LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHERN EPIRUS, GREECE I
HESPERIA
SUPPLEMENTS
1* S. Dow, Prytaneis:A Studyof the InscriptionsHonoringtheAthenian Councillors (1937) 2* R. S. Young,Late GeometricGravesanda Seventh-CenturyWellin theAgora(1939) 3* G. P. Stevens, TheSettingof thePericleanParthenon(1940) 4* H. A. Thompson, TheTholosofAthensandIts Predecessors (1940) 5* W. B. Dinsmoor, Observations on theHephaisteion(1941) 6* J. H. Oliver, TheSacredGerusia(1941) 7* G. R. Davidson and D. B. Thompson, SmallObjectsfrom thePnyx:I (1943) LeslieShear(1949) Studiesin Honorof Theodore 8* Commemorative 9* J. V. A. Fine, Horoi:Studiesin Mortgage,Real Security,andLand Tenurein Ancient Athens(1951) 10* L. Talcott, B. Philippaki,G. R. Edwards,and V. R. Grace, SmallObjectsfrom the Pnyx:II (1956) 11* J. R. McCredie, FortifedMilitary CampsinAttica (1966) 12* D. J. Geagan, TheAthenianConstitutionafterSulla (1967) 13 J. H. Oliver,MarcusAurelius:Aspects of Civicand CulturalPolicyin theEast (1970) 14 J. S. Traill, ThePoliticalOrganizationofAttica (1975) 15 S. V. Tracy,TheLetteringof an AthenianMason(1975) 16 M. K. Langdon,A Sanctuaryof Zeuson MountHymettos(1976) 17 T. L. ShearJr.,Kalliasof Sphettosand theRevoltofAthensin 268 B.C.(1978) 18* L. V. Watrous,Lasithi:AHistoryof Settlementon a HighlandPlain in Crete(1982) 19 Studiesin Attic Epigraphy,History,and Topography Presentedto EugeneVanderpool (1982) 20 Studiesin AthenianArchitecture,Sculpture,and TopographyPresentedto Homer A. Thompson(1982) 21 J. E. Coleman, Excavationsat Pylosin Elis (1986) 22 E. J. Walters,Attic GraveReliefsThatRepresentWomenin theDressoflsis (1988) 23 C. Grandjouan,HellenisticReliefMoldsfromtheAthenianAgora(1989) 24 J. S. Soles, ThePrepalatialCemeteries at Mochlosand Gourniaand theHouseTombs of BronzeAgeCrete(1992) 25 S. I. Rotroff and J. H. Oakley,Debrisfrom a PublicDining Placein theAthenian Agora(1992) 26 I. S. Mark, TheSanctuaryofAthenaNike in Athens:Architectural Stagesand Chronology(1993) 27 N. A. Winter, ed., Proceedings on GreekArchitectural of theInternationalConference Terracottas of the Classicaland HellenisticPeriods,December12-15, 1991 (1994) 28 D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence,Studiesin ArchaicCorinthianVasePainting (1996) 29 R. S. Stroud, TheAthenianGrain-TaxLaw of374/3 B.C. (1998) 30 J. W. Shaw,A. Van de Moortel, P. M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou,A LMIA Ceramic Kiln in South-CentralCrete.Functionand PotteryProduction(2001) 31 J. Papadopoulos,Ceramicus Redivivus:TheEarlyIronAge Potters'Field in theArea * Out of the ClassicalAthenian Agora(2003) ofprint
HesperiaSupplement32
LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHERN EPIRUS, GREECE I
EDITED JAMES
BY WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
TheAmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens 2003
Copyright ? 2003 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens All rights reserved.
Out-of-print Hesperiasupplements may be purchased from Swets & Zeitlinger Backsets Department P.O. Box 810 2160 SZ Lisse The Netherlands E-mail:
[email protected] Cover illustration:The eroded landscapeof Kokkinopilos above the Louros River gorge
Data Libraryof CongressCataloging-in-Publication Landscapearchaeologyin southernEpirus,GreeceI / editedbyJames Wisemanand KonstantinosZachos. p. cm.-(Hesperia Supplement;32) Includesbibliographical references(p.). ISBN 0-87661-532-9 (alk.paper) 1. Preveza(Greece)-Antiquities. 2. Excavations(Archaeology)-GreecePreveza.3. Landscapearchaeology-Greece-Preveza.4. Arta(Greece:Nome)Antiquities.5. Excavations(Archaeology)-Greece-Arta (Nome) 6. Landscape James. II.Zachos,Konstantinos archaeology-Greece-Arta(Nome) I.Wiseman, L. III. Hesperia(Princeton,NJ.). Supplement;32. DF9oI.P72L362003 938'.2-dc2I
2002044060
CONTENTS
vii xii xv
List of Illustrations List of Tables PrefaceandAcknowledgments Chapter1 THE
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT:
AIMS,
CONCEPT,
AND
ORGANIZATION
1
byJamesWisemanand KonstantinosZachos Chapter2 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
STRATEGIES
SURVEY: SAMPLING
FIELD
METHODS
byThomasF.Tartaron
23
Chapter3 THE
EARLY
PREVEZA:
STONE
OF THE
AGE
LANDSCAPE
AND
NOMOS
OF
SETTLEMENT
by CurtisN. RunnelsandTjeerdH. vanAndel
47
Chapter4 EARLY UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SPILAION: ARTIFACT-RICH SURFACE SITE
AN
by CurtisN. Runnels,EvangeliaKarimali,andBrendaCullen 135 Chapter5 THE
COASTAL
EMBAYMENT
EVOLUTION AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
ITS
OF THE
AMBRACIAN
RELATIONSHIP
TO
SETTINGS
by ZhichunJing and George(Rip) Rapp
157
CONTENTS
VI
Chapter6 THE LOWER ACHERON RIVER VALLEY: ANCIENT ACCOUNTS
AND
THE
CHANGING
LANDSCAPE
by Mark R. Besonen, George (Rip) Rapp, and Zhichun Jing
199
Chapter7 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS
by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos References Index
265 269 283
ILLUSTRATIONS Illustrationsareby membersof the projectexceptwhere noted.
1.1.
Map of Epirusand adjacentregions
2
1.2.
Map of surveyzone with selectedtoponyms
3
1.3.
Multispectralimage(SPOT) of the northernpart of the surveyzone
14
Multispectralimage(SPOT) of the southernpartof the surveyzone
14
1.5.
The erodedlandscapeof Kokkinopilos
16
1.6.
Aerialview of the fortifiedtown site at KastroRogon
18
1.7.
Aerialview of the waterchanneland aqueduct bridgesacrossthe LourosRiver
19
2.1.
Map of southwesternEpirus
29
2.2.
Archaeologicalsurveytractform
36
2.3.
Examplesof spatialrelationshipsbetweentractsand site/scatters
41
2.4.
Generalview of the site at Grammeno(SS92-6)
44
3.1.
Map of Epirusand surroundingareas
49
3.2.
Tectonicsof northwesternGreeceandthe IonianSea
55
3.3.
Possiblyactive(LateQuaternary)tectonicfeatures of westernEpirus Presenttectonicactivityin westernEpirusas indicatedby freshstriaeon faultplanes
1.4.
3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 3.7. 3.8.
