pierson Series, Scripta Minora, 2; Amsterdam, 1989); id., Laconian DrinkingVesselsand OtherOpen Shapes (Laconian

Black-glazed Pottery,2; Allard Pierson Series, Scripta OilFlasksandOther Minora,4; Amsterdam, 1994);id.,Laconian Closed 3; AllardPierson Shapes(LaconianBlack-glazedPottery, Series,ScriptaMinora,5; Amsterdam, 2000); LS ii. 88. On

sculpture, see J. Boardman, GreekSculpture:The ArchaicPeriod

(London, 1978),25-6, 76, 165; C. M. Stibbe,'Dionysos in Sparta',BA Besch.66 (1991),1-44;J. M. Sanders,'The early LakonianDioskouroireliefs',in ΦίλολΔκων,205-10;papers by Dörig, de la Genière,Palagia, Bonias, Salapata, Hibler, and Delivorriasin O. Palagia and W. D. E. Coulson (eds),

of an International Sculpture fromArcadia and Laconia: Proceedings heldat theAmericanSchoolof Classical Studiesat Athens Conference

10-14,I992) (OxbowMonographs,30; Oxford,1993). (April 13On dedication patterns,see A. M. Snodgrass, The economics of dedication at Greek sanctuaries', Attidel

e vita dei convegnointernazionale Anathema: regimedélie offerte santuari nel mediterrâneo antico, 15-18 giugno 1989 ( = Scienze delVantichità:storia, archeologia,antropologia,3-4; 1989-90),

287-94; S. Hodkinson,'Patternsof bronze dedicationsat Spartan sanctuaries,c.650-350 BC: towardsa quantified in Cavanagh database of materialand religiousinvestment', and Walker,55-63. (Hodkinson, Property, unfortunately appeared too late to be taken into considerationin the ofthischapter.) writing

156 Chapter5 The absence of EarlyIron Age sitesin the surveyarea comes as no greatsurprise,when set against the scarcityof evidence for occupation in the rest of Laconia. However,to theseventhcenturyis somethingofa shock. discoverthatthispatterncontinuedthroughout It would have been natural to suppose that Sparta's expansion outside Laconia was accompanied,if not preceded,by internalexpansionand a more extensiveexploitationof the agricultural resourcesavailablein the immediateneighbourhoodof the city.Apartfrom the twomajor sanctuariesat theMenelaion (Q360) and at Tsákona (Zeus Messapeus,N415), to in the precedingsectionand discussedin greaterdetailbelow,and one alreadyreferred straysherdfroma site near Agioi Saránda (1400), thereis nothingto suggestany change fromthe situationestablished in the previous fourcenturies.There is still no sign of occupationat theperioikictownsiteof Sellasia (A118).As alreadysuggested,an explanation lack ofsettlement forthiscontinuing expansionmaybe soughtin theconquestofMessenia. The possessionof extensivetractsof arable land of the highestquality,combinedwiththe and helotsneeded to workit, perhaps obviatedthe need forthe expansionof settlement ofthe Spartaplain. Even intothearid,marginalland to the east and north-east agriculture thanthosefoundin ifthe soilsin some partsof the surveyarea are not muchless attractive withthe fieldsof the central the Sparta plain, theycannotcomparein extentand fertility Messenian plains, where the wetterclimate of the westernPéloponnèse is yet a further advantage.What is more,therewas no local subjectlabourforceto employin the slowand arduous work of bringinginto cultivationland that had probably revertedto natural vegetationcovercenturiesbefore. Fromthe littlethatis knownof the restof Laconia, thereis nothingto suggestthatthe Withthe exceptionof findsfroma few resultsfromthe surveyarea are unrepresentative. was any morewidespreadin the seventh thereis littleevidencethatsettlement sanctuaries, centurythanit had been in the EarlyIron Age. This appliesas muchto the majorperioikic of our centresas to the restof the rurallandscape.To a largeextentit mustbe a reflection has been these small where there of of the towns, only archaeology inadequateknowledge forexample, excavation.Recentworkat Geráki(ancientGeronthrai), occasionalsystematic has produced the evidence for seventh-century occupation that was hithertolacking.14 Nevertheless,there should be no preconceivedassumptionthat this componentin the and politicalgeographyofLaconia had becomefullyestablishedby this settlement hierarchy a remarkable fact date.Makingall due allowanceforthelack ofexcavation,it is nevertheless thattownssuch as Gytheion,Asopos,EpidaurosLimera,and Boiai shouldhave yieldedno evidenceforoccupationin theseventhcentury.15 in otherpartsof Greece,including as problematic The seventhcenturyhas been identified in thelatereighthcentury16 and exists for where evidence development rapidchange regions whereeasily ofidentifying Partoftheproblemmaylie in thedifficulty seventh-century pottery are and Corinthian as Protocorinthian wares such absent; styles Subgeometric recognizable perhapssurvivedforlongerthan is generallythought,at the same timethatmonochrome in theseventhcenturyare also made more Patternsofsettlement warescame to predominate. ofthebroad term'archaic',foundin a to determineby theunfortunate difficult employment betweenthe seventhand sixth numberof surveyreports,withoutany attemptto distinguish it is clear refinement. of let alone Nevertheless, centuries, any greaterdegree chronological 14'Geraki3', 69-72.

15LS'n. 296, JJ128;310-12, MM230, NN235,NN251.

16See R. G. Osborne,Ά crisisin archaeologicalhistory? The seventhcenturyin Attica',BSA 84 (1989),297-322.


werenotmaintainedand thatthepace and scale ofgrowthdocumentedfortheeighthcentury a characterized a favoured this was that,outside few by instabilityand period regions, to a much more sustained betweenrivalcentres,as a sortof prelude territorial competition The pictureof divergent phase of growthfromthe sixthuntilthe end of the fourthcentury. settlement patternsthathad begun to emergeat the end of the eighthcenturycontinues throughthe seventh,but generallythereseems to have been littleradical change in the createdat thattime.In Boiotia,forexample,thereis no signofanyfurther expansion patterns whilein Atticathenumberof sitesmayactuallyhave beforethesixthcentury,17 ofsettlement contracted.18The main exceptions in what might be termed a phase of settlement On severalislands(notablyMelos and consolidationare in the Argolidand the Cyclades.19 in hamletand farmstead sitesexistedalongside Thera)a highlydispersedpatternofsettlement the urban centresthroughoutthe seventhto early sixthcenturies,thoughit should be When emphasizedthatthebasic patternhad alreadybeen establishedin theeighthcentury.20 in the the lack of settlement this broader growth survey background, continuing against placed whichmaybe typicalofmostofLaconia,becomesratherless area duringtheseventhcentury, in an at first than it sightappeared.All the same,the totalabsence of settlements surprising area of70 sq kmuntilsucha latedateis farfromnormalin thiswidercontext. The Later