Simplifiedbedrockmapof westernEpirus Formationof a doline (sinkhole)
56 56 57 58
Diagramof the genesisof loutsesand poljeson a karstic peneplain
59
Poljesandloutsesin westernEpirus
60
ILLUSTRATIONS
VIII
3.9. View ofValtos Kalodiki
63
3.10. The eponymous loutsa on the raised peneplain south of the lower Acheron valley
63
3.11. The polje of Cheimadio
63
3.12.
Red sediments and paleosols
64-65
3.13. Terra rossa redeposited in fan complex
66
3.14. Typical grain-size frequency diagrams of terra rossa redeposited in poljes and loutses
67
3.15. The raised polje of Kokkinopilos
71
3.16.
Badland erosion at Kokkinopilos
72
3.17.
Cross section through the incised polje deposits of Kokkinopilos
73
3.18. Morphi polje outcrop with paleosols forming hard, protruding benches
74
3.19.
Composite profile of Ayia loutsa
74
3.20.
Stratified lower section of the Ayia loutsa looking west; detail of Mousterian artifacts in situ
75
3.21. The Adriatic Sea during the last glacial maximum 3.22.
Global sea-level variations for the past 140,000 years
76 77
3.23. The emerged coastal plain off Epirus at six key moments
79
3.24. Two sea-level rise curves for the deglaciation interval of late OIS 2
79
3.25. 3.26.
Locations of raised paleoshore deposits of the last interglacial in coastal Epirus
81
Cumulative grain-size distributions of coastal sediments of the last interglacial and early Holocene
81
3.27. The raised Tyrrhenian beach at Tsarlambas 3.28.
82
Climate and vegetation changes during the last two glacialinterglacial cycles
84
3.29. Maturity stages and approximateages of the Mediterranean paleosol chronosequence
87
3.30.
3.31.
Relationship between paleosol maturity,terra rossa deposition rate, and Palaeolithic stone tool age in poljes and loutses
94
Palaeolithic site/scatters in the Thesprotiko valley
99
3.32. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic site/scatters in the Acheron valley
100
3.33. View of a stone cluster at Alonaki
101
ILLUSTRATIONS
IX
3.34.
Early Palaeolithic artifacts from Alonaki
102
3.35.
Early Palaeolithic choppers from Alonaki
102
3.36.
Early Palaeolithic core-choppers from Alonaki
103
3.37.
Early Palaeolithic core from Alonaki
103
3.38.
Early Palaeolithic biface (handaxe) from Ormos Odysseos
104
3.39. Interglacial sand dune (SS92-25) at Ormos Odysseos
104
3.40.
Ormos Odysseos, biface findspot (W94-20)
104
3.41.
Early Palaeolithic biface or bifacial core from Ayios Thomas 105
3.42. The Palaeolithic site of Ayia and its setting
109
3.43. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia
110
3.44. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia
110
3.45.
Palaeolithic findspots in the vicinity of Kastrosykia
3.46. Anavatis site/scatter 94-13, looking northeast 3.47.
View of Rodaki (SS92-15)
111 111 112
3.48. Middle Palaeolithic artifacts from Rodaki
112
3.49.
Early Upper Palaeolithic end scrapersfrom Spilaion
115
3.50.
Late Upper Palaeolithic backed blades
116
3.51.
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic site/scatters in the Preveza area 118
3.52. Mesolithic artifacts from Tsouknida and Ammoudia
120
3.53. Mesolithic trapeze from Ammoudia
120
3.54. View of Ammoudia, looking northwest, with stone feature visible at left
121
3.55. Mesolithic artifacts from Loutsa
122
3.56. Typical Preveza Mesolithic findspot (SS94-23), looking southwest
123
3.57. Typical Mesolithic artifact scatter near Preveza (SS94-22)
123
3.58. Mesolithic artifacts from the Preveza area
124
4.1. Map showing the location of Spilaion at the mouth of the Acheron River
136
4.2. Map of Spilaion showing topographic contours
139
4.3. View of Spilaion, looking southwest
139
4.4. View of the rugged karst surface on the southeast slope of Spilaion at the time of collection
140
4.5.
Sample grid on the southeast slope of Spilaion during collection
141
ILLUSTRATIONS
x
4.6. Lithic artifacts from Spilaion
145
4.7. Lithic artifacts from Spilaion
145
4.8. Lithic artifacts from Spilaion
146
4.9. Lithic artifacts from Spilaion
146
4.10.
Lithic artifacts from Spilaion
146
4.11.
End scrapersfrom Spilaion
146
4.12.
Spatial distribution of lithic debitage and retouched tools at Spilaion
151
Spatial distribution of individual categories of retouched tools at Spilaion
152
4.13.
5.1. Geology and geomorphology of the Ambracian embayment 158 and its vicinity 5.2. Locations of geologic cores and cross sections
159
5.3. Map of the Nikopolis isthmus showing the location of geologic cores and cross sections
163
5.4. Map of Ormos Vathy showing the location of geologic cores and cross section
163
Stratigraphiccross section D-D', parallel to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus
165
Stratigraphiccross section E-E', parallel to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus
166
Stratigraphiccross section A-A', perpendicularto the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus
170
Stratigraphiccross section B-B', perpendicularto the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus
171
5.9. Stratigraphiccross section C-C', perpendicularto the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus
172
5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8.
5.10.
5.11. 5.12.
5.13.
Paleogeographic reconstruction of the eastern side of the Nikopolis isthmus showing the shorelines at different periods
173
Stratigraphiccross section along the west arm of Ormos Vathy
175
Paleogeographic reconstructions of Ormos Vathy indicating shoreline changes from the Neolithic through modern periods
176
Stratigraphiccross section near the Grammeno plain
178
5.14. Map of Kastro Rogon and vicinity showing the location of geologic cores and cross sections
180
5.15.
181
Stratigraphiccross section C-C' at Kastro Rogon
ILLUSTRATIONS
XI
crosssectionB-B' nearKastroRogon 5.16. Stratigraphic
183
crosssectionA-A' nearKastroRogon 5.17. Stratigraphic
185
crosssectionnorthof the AmbracianGulf 5.18. Stratigraphic showingsedimentarysequencesand environmentsacross 187 the entirecoastalplain-lagoon-barrier system of KastroRogonand reconstructions 5.19. Paleogeographic and environthe coastlines vicinityshowing changing B.P. B.P. 1000/500 190-191 mentsfrom7000/6500 through 5.20. Changesin relativesea level as indicatedby the radiocarbon-dated peat samplesfromswampdeposits northof the AmbracianGulf reconstructions of the Ambracian 5.21. Paleogeographic embaymentshowingthe shorelinechangesfrom 7000/6500 B.P. through1000/500 B.P.