Archaic

and Early

Classical

Period

(c.eOO-cAòO bc) The sixthcenturysees a radicalchangefromtheprecedingfourto fivehundredyears,setting Put briefly, it consistsin a shift a patternthatlastsin varyingdegreesto the end of antiquity. to a patternof widespreadsettlement fromnucleatedsettlement dispersionin sitesof small and medium size, rangingfromfarmsteadsto small towns (ILL. 5.2, TABLE5.1). This whosehistorical willbe consideredlater,is setout in detailin what implications phenomenon, the ofthesitesconcerned. with reference tö size,location,and function follows, particular to date and timescaleofthis some must be the of the First,however, thought given question colonization. it is the on which one mustrelyforthe of rural Inevitably pottery process answers.The near-totallack of decoratedpotteryfromthese rural sites(the finepottery almostexclusively ofthelesseasilydatedmonochrome and black-glazed wares),and consisting and worn conditionof what was recovered,precludeany degree of the veryfragmentary Not onlyis thechronology butmostofthedatingevidence refinement. chronological imprecise, If material fromthe smallsitesmaywellbelongto thephase of abandonmentor destruction. of there is a riskof fromtheearliestand intermediary is stages occupation poorlyrepresented, the date of the of rural colonization. the ofsites misled over start had However, being majority earlierin theseventhcentury, been occupiedsignificantly itis hardto believethatitwouldhave leftno trace.In spiteof the uncertainties, the generalimpression is thatthereis verylittle,if that need be earlier than the mid-sixth and much thatbelongsto itssecond century anything, 17Bintliffand Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139;R. G. in theMaking, Osborne,Greece i2oo-4jg BC(Londonand New York,1996),200. 10Osborne (n. 16),303-9; id. (n. 17),200-1. 19Continuingexpansion of townsand villages is most Countryside, 374-7.The same apparentin theS. Argolid:Greek phenomenonis foundon Keos, whereonlyin the 7thcent, was the fullcomplementof primarysettlements established: T. M. Whitelaw and J. L. Davis, 'The polis center of

Koressos',in Landscape Archaeology, 265-81,at 276-8; Cherry and Davis (n. 10),218-19.In otherpartsof the Argolid,the degreeof change seemsto have been minor:Ekroth(n. 9), andRocky Place,57-60. 213,224 (Berbati);Rough 20Melos: Wagstaffand Cherry (n. 9), 142-4, with R. conductedin Catling(n. 9); unpublishedresultsof fieldwork in 1980. 1989(seeAR 1989-90,67). Thera: author'sfieldwork This was also a phase ofnotablesiteabandonments on other Cycladicislands:Osborne(n. 17),200.

158 Chapter5

>/ BI21

/( o(b107

" .··^^

/""

y/ χ

'

K»fa L

y

S '

qA

o^T J^L

site fort> f^11*^» ■ Lar8c

fi-

· Hamlet, offarms cluster A*viüaMargefarm ° Farmstead φ Largesanctuary small 0 Shrine/ sanctuary

><SN· Û J ' αS uaíí / Γ /·' N,H^ Μ Λ1000 ^ Γ'(ί// / DH29/ /;'/ / l^/V* / il' ' '~~s-J (f(/^? β ft J ■·.·/ ^L

' J230

XSpHllß

y^0^"300"^

^, OJ316 Γ

/

'

N312D fC* AF2HS ■ VJbo V J3Í9 Jp^Ss» p27jAÃ -**hP273 P286 DM171 M322 .·/ ' ΛΝ» ,·■■-□■ W4 ^5^

P27 ;^W

> pamm8 öÄäC

( M32sA M347 '

f J 0 1

J*

!>./

* /rC& N3|4 ,JT2 N985 N193

. R420.

N&â?]98/MR296 S r5

-/VW çté^îHV /fáAmn

' ,·

,

/

/

*

k- ' ''

,S521''

R275ASS22Xü*»3Zis434 8458^8459 ^sisS

U493U494

Vîr^/'/àWl

Αϋ4^49ΐΑΑ

^'t51D2

-f

í

- ι

»

5000 ==a Metres ^'^

AU490 ^Νν*^/

classicalsites(D. Taylor). III. 5.2. Late archaic-early

Early Iron Age to classical period 159 LS no.

zone

Large Sites (2)

Bin

Bi Ai

A118

villas(4) Hamlets/large P272 R281 S524 U494

Pi R3 Si Ui

size (ha)

L S

1-37 0-75 0.63 0.50

LAr-ecl LAr-Hl LAr-EGl LAr-Hl

N/L Ν Ν L/S

3 9 5 3

LAr-EGl LAr-ECl LAr-ClByz LAr LAr-Hl LAr-ClByz LAr-ECl LAr-Hl LAr-EClHI EH LAr-cl LAr/Cl LAr-LCl EH LH LAr-R LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EClHI LAr-ECl

Ν Ν Ν Ν L/S S Ν L L/S N/L Ν Ν L L L S Ν

11

ehlarbyz LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr/Cl LAr-ClByz LAr-ECl LAr-EClHI LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EClR LAr-ECl LAr LCI LAr-LCl LAr-Cl LAr-Cl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-Cl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl ;ci MH-LH,LAr-E LAr LCI MHLAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl

Ν N/S Ν L Ν Ν S Ν Ν S S Ν Ν S S S Ν L/S Ν S Ν L

S3

0.30

S527 M328

S3 M4 Ri

0.30 0.28 0.28

U499 H40

U2 H2

0.27 0.25

M347 U491

M5 Ui

T471

T4 Pi P2

0.25 0.25 0.21 0.20 0.20

S4

0.20

S437/440 U490

U3

A3014

A3

5433 J2I3 R420

Singlefarmsteads (64) N312

J224 N314 U3022 J369 N354 C114

S4 J2

N2

0.14 0.13 0.12 O.II 0.10 0.10

Ci

M2

N185 D301

N4 D2 H2

J230 R526 B103 J3i6 K235 P274 R294 S523 D96 N188

5434 C169 M322 N503 N184 N187 P262 R473 R518

0.16 0.15

M171

H29

0.20 0.18 0.18

Ri

J5 N4 U3 J6 N3

J6 R4 B2

J5 K3 Pi R2 S4 D3 N4 S4 C4 Mi N2 N4 N4 P2 R2 R2

slope(degrees)

LAr-EHl LAr-EHl

6.0

S458

P285 P271

soiltype

3-0

Villas /clusters of farmsteads (17)

R275-7

date

0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

s

Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν Ν

6 10

II 3 I I

6 3 ι I

7 5 11

5 6 9 7 2

11

8

9 2

1

14 3 10

18

9 2 2

3 8 7 8 16 11 22 14 29

l9

22 2 12

5 8 1

I

i6o Chapter5 LS no.