193
196-197
6.1. Areamapof Epirus
200
201 6.2. Areamapof the lowerAcheronvalley beachridgessurrounding 6.3. View of concentricaccretionary 202 PhanariBay 6.4. Suggestedlocationsof the Acherousianlakein the lower Acheronvalley
203
6.5. Satelliteimageof Epirus
206
6.6. Simplifiedgeologyof the lowerAcheronvalley
207
6.7. Corelocationsin the lowerAcheronvalley
210
6.8. Topographicmapof the lowerAcheronvalleybottom
211
6.9. North-southcrosssectionthroughthe Mesopotamon/ Tsouknidavalleyconstriction
218
6.10. East-westcrosssectionthroughthe Mesopotamon/ Tsouknidavalleyconstriction
219
6.11. Northeast-southwestcrosssectionthroughthe valley bottom(areaof formermarineembayment)
220
reconstructions of the lowerAcheron 6.12. Paleogeographic for 2100 B.C. and the 8th centuryB.C. valley
221
of the lowerAcheron 6.13. Paleogeographic reconstructions 1 for 433 B.C. and B.C. valley
222
6.14. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the lowerAcheron valley forA.D. 1100 andA.D. 1500
6.15. Paleogeographic reconstructionof the lowerAcheron A.D. and a mapof the modernlandscape for 1809 valley
223
224
TABLES
1.1. Project Staff and the Yearsof Their Participation
10-11
1.2. Field School Students and Their Home Institutions
12
Stratified Sample and Systematic Survey Coverage, Lower Acheron Valley,1992-1994
31
2.1.
2.2. Typical Daily Work Assignment, June 28,1994
33
3.1. Dimensions and Elevations of Poljes and Loutses in Western Epirus
61
3.2. Composition of the Fraction >0.064 mm in Redeposited Terra Rossa
67
3.3. Grain-Size Distribution of Redeposited Terra Rossa
68-69
3.4. Mineral Composition of Redeposited Terra Rossa at Kokkinopilos
70
3.5. Mineral Composition of Redeposited Terra Rossa from Poljes and Loutses in Western Epirus
71
3.6. Approximate Paleoshoreline Depths and Coastal Plain Widths, 140 kyr B.P. to Present
78
3.7. Mineral Composition of Modern and Last Interglacial Coastal Sands in Western Epirus
83
3.8. Maturity Indicators of the B Horizon of Greek Quaternary Paleosols
87
3.9.
Short Descriptions and Maturity Stages of Paleosol Bt Horizons at Key Sites in Coastal Epirus
3.10. Thermoluminescence and Infrared Stimulated Luminescence Sediment Dates for Western Epirus 3.11. 3.12.
88 91
ChronostratigraphicDiagram for Archaeological Sites, Sediments, and Paleosols in the Preveza Region
92
Early Stone Age Chronology
98
XIII
TABLES
4.1.
Categories of Flintknapping Debitage
143
4.2.
Types of Retouched Tools
144
4.3.
Degree of Association between Pairs of Classes of Flintknapping Debitage
150
5.1.
Radiocarbon Dates from the Ambracian Embayment
168
6.1
Radiocarbon Dates from the Acheron River Valley
210
PREFACE
AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
As editors of this volume we wish to thank the Hellenic Ministry of Culture for the approval of the permit to conduct archaeological surface investigations in southern Epirus, and to thank as well the directors of the 12th Ephoreiaof Prehistoricand ClassicalAntiquities and the 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Angelika Douzougli and Frankiska Kephallonitou, for their positive recommendation to the Central Archaeological Council and their cooperation for the entire duration of the project. We also want to thank Evangelos Chrysos, then Professor of Byzantine History of the University of Ioannina (now at the University of Athens), for his many different contributions to the success of the project, and Nikolaos Yiannoulis, Mayor of Preveza during our investigations, who helped us in the resolution of a variety of problems that arose in the course of the project. We acknowledge the significant help in geological matters of Panayiotis Paschos, geologist of the Institute of Geology and Mineralogy Exploration (Preveza branch) and an expert in the geomorphological investigations of Epirus. During the fieldwork and the subsequentresearch in the facilities of the Archaeological Museum and the Byzantine Museum of Ioannina, to which the ancient artifacts collected in the surface survey had been brought, the project enjoyed substantial help from the scientific, technical, and security personnel of both ephoreias, to whom we express our warm thanks. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens approvedthe proposal for American participation in this cooperative project, and staff members of the project annually benefited from the superb library and other facilities of the School in Athens. We are grateful to the School, its staff, and its director during those years, the late W. D. E. Coulson. The former comptroller of the School, Joanna Driva, and the School's Administrator,Maria Pilali, were particularlyhelpful on numerous occasions, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge their congenial advice and cooperation. The project was sponsored in the United States by Boston University through its Department of Archaeology, the Center for Archaeological Studies, and the Center for Remote Sensing, all of which provided equipment and facilities to the project, and whose faculty, staff, and students have been supportive in many ways. Boston University also provided fi-
XVI
PREFACE
AND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
nancialandlogisticalsupportthroughits Officeof International Programs, which sponsoredan archaeologicalfield school as part of the projectin 1992-1994.The Americancodirectorof the project(JW) was directorof the fieldschool,andThomasF.TartaronandCarolA. Steinwereteaching assistants;allseniorstaffof the projectalsoprovidedinstructionandguidance to the students,whose field and laboratorystudieswere fully integratedinto the project'sactivities.All staff and field school studentsare listed in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Thomas L. Sever,now of NASAs Global Hydrologyand ClimateCenterin Huntsville,Alabama,and FaroukElBaz,directorof BostonUniversity'sCenterfor RemoteSensing,wereboth supportiveandhelpfulwith adviceon remote-sensingaspectsof theproject. Fundingfor the NikopolisProjectwas providedby grantsfrom the EarthObservingSystem,NASA in 1991;the NationalGeographicSociety, 1992;the Institutefor AegeanPrehistory,1993-1995; and contributions throughoutthe yearsof the projectby a numberof privateindividuals, the Friendsof the Nikopolis Project,who are listed below. Special thanksaredueto fourof the Friends,MarthaSharpeJoukowskyandArtemisA. W.Joukowsky, JamesH. OttawayJr.,andMalcolmHewittWiener, for theirsupportandencouragementfromthe inceptionof the projectto its conclusion.Equipmentforgeophysicalandtopographicsurveyandfor aerialphotographywasprovidedthroughgrantsby the W. M. KeckFoundationto the CenterforRemoteSensing.AutodeskInc.gavethe Nikopolis Projectcopiesof its superbdrawingprogram,AutoCAD, Version12, for eachof the threecomputerplatformsusedbythe project:Macintosh,DOS, andUNIX. TrimbleNavigationCompanylent the projecttwo GlobalPositioningSystemsforthe 1994 season.In 1993,the AppleComputerCorporationcontributedfourcomputersto the project,two Quadra950s and two PowerBook160s,which servedmanyof the computingneedsof the project,both in Greeceand in Boston.The ArchaeometryLaboratoryof the Universityof Minnesota,Duluth,providedsubstantialaid in personnel timeandsupportforanalyses.Finally,we thankCarolA. Stein,a memberof the NikopolisProjectstaffandManuscriptEditorat the American Schoolof ClassicalStudiesat Athens, for her congenial,thoughtful,and perceptivehelp in editingthis volumeandguidingit throughthe publication process.On behalfof the entirestaffof the project,we acknowledge with deepgratitudethe help andcontributionsof all. JamesWiseman KonstantinosZachos
PREFACE
AND
XVII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FRIENDS OF THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT BENEFACTORS Lloyd Cotsen and the NeutrogenaCorporation Dr. Martha SharpeJoukowskyand Dr. Artemis A. W. Joukowsky James H. OttawayJr. Malcolm Hewitt Wiener PATRONS
Ms. Betty Banks Elizabeth Buntrock Leon Levy Dr. Anna MargueriteMcCann and Mr. RobertTaggart ProfessorJ. P. Sullivant andJ. L. Godfrey SPONSORS
Anonymous Mr.James R. JamesJr. Philip J. King Dr. William Ruf and Mrs. Elizabeth Ruf J. Robert Sewell SUSTAINING
MEMBERS
Anonymous Dr. BarbaraBell Doreen C. Spitzer Susan and Stephen Wiseman MEMBERS CONTRIBUTING Dr. PatriciaAnawalt ProfessorApostolos Athanassakis Robert S. Carter ProfessorMarian B. Davist Ernestine S. Elster,Ph.D. Dr. Howard Gotlieb In memory of StuartHaupt ProfessorG. L. Huxley Mr. Robert F.Johnston Michaelt and Susan Katzev Norma Kershaw Tom Lucia W. V. MacDonald
KatherineNordsieck LeonardV. Quigley,Esq. Eleanor Robbins Susan PetschaftRothstein Jane Ayer Scott Jane Dunn Sibley Judith P. Sullivan Professorand Mrs. Homer A. Thompsontt Dr. George Udvarhelyi Elizabeth LydingWill Donald and Rae Wiseman
CHAPTER
I
THE
NIKOPOLIS
CONCEPT,
AIMS,
PROJECT: AND
ORGANIZATION byJames Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos
Human societies at all times and in all parts of the world interact with the landscape they inhabit: it could not be otherwise, even if the interaction were somehow limited to the selective exploitation of natural resources. Human activities alter the landscape and the natural environment, often in dramaticways; the alterations may occur as the result of human design, as in clearing a forest to plant crops, or may be incidental, as in the destruction (or reshaping) of a mountainside by Roman miners of precious metals. Conversely, humans at various times in the past have physically adapted to changes in their environment (especially in the distant past), or responded to environmental change in a variety of other ways. Some of these responses, such as migration or technological innovation, have been drastic and revolutionaryin their effect and are often recognizable in the archaeologicalrecord,while other responseswere more gradual,even subtle, and are more difficult to detect. To acknowledge the importance of the natural setting, of the environment at large, in studying change in human society is not to deny the importance of interculturalrelationships, or the role of the individual intellect or collective social conscience in the evolution of ethical, spiritual, or other sociocultural phenomena in human affairs.The point is that to understand and explain changes in human society over time, it is critically important to study society in relationship to the changing environment in which it existed. Through this approach to the past archaeologists are able to provide insights into the factors that underliechanges in human-land relationships,sometimes over a short timespan or even regarding specific events, but especially over the long term. And they can explore those intercultural relationships and sociocultural phenomena cited above, which themselves evolve within specific environmental settings and change. We have sought to apply these concepts in the formulation and conduct of the Nikopolis Project, an undertaking in landscape archaeology focused on the human societies that inhabited southern Epirus in northwestern Greece from earliest times to the medieval period. More specifically, the project has employed intensive archaeological survey and geological investigations to determine patterns of human-activity areas, and
2
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
Figure1.1. Map of Epirusand adjacentregions.The surveyzone is indicatedby crosses. what the landscape and other features of the natural setting were like in which those activities took place, in an effort to understand and explain observed changes in human-land relationships through time.1
THE CHOICE STUDY
OF SOUTHERN
EPIRUS FOR THE
Southern Epirus was selected for this broad diachronic study in part because, at the time, it was only in Epirus and in Thessaly that there was material evidence for something approaching the full range of prehistoric periods. Palaeolithic stone tools, for example, were first attested in Greece in the Louros River valley of Epirus.2 The area is also topographically diverse, including coastal regions, marshy lagoons, inland valleys, high upland plains in rugged mountain terrain, and mountain passes,3thereby providing a variety of environmental settings for different types of human activities that might be investigated by the project.What is more, prior to the Nikopolis Project there had been no large-scale, systematic, modern survey of the region, and most of the previous archaeological excavations were limited in a variety of ways.4The Nikopolis Project thus could be expected to enlarge our knowledge of a region that was not well known archaeologically. Another important considerationwas the existence in the surveyzone of Nikopolis, the "city of victory" founded by Augustus to celebrate his
1.This introductory sectionis an versionof the statementof expanded aims set out in Wiseman 1995a, p. 1, and uses some of the phrasingof that earlierformulation. 2. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964; Higgs and Vita Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967. 3. Etudegdologique. 4. See below,"PreviousArchaeological Work in the SurveyZone."
THE
*..11,-
NIKOPOLIS
3
PROJECT
I
I
Louros River
Acheron River
Vouv
, Parga ,Kiperi Phnr^ . (Ammoudia
f Voulista
X
~
,~~\ ~
(
~~Panayia
1
taos
Yeoryios Ayios Thesprotiko Kastri kinopilos 'N2manteion KastroRizovouni , *Spilaion \ *Loutsa Aloaki. V dio Ch .:- mLadiouros Rogo, i;':: Palaiorophoros? Louros-Kastro ' / -' - :, Arachthos Cassope* ) '"X * Strongyli \ River K' Ephyra
Kastkrosykm
Grammeno
Archan los
ICmian Sea
*1o Nikopolis
OrmosVathy
*
Chlts
y7."\ Prey .a ;:,
.Tmas
SaIaor
^
Ambracian Gulf
Actm
Figure1.2. Map of surveyzone with selectedtoponyms
0
5
10
15
20
25 KM ..:.
.
I
victory in 31 B.C. over Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium. The creation of the urban population by the officially encouraged migration or forced removal to Nikopolis of populations from other cities of Epirus, Acarnania,Leucas, Amphilochia, and Aetolia,5 and the long life of Nikopolis as the metropolis of Epirus, raised a number of challenging problems regarding the relationship between the city and its territory to which the project'sresearchconcepts were directly applicable.The project thus takes its name from Nikopolis, the best-known toponym in southern Epirus. Finally, there was an urgent need for interdisciplinary survey before certain types of evidence, including some of the culturalremains, vanished as a result of various activities:land reclamation near the coast, the growth of the modern town of Preveza and several other smaller communities, industrial and agriculturaldevelopment, limestone quarrying,and other development activities related to tourism. These activities had wrought major changes on the regional landscape since 1950, and the pace of change in recent years had accelerated.
THE SURVEY ZONE 5. Kirsten(1987), Murrayand Petsas (1989, pp. 4-5), and Purcell (1987) all discussthe founding of Nikopolis and cite the most important sources.