zone

size (ha)

S431/432 S459/460 S508 B107

S2 S3 S3 B3 G2

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

GI57 J22I K203 S5O9 U493

J5

K3 S3 Ui B2 P3 T4 U3

BI2I

P279 T512 U53I U3OO6 N183 P268

u4

N4 PS

Ti U3 U3 Ji Ji

T443 U3OOI U3024 J2I9 J22O K200 M194

Ki M2 M4 N5 Pi Pi

M325 N193 P273 P286 P278 R427 S442

O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI O.OI

PS

S4 T3

O.OI O.OI

u4

U3OO3 J223 R461

O.OI

O.OI O.OI O.OI

R2

T484

O.OI

J6 R6

O.OI

< O.OI < O.OI

date

LAr-Cl EH LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-EHl LAr-LCl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr LAr LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-Cl lar-eclhi LAr-ClR LAr-ECl ear-LAr LAr-LCl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr-ECl LAr LAr-ECl LAr-ECl

soiltype

slope(degrees)

Ν Ν Ν L S N/S S Ν L L Ν L L S Ν Ν L L L S S S Ν Ν Ν N/L Ν Ν Ν Ν S S Ν Ν

20

8

18 19 28 15 18 3

10

5 3 !5 6

4 8 2

9 3

2 20

9 ΐ8 7 3 26 2 12 2

ι5 ι 9 9 7 6

Keytosoil types

L Ν S

limestone Neogene schist

Table 5.1. Siteswithlatearchaicto earlyclassicaloccupation,orderedin descendingsize (H45omitted).

beforethe half.On thisbasisit seemssafeto concludethattheprocessprobablybeganslightly observedfortheEarlyIronAge and and thattheabsenceof settlement middleofthecentury theseventhcentury continuedwellintothefirsthalfofthesixth.Once begun,colonizationof the surveyarea. There is thisvirginland spreadveryrapidly, thoughnot evenly,throughout of a infiltration it involved to that settlement, beginningin those progressive nothing suggest areas mosteasilyaccessiblefromthe Eurotasvalleybeforespreadingintothe remoterparts. with Withinfifty landscapemusthavebeentransformed, years,and perhapsless,an uninhabited in its natural remained that it had to cultivation. converted largely Assuming large parts in labourand manpowerand conditionup to thispoint,thischangerequireda massiveeffort need. social or economic in to some occurred pressing response presumably Froma standingstarta minimumof eightyThe numberof sitesinvolvedis impressive. sitesappear in thisperiod,as well as nine new sanctuariesor shrinesto be sevensettlement Includedin thisnumberare Sellasia, the-one site in the surveyarea consideredseparately. of Agios Konstantinos. identified as a perioikictown,and perhapsthe fortress convincingly


further siteswhereevidenceforarchaicBesidesthesedefinitecases, thereare seventy-two classicalactivityis found.In some cases these are clearlyhabitationsites,lackingpottery allowingcloserdating;but in manymorethe archaic-classicalpotteryformsan insignificant or laterdate. on a siteon whichthebulkofthematerialis of an earlier(prehistoric) fraction of small of and tile which were not exclude the occurrences These figures groups pottery habitationsites. consideredto represent and analysisof thisnew evidence,some cautionary Beforeproceedingto the presentation remarksare necessary.In what follows,site numbersare used forassessingthe extentof ofthesurveyarea in theperiodunderreview,and sitesize as the occupationand exploitation of the sites.The materialassemblage,of main parameterfora basic fourfold categorization notonlythe whicha samplewas collectedfromeach site,is used as thebasisfordetermining ofthesite,as wellas fordistinguishing differential levelsofaffluence. datebutalso thefunction natureofsurveydata,familiarto all In so doing,it is essentialto bear in mindtheproblematic who have been involvedin surveyin Greece. Post-depositionalprocessesmean that site to theactual are no morethanan approximation numbersand sizes,as recordedbythesurvey, in antiquity. In an area wheretherehas been extensive situation erosion,manysiteshavebeen of their largelystrippedof theirculturalremains,leavingonly small pocketsas testimony existence.The largenumberofverysmallsites(0.01-0.05ha) fromthe Laconia Surveymay indicatethatthishas been a widespreadphenomenon.Some of the smaller,short-lived sites, where were not with tiled are to have been those roofs, buildings equipped likely especially thesizesofothersitesmayhave been enlargedby the obliterated. Simultaneously, completely thoughthisappears downslopespreadofsherdand tilefromtheiroriginalplace ofdeposition, to have been less significantin the presentcontext.In addition, apart fromthose sites it mustbe assumedthatan unquantifiable numberhavebeen buriedby destroyed, completely revealedbymodernterracing colluvialdepositswithoutleavinganysurfacetraces(occasionally not to mentionthosewhichweremissedon accountof eithertheirsmall or road-building),21 In thecase ofmulti-period size or thedense,concealingvegetation. sites,especiallylargeones for it is difficult to estimate their size in anyparticular occupied manycenturies, particularly in without careful two cases the Laconia Survey(Q360 phase sampling,applied only during An assessmentof the materialassemblageis also Menelaion;U490 Panagía Chrysaphítissa). as wellas affected factors, byextraneous varyingaccordingto surfaceconditionsand visibility, theconditionof thepotteryand otherfindsthemselves. It is also easy to over-interpret small of often of to sherds of which a few are datable,in composed onlythirty fifty samples pottery, in for how site was use. as as these However, long determining long any problemsare a in the data remain vital source our acknowledged, survey developing knowledgeofchanging of and a broad time-frame. settlement of the area within The factthat exploitation patterns a are the evidence them Their value lieslargelyin they onlysurviving gives uniqueimportance. where in theircumulative inferences that be or weaker the case of any force, might stronger site from the all combined evidence of the sites, allowing gain cogency particular to be made abouttrendsin settlement and thefactorsinfluencing them. generalizations On the basis of size, the sites can be ordered in four basic groups, each perhaps to a distinctcomponentin the patternof settlement. corresponding They are dominatedin numericaltermsby the smallestsites,which may be classed as small rural habitations, as single-household or single-family farmsteads. The possibility thatnonprobablyidentifiable 21 e.g. B121 (LAr-ECl), J210 (Hl), G252 (R).

i62 Chapter5 habitationsites (such as mortuaryand industrialsites or agriculturalinstallations)are the in thisgroup(especiallyamongthe smallest)is treatedbelow in considering represented ofthe sites(pp. 187-93).This categoryis takento embraceall siteswhichfallin the function ofthetotal(74 somesixty-four size range0.01-0.14ha, comprising sites,nearlythree-quarters half of the range, in fall the bottom of sites the Within it, (fifty-two) majority per cent). ha. The than 0.01 of them are no seventeen upperparameteris somewhat larger 0.01-0.07ha; the next markedbya steepdrop-off line with to the but correlates category, dividing arbitrary lowerthan TABLE It ha in 0.10-0.18 the in thenumberof sites 5.1). is substantially (see range to where sites to define this used the upper size limitsgenerally 0.5 ha are up category, rankedas simplefarmsteads.22 commonly severalfactorsmightaccountforthisdiscrepancy. Ifourdefinition has anyvalidity, Manyof of the basis for these the classicaland hellenisticfarmhouseswhose knownsizes formpart calculationsmayhave belongedto familiesof above averagewealth,and are perhapsbetter classifiedamong the large farms considered below. It is more than likely that many farmhouseswere rathersmaller,perhaps coveringbetween50 and 125 sq m. Nor should 22Until recently,littlehas been done to establish the range of site sizes that can be correlated with Cl and in some cases thereseems to have been a farmhouses, of the classificationof rural sites. grossoversimplification of all non-urbansitesin NW Keos The uncriticaltreatment as farmsteads{Landscape 336-7) has been rightly Archaeology, criticizedby T. M. Whitelaw,'An ethnoarchaeological study of rural land-use in north-west Keos: insights and implicationsforthe studyof past Aegean landscapes',in P. ruraleset N. Doukellis and L. G. Mendoni (eds), Structures sociétésantiques: actes du colloque de Corfou(14-16 mai igg2)

(Centre de Recherches d'Histoire Ancienne, 126; Paris, 1994),163-86, at 171-4;id., 'Colonisationand competition in in the polis of Koressos:the developmentof settlement Keos fromthe archaicto late Roman periods',in northwest Mendoni and Mazarakis Ainian (n. 10), 227-57, at 230-1. siteson Melos, ofthelower-order See also, on thetreatment R. W. V. Catling(n. 9), 100,withreferenceto IslandPolity, evidence,Whitelaw 143.On thebasisofethnoarchaeological has suggesteda rangeof 0.25-0.5 ha forthe surfacescatters and theirassociatedinstallations, thatrepresentfarmhouses and 0.5-1.0 ha forexceptionallylarge or prosperoussites ('Ethnoarchaeologicalstudy',171-2; 'Colonisation',230-2). These figuresare accepted by P. E. Acheson, 'Does the and "economicexplanation"work?Settlement, agriculture, of Halieis in the late classical-early erosionin the territory hellenisticperiod',JMA 10 (1997),165-90,at 176-8 withn. 4. Known Cl farmbuildingsin Attica range in size from 0.014 to 0.1 ha: Lohmann,Atene,184 tab. 9. Most of those included in that sample are large-scale establishments, perhapsassociatedwithwealthylandownersand not likely A further to be typicalof all farmsteads. examplefromthe ofKarystosin Euboia is 0.012ha, with9 ha ofland territory associated withit (D. R. Keller and M. B. Wallace, 'The Canadian Karystia Project: two classical farmsteads', Classical Views/Echos du mondeclassique,32 (1988), 15 1-7). A

long-lived,large farmhouseon Delos, firstbuiltin the 5th cent., is slightlyless than 0.03 ha: interimreportsby M. Brunet, BCH in (1987), 644-6; 112 (1988), 787-90; 113 (1989),754-9. A Cl farmin a marginalupland locationon

Ancientfarmhouses Chios is 0.026 ha: V Lambrinoudakis, on Mount Aipos', inJ. Boardmanand C. E. Vaphopoulouat theHomereionin Chios Richardson (eds), Chios:A Conference

ig84 (Oxford,1986), 295-304, at 299-303; E. SimandoniBournia, 'Αρχαίες εγκαταστάσεις στο Αίπος3 Τημόκαστρο-Καμπούρη το Γύρισμα', 'Αρχαιογνωσία, (1982-4)5 l95~222· Four LC1-EH1 farmhouses in the of CrimeanChersonesosrangebetween0.025 an5th-cent. potteryhad alreadybeen notedbyPritchett (n. 29)>251. 3()Gartledge,SL 199-222.Ioannis Pikoulasconsidersthat the northern border fortifications,of which Agios Konstantinos is one, shouldbe assignedto the 3rd cent,and more specificallythe reign of Kleomenes III (Pikoulas, 'Skiritis',145-6; Pikoulas,NMX 183-7;G· A· Pikoulas,'The desXIII Spartandefensenetworkof hellenistictimes',Akten Internationalen Kongresses für KlassischeArchäologie,Berlin ig88

(Mainz, 1990), 478). He proposes (pers. comm.) that the evidenceforearlieroccupationcould belongto a villagethat thatcarriesitsowndifficulties. precededthefort,a suggestion

170 Chapter5

As the northernborderof Spartiateterritory part of a systemof militarycommunications. assumesadded significance. its location musthavebeen in thisapproximate area, Two are The remainingfivesites(B103,B107,B121,C114,C169) are all smallfarmsteads. between the other three size aboveaverage (C114,0.09 ha; B103,0.07 ha), 0.03 and 0.05 ranging the close to foot of around the All are located ha. but one spring-line Agios Konstantinos, schistbasement.The two(B103,B121)on thenorth overliestheimpervious wherethelimestone recentand moderncultivation. basin(Vourliótikoi sideoccupya fertile Kámboi)withextensive are also in areas of lower and south-east slopesrespectively, B107and G114,on thesouth-west in on the remote G169is an outlier thisnorthern moderncultivation. area, midslopesabovethe an impassable,steep-sided gorge. Kelephinaat a pointwheretheriverpassesthrough whosesize (0.18ha) placesit Justto thenorthofthesurveyarea thereis a singlesite(A3014), fertile above the comparatively in the categoryofvillas.Its locationon the lowerfootslopes, valleyfloorof the Kelephina and also close to one of the main routesleadingnorth,may accountforitsexistence. PREFERRED SITE LOCATIONS

IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

thatanyone can be The factorswhichgovernedthechoiceofsiteare varied,and itis unlikely are likelyto have been influential: Some or all ofthefollowing seen as a singledeterminant. and accessto ofcultivableland and grazing,watersupply,aspect,shelter, security, availability lines of communications. Potentiallyof greatersignificancethan all thesevariablesin the are thosesocial and economicfactorsconnectedwithland ownership naturalenvironment and land use of the specificperiod whichrestrictedthe freechoice and behaviourof the all thingsbeing equal, it remainsa worthwhileexerciseto establish settlers.Nevertheless, seemto havebeen uppermostin oftheenvironment offeatures or combination whichfeatures site location. deciding ifnot all, of the sitesunderreviewwere On the reasonableassumptionthatthe majority, for with concerned preferences particularsoil typesmay be apparent. agriculture, primarily fromeach the of for the presentanalysis,itis assumedthattheland cultivated purposes Purely sitelay in the immediateenvironsof the place of habitation,thoughin realitylandholdings Withinthe surveyarea threebasic soil typespredominate.In may have been fragmented.37 sectorwithsomein thesouth-east), theseare schist(mostlyin thenorthern orderoffrequency in the red or beds of (entirely yellowclaysand conglomerate alternating Neogene,comprising in the derived soils are rossa the terra which from and south-east, (mainly limestone, south), 37It is generallyassumedthatthe standardGreeksystem of partitive inheritance (see R. Lane Fox, Aspects of inheritancein the Greekworld',in P. Cartledgeand F. D. to G. E. M. Harvey (eds), Crux:Essays in GreekHistoryPresented de Sie Croix on his yjth Birthday(Exeter and London, 1985),