The survey zone (Figs. 1.1, 1.2), about 1,200 km2, includes the entire nomos (administrativedistrict)of Preveza,a modern town on the Nikopolis peninsula, extending from the straits of Actium almost to the walls of the ancient city. On the east the survey zone extends into the nomos of Arta,
4
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
so that the entire deltaic, lagoonal area of the Louros River after its exit from its gorge at the modern town of Philippias was included; not included was the course of the Arachthos, a larger river east of the Louros which flows through the city of Arta (the ancient Ambracia) before emptying into the Ambracian Gulf, also known today as the Gulf of Arta. It is the western part of the north coast of the gulf, therefore, that lies within the surveyzone, from Salaoraon the east to the southerntip of the Nikopolis peninsula. The other boundaries follow those of the nomos of Preveza. That is, the western boundary of the survey zone is the shoreline of the Ionian Sea, from the straits of Actium on the south, where the Ambracian Gulf is linked to the sea, extending north beyond Ammoudia Bay (= Phanari Bay), at the mouth of the Acheron River, to Parga.The northern boundary of the survey zone runs east from Parga, along the middle Acheron River, and across the mountains to the narrowsof the Louros River gorge near the modern town of Kleisoura, below the ancient acropolis known locally as Voulista Panayia. The geology and geomorphology of southern Epirus are discussed in detail in Chapters 3, 5, and 6, so comments here are limited to observations of an introductory nature, primarily focusing on features providing general constraints on communication and exploitation of resources. A series of north-south Mesozoic limestone ridges, 600-1,000 m high, extends across the region from the Louros gorge to the Ionian coast, alternating with Tertiary flysch basins at elevations of 150-600 m, so that the basins provide now, as they did in the past, corridors of varying convenience for traveling north-south; fortified town sites of Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic times are situated along the routes. Access to these natural corridors on the south is via passes through or between a series of mountains along the Ambracian embayment: from west to east, Mts. Zalongo, Stavros, and Rokia (see Fig. 5.1). The Louros River valley was an important communication route from early prehistoric times to the present; the principal road from Arta to Ioannina, present-day capital of Epirus, still passes through the gorge. The next basin on the west is most easily entered from the south between Mts. Rokia and Stavros, and a travelerwould pass near a fortified Classical and Hellenistic town site (Kastro Rizovouni) en route to the north and the passes that lead eventually into the valley of Dodona. The next basin to the west includes access to the upper Acheron River, and can be entered over a low ridge between Mts. Stavros and Zalongo. A bit furtherwest, the naturalroute is over a ridge of Mt. Zalongo, by the Classical and Hellenistic town of Cassope, and from there through a winding pass to the modern town of Kanallakion in the eastern part of the plain of the lower Acheron River. Agriculture is now practiced throughout the region, wherever it is possible to do so, in the upland valleys, along the courses of rivers and streams, and in the coastal areas. In the latter regions, especially around Ammoudia Bay and along the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf, swamps and marshyareashave been drainedduring the past half-century and flooding has been further controlled by the construction of canals, which also serve as conduits for irrigationof fields. Dams were built on both the Louros and Arachthos Rivers.There has been extensive work also in some of the
THE
NIKOPOLIS
5
PROJECT
upland basins; for example, a small lake (Lake Mavri) was drained in the basin east of Kastro Rizovouni to provide more arableland, and the deep waters of Lake Ziros in the same area are now being tapped for irrigation. The whole lower Acheron and the valley of its chief tributary,the Vouvos (ancient Kokytos) River,as far as the modern town of Paramythia(outside the survey zone) are now lush with vegetation, including a variety of cash crops and orchards.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY ZONE
6. A detailedaccountof previous investigationsin southernEpirus is
beingprepared by K.Zachos. 7. Dakaris 1971, 1975b, 1977,1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983. 8. Dakaris 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1975a, 1975b, 1977, 1993; Wiseman 1998. 9. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967. 10. Bailey et al. 1983a, 1983b; Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy 1992. The investigationsin Epirusby
aswellas G. Baileyandhis colleagues, otherrecentworksomewhatfurther afield(e.g.,by K.Petrusoin Albania), arediscussed,andadditional publicationscited,by RunnelsandvanAndel in Chapter3. 11. Hammond 1967. 12. Dakaris 1971, 1972. 13. Paperspresentedat the symposiumwere publishedin Chrysos 1987. 14. Wiseman 1987, p. 413.
WORK IN THE
The most significant archaeologicalactivities in the largerregion in earlier years6were excavationsby Greek and German scholars at the ancient town of Cassope;7 Greek excavations at a site near the mouth of the Acheron identified by the excavatoras the Nekyomanteion, the Oracle of the Dead;8 and investigations by British scholars of Palaeolithic sites in the Louros River gorge to the northeast of Nikopolis.9 Recently the British renewed their interest in some of Eric Higgs's early work at Kokkinopilos and its environs (e.g., Asprochaliko),and carriedout limited surveyfor Palaeolithic remains along the coast.10Little was known of Neolithic, Bronze Age, and early Iron Age developments in the region, but the historical period was somewhat better represented in the scholarly literature.Important, useful studies of the region in antiquity were published by N. G. L. Hammond11 and by Sotirios Dakaris.12Both authors included copious topographical observations in their books and their researchinvolved some survey,which was, however, neither systematic nor intensive. Other archaeological investigations in the area have been limited to small-scale operations, usually involving salvageor preservationby the ephoreias,and have been briefly reported over the years in the annualArchaiologikonDeltion of the Greek Archaeological Service.
BACKGROUND PROJECT
AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE
The Nikopolis Project had its origins in the First International Symposium on Nicopolis in 1984.13A paper presented by one of us (JW) focused on the need for the study of Nikopolis in its topographic setting, and suggested approachesto such a study.One specific recommendation, particularly relevant to the eventual development of the Nikopolis Project, was phrased as follows. A survey both of the naturalresources and the cultural remains of the region will be required if Nikopolis is to be studied in its regional context. What is more, the ancient topographic profile, including the changing coastlines, must be determined, along with climatic changes and the palaeoecology generally.14
6
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
Remotesensing,includinggeophysicalprospection,and computer-aided analysiswere discussedin the samepresentationas usefultools to aid in such an undertaking,as well as in the investigationof Nikopolis itself. was citedas an importantmethodGeophysicalprospection,in particular, ology by which at least somepartsof the city planof Nikopolismight be establishedbeforeany excavationwas initiated.Symposiumparticipants and organizerswere deeplyinterestedin the investigationand preservation of the great city itself, and a coordinated,multifaceted,long-term effortwas formallydeclaredby the symposiumboardto be a desirable outcomeof the symposium.15 Continuedconcernfor Nikopoliseventuallyled to the appointment in 1986 by the GreekMinisterof Culture,MelinaMercouri,of a special Committee for the Preservationof Nikopolis, which was headed by EvangelosChrysos(nowbasedat the Universityof Athens),who wasthen Professorof ByzantineHistoryat the Universityof Ioanninaand one of the organizersof the symposium.The committeemembersrepresented the groupsand organizationsin Greecewith concernsor responsibilities for Nikopolis,includingthe GreekArchaeologicalService,the ArchaeologicalSocietyof Athens,the city of Preveza,the Universityof Ioannina, andothers.Architectshiredby the committeeweregiven an officein the Town Hall of Preveza,and they beganthe importantjobs of mappingall visible remainsin Nikopolis and its periphery,and of documentingthe ownershipof all propertieswithin the archaeologicalzone of Nikopolis. The committeewas reconstitutedoccasionallyin the 1990s to reflectpolitical(bothlocalandnational)andinstitutionalchanges,but Chrysosretainedthe chairmanshipthroughoutthe permutationsof the committee until the completionof the NikopolisProject. With the encouragementof Chrysos,Wisemanbegandiscussionsin 1988 with AngelikaDouzougli,the newly appointedproistameni(director)of the 12th Ephoreiaof PrehistoricandClassicalAntiquities,andher husband,KonstantinosZachos,seniorarchaeologistin the sameephoreia, on a projectin the Nikopolisregion,which regardingpossiblecollaboration lies within the purviewof that ephoreia.The 8th Ephoreiaof Byzantine Antiquities,directedby FrankiskaKephallonitou,alsobecameinvolvedin the earlyplanning,becauseLate Antique and Byzantineremainsin the sameregionwere amongthe responsibilitiesof that ephoreia.The decision was reachedin 1990 that the two ephoreias,both basedin loannina, of the project, andBostonUniversitywouldjointlysharethe responsibilities so that the proposalfor the project,when finalized,was for a joint underin Greekterminology. The directorsof the two ephoreias taking,synergasia and K. Zachoswerecodirectorsof the projectwith Wiseman,the Ameriof the ephoreiaswere canPrincipalInvestigator,andotherrepresentatives alsomembersof the staff.The projectproposalwasthen submittedfirstto the AmericanSchoolof ClassicalStudies,as then requiredby Greeklaw for a projectinvolvingAmericansponsorshipor cosponsorship. Therewas for a time considerationof a collaborative projectbasedon that would carry Nikopolisitself,workingin cooperationwith the group The out the regionalstudy,as envisionedat the Nikopolissymposium.16 principalaimsof workat Nikopoliswouldhavebeen to determineat least