208-232), fromwhich Sparta differedonly in allowing womenrightsof inheritance(Hodkinson,'Land tenure';id. 'Inheritance,marriageand demography:perspectivesupon thesuccessand declineofclassicalSparta',in A. Powell(ed.), Classical Sparta: Techniquesbehindher Success (London, 1989),

79-121), would have produced a pattern of fragmented landholdings.Such a patternis recognizedto have certain advantagesforthe survivalof subsistencefarmers:R. G. Osborne, ClassicalLandscapewithFigures:The AncientGreekCity

anditsCountryside (London,1987),37-40. This viewhas been

largelyon the basis of challengedby severalarchaeologists, survey evidence, who have found evidence that farms controlledconsolidatedblocksof land (Keller and Wallace (n. 22); Lohmann,Atene,224-9). Others have argued that in dispersedfarmsteads settlement onlymakessenseiftheir inhabitants had control of more or less consolidated landholdings(P. L. J. Halstead, 'Traditional and ancient ruraleconomyin MediterraneanEurope: plus ça change?', and JHS 107(1987),77-87,at 83-4; S. E. Alcock,J. F. Cherry, practice,and the agricultural J. L. Davis, 'Intensivesurvey, classical landscape of Greece', in I. Morris (ed.), Classical Greece:AncientHistoriesand ModernArchaeologies (Cambridge,

1994), 137-70, at 147-8; Whitelaw,'Colonisation' (n. 22), 232-3). It has also been arguedthatpropertywas probably beforetheCl period:Osborne(n. 17),61. moreconcentrated


withtwomajoroutcropsin thenorth).In additionthereare smallalluvialdepositsalong the coursesof the Eurotasand Kelephina.The poorlyformedschistsoilsin areas of highrelief soilsofthe fertile ofthenorthern sector)contrastwiththecomparatively (thelargeproportion Eurotas and lower found the fringing glacis and the associatedcolluvialdeposits,mostly Their water-retentive and Kelephinavalleysas wellas theenvironsof ancientSellasia (A118). givethema markedadvantageoverthe arid and ratherheavy easilyworkablecharacteristics limestonesoils,and theysupporta vigorousnaturalvegetationof maquis and oak at higher altitudes.In recentand moderntimestheyhave mainlybeen cultivatedwitholives.The Neogenedepositsare onlycultivablewherethe claysare accessible.No cultivablesoilsoccur theclays whosenaturalvegetationcomprisesonlygarigue.By contrast, on theconglomerate, soilssuitableforall crops.The limestoneis theleastattractive for water-retentive formfertile, an arid and barrenappearancewithmuchbare rockand vegetation cultivation, presenting rossaand confinedto smallpocketsofsoil. Onlytheweatheredproductsofthelimestone{terra breccia)offerscope forcultivation;thesepredominatein the Chrysaphabasin,wherethey of cultivatedwithcerealsand vines.The disadvantages have in recenttimesbeen extensively to work(stickywhen wet,friableand terrarossaare thatit tendsto be stonyand difficult crackedwhendry). Whenthesurveyarea was colonizedin thelate archaicperiodtherewas a generalbutnot sitesout absolutepreference foroccupyingsiteswithaccess to the Neogene clays.Forty-nine of eighty-seven (56 per cent)wereestablishedin suchlocations.In termsof siteclassification out of sixty-four smallfarmsteads thisfigurecomprisesthirty-seven (58 per cent),nineout of seventeenvillas (53 per cent),and threeout of the fourhamlets.This preferenceby itself in the south-eastern accountsforthe concentration of settlement sectorand the southern A in thenorth sites the Eurotas observed. number of of sites, along already particularly string cornerof the south-eastern locatedalong thejunction sector,seem to have been deliberately theirlocationmightbe seen as an oftheNeogeneand limestone.As thisis not a spring-line, maximize the for arable culture on the to scope attempt Neogene soilsin combinationwith on the limestone mountainside. The concentration ofsitesat thenorthern end ofthis grazing stretch ofterraincan be accountedforbytheproximity oftheSophrónigorgewithitscopious perennialstream,whereanimalscan be watered.Modern shepherdswithmandrasin much the same locationsas the ancientsitesconducttheirflocksdown a verysteep path to the bottomofthegorgeon a dailybasisin summer. Nineteensitesoccur on the schist,withanotherfouron the interfaceof the schistand limestone(26 per cent).Onlyfiveofthese(all smallfarmsteads) werelocatedon theschistsoils in theextensive areasofhighreliefin thenorthern sector(C114,G169,D96, G157,K200),and in mostcases the existenceof a convenient watersupplymayhave been the decisivefactor.Of the remainder, elevenoccupythe colluvialsoilsand the glacisderivedfromthe schistalong the Eurotas and lower Kelephina and around Sellasia. Consideringthe relativelylimited extentof these deposits,such soils mustbe consideredto have been equally if not more attractive thantheNeogeneclays.Moreover,theyare hometo theonlysiteoftownsize (A118), besidestwovillas(H40,J213)and eightsmallfarmsteads (B103,D301,H29,J219-20,J316,K203, K235).Two moresmallfarmsteads (T484,U3003)are locatedon the northand westedgesof the Chrysaphabasin,wherethe schistand limestoneare in closejuxtaposition.In the same area fourmoresitesoccupytheexactjunctureofthetworocks,notablyincludingone ofthe fourhamlets(U494),twovillas(T471,U499),and one smallfarmstead(R294).In all six cases, these locations may have been chosen not only to take advantage of the potential for withgrazingbut also foraccess to water.Wherespringsdo not occur, combiningcultivation