15. Chrysos 1987, pp. 417-418. 16. Wiseman 1987.
THE NIKOPOLIS
17. van Andel and Runnels 1987; Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994.
PROJECT
7
the generaloutlineof the city plan throughgeophysicalprospectionand otherformsof remotesensing;photographyfroma tetheredblimpboth to help in detectingthe townplanandto aidin the documentationof abovegroundremains;and test excavationsintendedto providea stratigraphic controlfor regionalceramics,an urgentneedbecausetherewerethen few publishedgroupsof well-datedceramics.These planswereabandonedin 1991,as it becameclearthatthereweretoo manyconflictingandcompeting claimsto archaeologicalrightsat Nikopolisitself for any one group, especiallya new one, to obtainthe supportof the ArchaeologicalCouncil in Athens, the responsiblebody for approvingpermitsfor archaeological investigationsof any kind in Greece.The proposalas finallysubmitted wasfor a combinedarchaeological andgeologicalsurveyof the region,but not includingNikopolis,conductedin synergasia.For 1991, the project would involve mainlyground-truthingof satelliteimageryand gaining greaterfamiliaritywith the landscapeby the Americanstaff,andfinalizing the aims and methodologyof the regionalinvestigation.The subsequent permitwas for threeyears,1992-1994, duringwhich the archaeological and geologicalinvestigationswere carriedout. There were studyseasons in the summersof 1995 and 1996,when seniorstaff,basedin Ioanninato study archaeologicalmaterialscollectedduringthe survey,were able to revisitthe surveyzone with staff reportsin hand and to discussproject resultsandinterpretations. Laboratoryanalysesandstudyboth of the artifactsandthe archiveshavecontinuedsincethat time. A numberof scholarsin Greece,the United States,the United Kingdom, andothercountriescontributedto the eventualresearchdesign,includingboth specificresearchaims and methodologiesadoptedby the Nikopolis Project,especiallythose who have devoted so much of their time andeffortas membersof the staff.George(Rip) Rapp,a geoarchaeologistat the Universityof Minnesota,Duluth,with extensivefield experiencein Greeceandotherpartsof the easternMediterranean, was one of the firstscholarsinvitedto join the staff;he organizedanddirectedmuch of the project'sgeologicalsurvey,coringprogram,and shorelinestudies. CurtisRunnels,an archaeologistat BostonUniversity,broughthis expertisein the earlyprehistoryof Greeceandin surveyto the NikopolisProject. He wouldleadthe Palaeolithicsurvey,with the aid andcooperationof his wife, PriscillaMurray,ResearchFellowin Archaeologyat BostonUniversity,andTjeerdvanAndel, a geoarchaeologist formerlyof StanfordUniversity,then (andnow) of the Universityof Cambridge.Runnelsandvan Andel would now applysurveytechniquesthey hadjointlydevelopedon projectsin southernGreeceto the investigationof earlyhumansandhominids in Epirus.17 Their survey,which supplemented,but was conducted the intensivesurfacesurveycarriedout by otherstaff,infrom, separately volvedintensivegeomorphologicstudiesin the detectionof Pleistocene landscapes,whichtheythensearched.Bothwouldalsojoin in otherproject responsibilities-Runnels,for example,in the analysisof prehistoricstone tools, andvanAndel in geomorphologyfor all periods,as well as providconcerns.LucyWiseman ing counselandinsightfor allgeoarchaeological of BostonUniversity'sCenterforArchaeologicalStudieswas alsoa member of the stafffromthe beginning,servingboth as projectadministrator
8
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
and registrarof artifacts.Three advancedgraduate students in archaeology at Boston University were also part of the senior staff. Thomas Tartaron and Carol Stein were the primary team leaders in archaeological survey, and provided both supervision and guidance for others who subsequently became survey team leaders. Tartaron also developed a specific sampling strategy for the Acheron River valley and Ayios Thomas peninsula, reflecting the overall stratified sampling strategy of the project, and carried out a special study of the Bronze Age sites and materials, part of which was included in his doctoral dissertation.18Melissa Moore oversaw the study and registration of ceramics, and part of her research has been included in her Ph.D. dissertation.19Other staff and consultants included geologists, computer scientists, archaeologists, and specialists in various other fields; all staff and their affiliations during the Nikopolis Project are provided in Table 1.1. Students enrolled in a Boston University Archaeological Field School were invaluablemembersboth of the field surveyteams and the geological coring and survey units in 1992, 1993, and 1994. As a part of their archaeological training, they participated in all activities of the project in Greece, including the processing of artifacts,data processing on computer, digitizing of maps, ground-truthing of satellite imagery,topographical survey,geophysical prospection, aerial photography by tetheredblimp, and other investigations.Their names and the institutionswhere they were studying at the time are listed in Table 1.2.
SPECIFIC RESEARCH AIMS Research aims, nested within the larger conceptual framework described above, relate mainly to specific time periods and include the following topics, phrased as questions, which much of the project's fieldwork was intended to answer. 1. What forms do the cultural remains of the earliest inhabitants of southern Epirus take, and how may we explain their distribution in the different periods of the Palaeolithic?What resources were exploited by the early humans and hominids, and what was the environmental setting? 2. What is the evidence for the shift from hunting/gathering groups to agriculturalsocieties? Can that shift be related to changes in the landscape? 3. What was the nature of the contacts between peoples of this region in later prehistoric times, especially in the Late Bronze Age, and groups on the shores of the Ionian Sea, in other parts of Greece, and more generally in the eastern Mediterranean? Do these contacts differ in quality during fully historical times? 4. How are colonial activities of southern Greeks manifested in this region? 5. What were the effects of the development of political leagues and interregional alliances on settlement patterns, sizes of sites, religious centers, and resource exploitation in Classical and Hellenistic times?
18. Tartaron1996. 19. Moore 2000.
THE
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT
9
6. What were the effects of the historically documented Roman intrusion into Epirus (which was also the earliest intervention by Romans in Greek affairs) in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., and how may they be identified in the landscape?How intrusive into local society were the Romans, and what activities (military,industrial, commercial, social, etc.) are indicated by the cultural remains? 7. What was the regional effect of the synoecisminvolved in the founding of Nikopolis by Octavian, later Augustus, first emperor of Rome? How are the new patterns of settlement and communication related to changes in the landscape itself? 8. What was the nature of the exploitation of the countryside in the Late Antique period (4th-6th centuries A.c.) and how was it related to the socioeconomic transformation into medieval times? More specifically,what was the economic basis of southern Epirus in late antiquity and in medieval times? When did the extensive exploitation of wetlands along the Ambracian Gulf begin, and when the deliberate reclamation of land from coastal lagoons?
METHODOLOGIES
20. A practicerecommendedin Sever andWiseman 1985, pp. 70-71.
The research design called for the archaeological sampling by intensive surface survey of all environmental zones: coastal plains, inland valleys, mountainous terrain,and upland valleys.The large size of the surveyzone precluded archaeological survey over the entire region. The selection of the areasto be surveyedwithin each environmental zone would be guided primarilyby acquiredknowledge of the region. Geological surveyand other geomorphologic investigationsprovidedimportantinformation,both negative and positive, influencing the selection of fields and transectsto survey; fieldwalking teams, for example, could avoid areas of recent alluviation where remains (if any) of prehistoric-medieval times would have been covered over and not detectable.The location of early historical or even Pleistocene landscapes exposed by erosion, on the other hand, offered opportunities for survey with greater expectation of detecting archaeological remains. Even so, occasional surveyswere conducted to test negative indications from geomorphology or satellite imagery,20as when fieldwalking teams spent a day walking transects across the presumed relict coastlines of Ammoudia Bay that were formed by long-shore deposition in recent historical times. The negative results of the intensive survey confirmed the geomorphologic conclusions and the interpretations of imagery.The degree of visibility was recorded for all areas surveyed. Fields where vegetation was too dense for archaeological remains to be seen during preliminary reconnaissance were not selected for survey. This practice is an important consideration in evaluating the results of the survey,because in some other year, or some other time of year,those fields might be clear of vegetation, and might, of course, yield archaeological materials. On the other hand, in some instances fieldwalking teams were able to return to a region to survey fields that had been too densely covered for survey in a
IO
JAMES
WISEMAN
TABLE 1.1. PROJECT
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
STAFF AND THE YEARS OF THEIR
Name
PARTICIPATION
1991
1992
*
*
0
.
*0
*
*
*
*
1993
1994
1995
1996
CODIRECTORS
Angelika Douzougli/KonstantinosZachos, 12th Ephoreiaof Prehistoricand ClassicalAntiquities FrankiskaKephallonitou, 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities James Wiseman ADMINISTRATION
AND
0
0* 0
0
0
INVENTORY
Lucy Wiseman (registrar of artifacts, administration) Melissa Moore (registrar of ceramics,archaeology) Lia Karimali (lithics, survey) Dimitra Papagianni, University of Cambridge (lithics, survey)
*
*e
*
*
*
0*
KaterinaDakari,8th Ephoreiaof ByzantineAntiquities (survey, Late Antique ceramics) Ricardo Elia (associatedirector,archaeology)
*
*
Asymina Kardasi, Athens (Byzantine ceramics)
StavroulaVrachionidou,12th Ephoreiaof Prehistoricand *
Classical Antiquities (administration, survey) ARCHAEOLOGY,
SENIOR
STAFF
Timothy Baugh (remotesensing, ground-truthing) Brenda Cullen (survey, remotesensing)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
S
*
*
*
*
*
Priscilla Murray (survey, drafting) Curtis Runnels (field director,Palaeolithic survey; lithics)
*
Carol Stein (survey, remotesensing) Thomas Tartaron (survey, ground-truthing)
*
*
*
*
0
StavrosZabetas,Greek ArchaeologicalService (survey) GEOLOGY
AND
GEOPHYSICS
Mark Besonen, Universityof Minnesota, Duluth (geologicalsurvey, coring) Richard Dunn, University of Delaware (geologicalsurvey, coring)
ZhichunJing, Universityof Minnesota, Duluth (geologicalsurvey, coring) Jon Jolly, Seattle, Washington (oceanography,instrumentation)
George (Rip) Rapp,Universityof Minnesota, Duluth (geology,geoarchaeology)
*
*
0
Apostolos Sarris,Athens, Greece (geophysics) Marie Schneider (geology,survey)
Tjeerdvan Andel, Universityof Cambridge (Pleistocenegeology, geomorphology,geoarchaeology)
Sytze van Heteren (geology) John Weymouth,Universityof Nebraska(geophysics) Li-Ping Zhou, Universityof Cambridge (geology, thermoluminescencedating)
*
*
*
*
THE NIKOPOLIS
II
PROJECT
TABLE 1.1-Continued Name COMPUTER
1991
1992
1993
1994
SCIENCE
Robert DeRoy (computerscience,remotesensing) Daniel Juliano (computerscience,remotesensing)
Rudi Perkins,Bangor,Maine (computer science) PHOTOGRAPHY *
Michael Hamilton (aerial photography,generalphotography) Eleanor Emlen Myers' (aerialphotography)
J. Wilson Myers (aerialphotography) TOPOGRAPHICAL
SURVEY
AND
DRAFTING
Theodoros Chazitheodoros,Greek ArchaeologicalService, *
Athens (topographicalsurvey, drafting) David Clayton (topographicalsurvey, drafting)
Athina Kotsani,Preveza(drafting)
a
Kostas Papavasileiou, Preveza (architecture,drafting)
a
Anne Van Dyne, Seattle,Washington (topographicalsurvey, drafting) GENERAL
a
STAFF
Stephen Agnew (ground-truthing)
0
KaelAlford (survey) Alesia Alphin (survey, inventory)
Betty Banks, Spokane,Washington (survey,inventory, data entry) Mark Greco (survey) Cinder Griffin, Bryn Mawr (survey, inventory)
* a
Nikola Hampe, Universityof Miinster (survey) Alan Kaiser(survey) PetraMatern, Universityof Miinster (survey) Michele Miller (ground-truthing, survey) Lee Riccardi (survey, inventory)
a
0 *S *
KatrinVanderhuyde,Universityof loannina (survey) ElizabethWiseman, Littleton, Colorado (photography,ground-truthing) CON SULTANTS
*
VirginiaAnderson-Stojanovic,Wilson College (ceramics) Evangelos Chrysos, University of loannina (Byzantine history)
*
*
*
*
*
HarrisonEiteljorgII, Bryn Mawr (databases, AutoCAD) Panayiotis Paschos, IGME, Preveza (geology)
Staff memberslisted without an institutionalaffiliationor city were from Boston University.