172 Chapter5

of wellsoverthe schistin can easilybe tapped by wells;the proliferation the ground-water recenttimesis clearproofofthispotential. themajorityin theChrysaphabasin. Fifteensites(17per cent)are foundon thelimestone, theprevailingschistsare replaced where of the Fouroccurat thenorthern surveyarea, edge not a of Agios Konstantinos, is the fortress of these One a of limestone. hard (Bin) cap by not it was a have hosted it settlement permanentgarrison.However, properthough may either for its immediate its survival,probablybeing supplied surroundings dependentupon fromSparta or fromnearbySellasia. The otherthreesites occur at the marginsof the limestoneterrain.Two small farmsteads(B107,B121) on the lower west side of Agios rossasoilsat thefootof on thebetterdevelopedterra liejust abovethespring-line, Konstantinos the area A the the hill. villa site outside footslopejust above the (A3014)occupies surveyed and the colluvial soils both alluvial deposits derived fromthe Kelephina valley,where a sector three In south-eastern limestoneare available. the sites, villa (S433)and two small of farmsteads (S434,T443),occupythe lowerslopes Phournara,not farabove the Neogene. Althoughtheirimmediatesurroundshave a degraded appearance, the colluvial deposits collected at the footslopehave attractedcereal cultivationin recenttimes(now entirely abandoned).The othereight,includingthreeoutsidethe surveyarea, lie in the Chrysapha basin,an area dominatedby cerealsin recenttimes.Two (U471,U490) are villa sites,therest smallfarmsteads (T512,U493,U531,U3001,U3022,U3024).Most are in the lowerpartof the basin where the colluvial deposits from the surroundinghills have formed a deep accumulationofsoil.The one smallsite(U493)on theupperedge ofthebasinis situatedclose to thejunctionwiththe schistand mightbetterbe classifiedwiththe othersitesfoundin a similarsituation. In conclusion,it can be statedthat therewere threepreferredsoils of cultivation,the colluvialdepositsofschistand limestonesoils.The formeris Neogeneclaysand therespective in the most abundant far the area, thetwolatterbeingoflimitedextent.Locations survey by of the limestoneand schist,were also favoured. at the junction normally along spring-lines, the areas of upland schist,whosedense natural to marked aversion a there was Conversely, obstacleto agricultural oak and deciduous of mayhave been a formidable vegetation maquis mountainsides limestone the bare Likewise Agios (Koutsoviti-Phournara, expansion. of for extensive unless had no and attraction, grazing Ilías, Konstantinos, Skoura) Prophítis if that few first at this terrain sites on of total absence The and any sight suggests goats. sheep but withmodernparallelsin mind farmerswere exclusively engagedin animal husbandry, as evidenceof such activities, to survive be can traces no expected virtually archaeological if not all, seem to have been flocks. their from if resided the herders Most, away especially involvementin animal with small-scale arable with farming,perhaps primarilyoccupied found the sites be this to The alongthejunction may generalization husbandry. onlyexception sector. ofthelimestoneand theNeogenein thesouth-eastern it goeswithoutsaying,is essentialforthesurvivalofanyhuman Provisionofa watersupply, and the cultivationof certaintypesof crops.38However, animals as for as well community, meansforsecuringstoresofwaterin locationswhere are various there rainfall, givenadequate naturalsources(rivers,streams,and springs)are lacking.In antiquitythiswas mostoften achievedby the collectionof rainwaterin cisternsor pithoi,or in the case oflargetownsby the piping of water for storage in urban reservoirs.Where other considerationswere 38See Island Polity,98-103.


or conditionsofland tenure),watermighthaveto be acquiredon paramount(suchas security a regulardailybasisfroma distantsource.Laconia's comparatively highannualrainfallis not with more on the west side than the east.39The surveyarea is evenlydistributed, precipitation therefore drierthan the lush west side of the Eurotas valley,whichlies in the shadow of accentuatedby the abundanceof perennialstreamsalong Taygetos.This contrastis further the westernedge of the plain, fedwithlarge volumesof waterfromTaygetos,and by the ofsuchstreamsin thesurveyarea and theirmuchlowervolumes. relativescarcity Exceptforthoseareas closeto theriversEurotasand Kelephina,whichprovidea perennial supplyof water,the distributionof naturalwater sources is likelyto have had a strong influenceon the distribution of ancientsites.In the precedingaccount of the settlement pattern,thejuxtapositionof sitesto watersourceshas oftenbeen observed.Apartfromthe tworivers, theonlyotherperennialstreamrunsthroughtheSophrónigorge.Its inaccessibility made it oflimitedvalue to the settlements on the Neogeneplateau,and itsimportancemay have been more forwateringflocksgrazed on the surrounding mountainsides.The other naturalsuppliesconsistof springswhosewatersnormallyforma streamfora shortdistance beforedryingup. These are foundquitewidelyin the schistareas and along the spring-line betweentheimpervious schistand the overlying limestone.Althoughthe schistuplandswere generallynot exploitedin this period, the few sites existingin this terrainwere almost invariablylocated close to perennial springs(G157,K200). Spring-linesites are more numerous.As alreadyobserved,theyoccur around the base of Agios Konstantinos(B103, B107,B121,C114)and on the peripheryof the Chrysaphabasin (U493-4). Springsin the Neogene zone occur at pointsofjunctionwiththe basementschist,but are comparatively scarce. Combinedwiththe evidentpreferenceforthe Neogene claysforcultivation,their locationsmay have had a markedimpacton the distribution of ancientsites.Competing in cultivableland and watersupplyseem to have favouredthelatter,withthelikely interests consequence that some or all of these siteswere involvedin cultivationof land at some distancefromtheresidential base. The springat AgiosGeorgiosin theLoutsoremaseemsto havebeen at thecentreof a largeclusterof siteson eitherside ofthevalley(R275-7,S431-2, S437-40,S458-9, S508-9, S523, S527),and musthave been of criticalimportanceto their survival.Likewisetheextraordinary clusterofsevensites(N183-5,N187-8,N193,N314)on the dissectedplateaualongthe southedge ofthe surveyarea shouldprobablybe associatedwith thespringin theKastororema.It is one ofa numberthatoccurin thesedeeplyincisedvalleys intothe Eurotasvalley;twomoreare foundin thevalleysbehindAphysou,which emptying sites(M322,M354).The same mightaccountforthelocationof perhapssuppliedtwooutlying anotheroutlierin an inhospitablelandscape (M503),close to the springsaround Agioi Saranda. Sitesin theChrysaphabasinmusthavereliedon wellssuchas thosewhichcurrently exist,unless therewere streamsin the watercoursesfed by the springsaround modern Chrysapha;at presentthe bulk of thiswateris piped to the villageor storedforwatering animals.The villagesiteof Sellasia (A118),as wellas beingclose to theKelephina,also had a springwithinthesite.That itwas inadequatefortheneedsofa villagepopulationis indicated by theexistenceofat leastone cisternon the south-eastside ofthehill.For theoccupantsof thefortress on AgiosKonstantinos (Bin) provisionofwaterpresentedmuchgreaterproblems, the limestone of the site.Althoughthereare springsaroundthebase ofthehill given geology whichcouldbe used in ordinarycircumstances, itwas essentialto have a securesupplywithin 39See Chapter1,p. 11.

174 Chapter5

This was providedby at leastone wellin theupperenclosure thecircuitofthefortifications. and one cisternin thelower,thoughmoredoubtlessexisted. OVERVIEW OF SETTLEMENT

IN THE LATER ARCHAIC AND EARLY CLASSICAL PERIODS

When viewedin the contextof developmentsin otherpartsof Greece, the growthin site numbers,especiallyamongthe smallercategories,thathas been documentedforthe survey area in thisperiodcan be seen as partofa widerphenomenonofsettlement expansionin the in was now that In manyintensively areas it the sixthcentury. surveyed dispersalofsettlement if the hamlets even the of and and farmsteads small majority populationin (both began, large) nucleated sites. This was the to inhabit the area continued to prelude theclimaxof large any that is so and settlement widelyattestedforthe fifth perhapspopulationgrowth, expansion, in and west(such as Achaia, the of the north and fourthcenturies,though upland regions Aitolia,Epeiros,and Macedonia) thisdid not occuruntilratherlaterin thefourthand third centuries.40 Includedin thisphenomenonare someofthoseregions(suchas south-east Attica) in thesecond where,likeour surveyarea, therehad been littleor no expansionofsettlement The evidenceseems to indicatethat,as in halfof the eighthcenturyor in the seventh.41 in thesecondhalfof thesixth numberswas concentrated Laconia, theincreasein settlement if not at its veryend. Thus in Boiotia, wheretherehad been no increasein site century, The same patternis smallsitesbeginto proliferate.42 numberssincethe late eighthcentury, Keos and perhapsin the Nemea valley,and is also attestedin colonial foundin north-west all thoseregionsthat Significantly, regionssuchas Metapontionand Krotonin SouthItaly.43 dominancein theclassicalperiod(Laconia,Attica,and Boiotia)seemto roseto supra-regional settlement haveexperiencedsignificant pattern growthat thisdate.That itwas nota uniform in areas such as the is shownby the ratherlater,fifth-century expansionof ruralsettlement of Karystosin southernEuboia.44In the southern Methana peninsula and the territory a have been more there seems to steadyincreasein the quantityof smallruralsites Argolid witha markedriseoccurringin thefifth.45 and sixth the seventh centuries, (< 0.4 ha) through from a there had been in where those areas precociousgrowthofruralsettlement Conversely, the eighthto earlysixthcenturies(theBerbativalley,Melos, and Thera) thereis a marked in thenumberofsmallsitesat thistime.46 contraction However,whiletheexpansionofrural themall in itsscale and in oursurveyarea has parallelsin otherregions,itoutstrips settlement more settlement was of rural the Elsewhere gradual,buildingto a climaxin growth intensity. in a Laconia it reached whereas and fourth thefifth centuries, peak at theverybeginningand, fromas earlyas the secondhalfofthefifth as willbe seen,was radicallydiminished century. The exceptionalnatureof the late archaicto earlyclassicalphase in our surveyarea, and perhaps in otherparts of Laconia, stronglyimpliesthatlocal pressureswere behind the explosionofruralsettlement.

40See Bintliff, 'Regionalsurvey',12-14. 41Lohmann,Atene, 121-3. 42Bintliff and Snodgrass,'BoeotianExpedition',139. 43 LandscapeArchaeology, 247-54, 328-37; Wrightet αι., 'Nemea', 610. In the latterthe broad term'archaic'is used, leavingit uncertainhow sitesshouldbe datedwithina period morethan200 yearslong.S. Italy:Carter(n. 22),106-16. 44Roughand RockyPlace,57-9; D. R. Keller and M. B. Wallace, 'The Canadian Karystia Project', Classical

Viewsl'Échos du mondeclassique,30 (1986), 155-9; nd. (η. 22);

Cherryand Davis (n. 10),21Q-20. 45Greek 548-9 withtableΒ.2. Six sitesin the7th Countryside, cent,increaseto 9 in the6th,beforenearlydoublingto 17in the5th. 46Berbati:Ekroth(n. 9), 213, 225. Melos: Wagstaffand in 1980. Cherry(n. 9), 143-4.Thera: author'sfieldwork


The Classical

Period

(cA50-c.300 bc) theclassicalera is definedas theperiodbetweenthe end ofthe Persianwar Conventionally in 479 and thedeathofAlexanderthe Greatin 323. While it is not our concernto question thevalidityofthischronologicaldivisionin the contextofLaconia, wherethe dates 370/69 in observingits and 338 had a much greaterimpact,thereare considerabledifficulties boundaries.At theupperend,untilmuchmoreis knownofthe sequence ofLaconian plain black-glazed wares at the end of the archaic (£.525-480 BC) and the beginningof the in distinguishing classical periods (c.480- 450 BC) therewill be considerable difficulties It is forthisreasonthata largenumberofsiteshave been betweensitesofthetwoperiods.47 dated as late archaicto earlyclassical.Thereforein the presentcontext,wherea classical phase of use is indicatedit is generallybased on culturalmaterialthoughtto be laterthan the mid-fifth century.At the lower end there are similar difficultiesin distinguishing betweenthe latestclassical and the earliesthellenisticceramics,especiallyamong survey material,and it is likelythatat least some of the latterhas been treatedas late classical. When combinedwiththe widerproblemssurroundingthe chronologyof late classical to wheretherehas been a generaldowndatingof late classicaltypes earlyhellenisticpottery, into the early third century,allowance should be made for a significantdegree of imprecisionin the datingof sites.48In thisrespectthe divisionbetweenthe two periodsis likelyto fallcloserto 300 thanto 325. In spiteofthesedifficulties it is clear thatmajor changesoccurredin the classicalperiod. These may be summarizedas being a sharp reductionin the total numberof habitation sites (ILL. 5.3, TABLE5.2) and a tendencyto increased site size, perhaps reflectingthe nucleation of the rural population, and a decisive shiftin the preferredlocations for settlement, perhapsmarkinga concomitantchange in agriculturalpracticesand priorities. habitationsitesof the late archaic period (includingthe earlyclassical), The eighty-seven almostexactlyby a half,in the 150years coveringabout 100years,are reducedto forty-six, of the classical period. The sharpestdecline is in the numberof small farmsteadsites, reducedfromsixty-four to twenty-seven; of the total havingformednearlythree-quarters Within this (74 per cent) theynow constituteless than two-thirds (57 per cent). category therealso seemsto have been an increasein site size, perhapscorresponding to a general enlargementof the survivingfarmsteadsand the evolutionof a standard architectural design forfarmhouses.Whereas in the late archaic period more than two-thirdsof the farmsteadsites(forty-four, 69 per cent)fellin the lowerhalfof the size range,< 0.07 ha, with nearlya quarter (fourteen,22 per cent) having an area of 0.01 ha or less, in the classicalperiod thisproportionhas been reduced to less than a half(eleven,44 per cent) withonly two sites (8 per cent) as small as 0.01 ha. This increase mightreflectnothing more than developmentsin the architectureof Laconian farmhouses,but could also be equated withthe demiseof the poorerfarminghouseholds.The numberof villa sitesalso sees a markedreduction,fromseventeento ten,but as a proportionof the totalnumberof sitesit remainsalmostconstantat 23 per cent(itwas 20 per centin thelate archaicperiod). Concurrentwiththe demiseof the farmsteadsis a risein the numberof hamletsfromfour to seven (16 per cent, compared with5 per cent previously).They may be individually 47These problemshavebeen discussedat LS ii. 34-5.

48 See S. I. Rotroff,HellenisticPottery: Athenianand Imported WheelmadeTable Ware and Related Material (The Athenian

Agora,29; Princeton,NJ,1997),18-36,fordiscussionof the fixedpointsin HI ceramicchronology.

176 Chapter5 LS no:

zone

size (ha)

Bi Ai

3-0

Large Sites(2)

Bin A118

villas(7) Hamlets/large

U511 U516 R281

U519 U494 H31 U491

6.0

U2 Ui

1.81

R3 U4 Ui H2 Ui

0-75 0.60

1.08

0.50 0.44 0.40

Villas/clustersof farmsteads(10) D85/95 M328 U499 H40 H34 P271 S437/440 U490 P261/264 R421

D3 M4 U2 H2 H3 P2

0.31 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.21 0.20

S4 U3 P2

0.20

R3

0.15

Single farmsteads (27) U3 U3022 U4 U520

0.20

o.i5(c.)

O.II O.II

J369

J6

0.10

M2

0.10

J2I2

J2

0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08

BIO3 h6o

B2 Hi

J3i6

J5 K3 S4 G2

0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06

M172

J231 R526 U506

J5 R4 U4

K235 S523 G159 C169

C4

K141 S431/432 U500 J22I Π47 R282

K3 S2 U4 J5 F2

R3 U2

U496 T465 U3024 J220

T3 U3 Ji M4 Ni

M325 N409

0.05 0.05

0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 O.OI 0.01 O.OI

date

slope(degrees)

LAr-EHl LAr-EHl

L S

Gl-Hl Cl-R LAr-Hl Cl-Hl LAr-Hl Cl LAr-Hl

L/S L Ν L L/S S L

Cl-Hl LAr/ClByz LAr-Hl LAr-ClByz Cl Byz LAr-Cl LAr-LCl EH LH LAr-R Cl Cl

S Ν L/S S S Ν Ν L Ν N/S

22

LAr/Cl EH Cl-hl LAr/ClByz Cl-Hl Cl-HlByz Cl LAr-LCl Cl LAr-LCl Cl-Hl LAr/Cl LAr-Cl LAr/Cl Cl-Hl LAr-LCl LC1-H1LR LAr-Cl EH Cl Byz LAr-LCl Cl-Hl Cl Cl LCl-hl LAr/Cl LAr/ClhlR LAr-LCl EC1

L L Ν Ν S Ν Ν L S L N/S S

9 7

Keytosoil types

L Ν S

soiltype

limestone Neogene schist

Table 5.2. Siteswithclassicaloccupation,orderedin descendingsize.

■

Ν

S S S Ν L Ν S Ν L S L S Ν Ν

6 10

6 6

9

11

3 5 ι

3 1

6 1

5

11

5 4

II

2 1

5

10 2

7 3 J3 8 7 11

J5 l9 8 20

8 l5

25

9 8 l3 2

9 3

22

Early Iron Age to classical period Α11ίΓ)ϋtA'119

/"h60

;

V/k

^L, aH4° ^

X' X)

/$ M

y^

if

J

ξ' ^*'(

J '

I

/'·

Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 1: Methodology and Interpretation (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 26)

Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 2: Archaeological Data (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 27)

The Laconia Rural Sites Project (Supplementary Volume) (v. 36)

The BSA'S Geometric Collection: Kynosarges et alia volume 98 issue The Annual of the British School at Athens

The Ivory Houses' at Mycenae (Supplementary Volume)

The Theatre at Butrint (Supplementary Volume)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 26 2008

The Law of Athens, Volume 1: Family and Property

The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues Volume 1

The Rorschach, Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation Volume 1

American Reference Books Annual 95: Volume 26

Biotechnology Annual Review, Volume 1

A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1: The Ancient Period

The Alkaloids: Chemistry and pharmacology volume 26

British Social Attitudes: Continuity and Change over Two Decades (British Social Attitudes Survey series)

Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Volume 26 (Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 1 1983

Annual review of nano research Volume 1

The Law of Athens, Volume 2: Procedure

British Writers Classics, Volume 1

Histories of Anthropology Annual, Volume 1

Industry in the Landscape (History of the British Landscape)

Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 1 (Research Methodology in Strategy and Management)

Survey Methodology

General History of Africa, Volume 1: Methodology and African Prehistory

Survey Methodology

Survey Methodology

Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (British School of Archaeology , Athens, Publications)

Knossos: The South House (BSA Supplementary Volume)

Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 1: Methodology and Interpretation (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 26)

Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laconia Survey, Volume 2: Archaeological Data (Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplementary Volume 27)

The Laconia Rural Sites Project (Supplementary Volume) (v. 36)

The BSA'S Geometric Collection: Kynosarges et alia volume 98 issue The Annual of the British School at Athens

The Ivory Houses' at Mycenae (Supplementary Volume)

The Theatre at Butrint (Supplementary Volume)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 26 2008

The Law of Athens, Volume 1: Family and Property

The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues Volume 1

The Rorschach, Basic Foundations and Principles of Interpretation Volume 1

American Reference Books Annual 95: Volume 26

Biotechnology Annual Review, Volume 1

A History of Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1: The Ancient Period

The Alkaloids: Chemistry and pharmacology volume 26

British Social Attitudes: Continuity and Change over Two Decades (British Social Attitudes Survey series)

Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, Volume 26 (Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change)

Annual Review of Immunology Volume 1 1983

Annual review of nano research Volume 1

The Law of Athens, Volume 2: Procedure

British Writers Classics, Volume 1

Histories of Anthropology Annual, Volume 1

Industry in the Landscape (History of the British Landscape)

Research Methodology in Strategy and Management, Volume 1 (Research Methodology in Strategy and Management)

Survey Methodology

General History of Africa, Volume 1: Methodology and African Prehistory

Survey Methodology

Survey Methodology

Archaeological Survey of the Knossos Area (British School of Archaeology , Athens, Publications)

Knossos: The South House (BSA Supplementary Volume)

Recommend Documents