*
1995
1996
I2
JAMES
WISEMAN
TABLE 1.2. FIELD SCHOOL
AND
KONSTANTINOS
STUDENTS
I992
KaelAlford, Boston University AlexandraBienkowska,Boston University Anne Cockburn,Williams College Todd Gukelberger,SUNY, Albany Deborah King, RensselaerUniversity Dawna Marden,Universityof SouthernMaine Thomas Matthews, Utica College of SyracuseUniversity RichardRotman,Boston University Bayleh Shapiro,Boston University Jane Sontheimer,Boston University Anita Vyas,Boston University ErikaWashburn,Boston University 1993 AlessandroAbdo, Boston University Evie Ahtaridis,Universityof Pennsylvania TracyBarnes,Texas ChristianUniversity Arlyn Bruccoli,Bard College ChristinaCalvin, George Mason University Scott deBrestian,Boston University Antonina Delu, Universityof California,Riverside KatherineDemopoulos, Universityof California,Los Angeles Cheryl Eckhardt,Boston University JenniferFisher,Boston University Lorena Freeman,Universityof the South Stephani Kleiman,Loyola MarymountUniversity Noah Koff, Boston University
ZACHOS
AND THEIR
HOME INSTITUTIONS
Natalie Loomis, TulaneUniversity Michael Marton, Franklinand MarshallCollege Martin McBrearty,FurmanUniversity Scott McCrimmon, Boston University Sean Mulligan, Boston University Wendy O'Brien,Boston University Dena Pappathanasi,Universityof New Hampshire Rudolph Perkins,Boston University Jamie Ravenscraft,Duke University JonathanWood, PrincetonUniversity KellyYounger,Loyola MarymountUniversity 1994 Lisa Davis, HarvardUniversity Mely Do, Universityof Pittsburgh Aviva Figler,Boston University Mike Gaddis, PrincetonUniversity Amy Graves,Miami University Leslie Harlacker,Boston University KarlaManternach,Loras College Joe Nigro, Boston University Anne Maxson, Duke University KathyMontgomery,Boston University JenniferMurray,SUNY, Buffalo StephanPapageorgiou,VersalliusCollege, Brussels T. J. Reed, Cornell University YasuhisaShimizu, Boston University Alison Spear,Mount Holyoke College
previous year.The methodology of the surface survey is discussed in detail by Tartaron in Chapter 2, but it is important to note here that surface surveys included both transects within large regions and intensive sampling, or complete coverage, of human-activity areas ranging from small single-activity sites to extensive settlements. In addition, one fortified town site (Kastri, in the lower Acheron valley) was selected for intensive urban survey. Geomorphologic studies formed part of the central core of the project, as required by the research concept. If we were to study the interaction between humans and their environment,we reasoned,one of the first steps must be to determine what that natural setting was-that is, what the landscape and other aspects of the environment were like over time. A number of investigations, therefore, were planned to provide the needed evidence. An extensive coring program was initiated in 1992 and continued through 1994 that was aimed at determining changes in shorelines over time both in the Ambracian Gulf and along the Ionian coast. The analyses of the cores, most of which were carriedout in the Archaeometry Laboratoryof the University of Minnesota, Duluth, also made it possible to establish a sequence of local change and, through radiocarbondating, to determine the chronology of change. Cores also provided microfauna,
THE
21. See the discussionsin Wiseman 1992b, pp. 3-5; 1993a, pp. 12-13. 22. The following brief accountis intended mainly to explainwhat kinds of remote-sensingimagerywere acquiredand used by the project,and why they were used. 23. Wiseman 1996a, 1996b. 24. Stein and Cullen 1994; Wiseman 1996a, 1996b.
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT
I3
macrofauna,and pollen for paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Geomorphologic investigations involved geological survey in all parts of the survey zone, and intensive work, including coring and mapping, at selected sites or regions. Geological survey and coring were coordinated as closely as possible with the archaeological survey, so that field teams often comprised both geologists and archaeologistsworking together. We had planned offshore investigations to supplement the study of shoreline change, and there was a promising beginning to that research. The Hellenic Navy dispatched a research ship, the Pytheas,to work with project staff for two weeks in 1992. A Klein side-scan sonar and a Klein subbottom profilerwere towed behind the ship both in the Ionian Sea and in the Ambracian Gulf, the former recording features on the surfaceof the sea bottom, the latter detailing the depth and nature of sediments below the sea floor.The survey,in perpendiculartransects forming a grid pattern, produced data covering some 300 linear kilometers, which to this date have received only preliminary analysis21because they were subsequently sequestered by another bureau of the Greek government. Remote sensing from space was determined to be a potentially useful tool for our surveywell before the initiation of the project,as noted above.22 We did not, however, expect remote-sensing imagery to play a significant role in the detection of archaeological sites because at that time most remote sensors were known to be unsuccessful in penetrating dense vegetation, which covered much of our survey zone.23What is more, although the resolution of satellite imagery had been improved, the smallest picture element (= pixel) of available multispectral imagery was 20 meters to a side, too large to be helpful in detecting the small features and artifacts of most archaeologicallandscapes. It is an interesting sidelight on the development of archaeological methodologies that remote sensing in the end proved to be quite useful in detecting Pleistocene landscapes,which could then be located and searchedby ground-truthing survey teams, and which resulted in the discovery of five prehistoric sites.24Its greatest value, we thought at the time, would probablylie in its ability to provide imagery of the entire region that would permit the classification and identification of present-day land cover. It could, therefore, help in defining the environmental zones of the survey area;show currentconditions that might affect the conduct of surfacesurvey;and perhapsprovide some insight into routes of communication among known (or subsequently discovered) ancient settlements. The imagery would also serve as a layer in the computeraided GIS (geographic information system) maps to be generated by the project, and we hoped to develop spectral signatures-that is, a characteristic spectralresponse identifiable in the imagery-for features of archaeological interest. Both multispectral (MSS) and panchromatic imagery of the entire surveyzone was acquiredfrom the French satellite company SPOT before the beginning of fieldwork in 1991. SPOT imagery was selected primarily because its spatial resolution was the finest availablefor general researchat that time: MSS at 20 meters, panchromatic at an even finer 10 meters. The United States'Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery,in contrast, has a resolution of 30 meters. Since spatial resolution on the ground is a
I4
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
Figure 1.3. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the northern part of the survey zone
Figure 1.4. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the southern part of the survey zone. Leucas (lower left) and other regions south of the Ambracian Gulf lie outside the survey area.
THE
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT
I5
function of altitude as well as the type of sensor, we could have achieved finer resolution from sensors mounted on aircraft, instead of spacecraft. The only airborne platform available to the project, however, was a tethered blimp, which, although excellent for individual sites and smaller areas, was not appropriatefor such a large regional survey as ours because of the time and other logistical difficulties such coverage would require.Full coverage of the survey zone required two images, both in MSS and panchromatic. The northern image (Fig. 1.3) included almost the entire survey zone, and the second (Fig. 1.4) added the southernpart of the Nikopolis peninsula, along with areas outside the survey zone: Actium, Leucas, and other areas south of the Ambracian Gulf. Multispectral imagery is particularlyuseful in showing different types of landcover because landcover types have a different reflectance value in each band of the electromagnetic spectrum. The combination of these numeric values in the bands used by the sensor (SPOT uses green, red, and near infrared) constitutes a spectral signature, which may be represented by a (false) color assigned in a multispectralimage generated by the computer.This assigning of colors, or classification of images, is a process whereby each land area having the same kind of cover receives the same (false) color in the image. The researcher,then, after identifying on the ground at least once the class representedby a particularcolor as a particular landcover (e.g., class 12 = red = limestone outcropping), may reasonably expect other patches of red in that image to represent the same kind of landcover;in the example just cited, more limestone outcrops. In practice, however,the classification of an image may result in the combining of several signatures into a single class, or the subdivision of a signature into more than one class, depending on the number of classes the researcher chooses for the image and on other physical aspects of the landcover.Making use of the facilities of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston University, Carol Stein classified the MSS imagery of the Nikopolis Project into fifty classes,with all unclassifiedlandcoverassignedclass 0. The number of classes was considerably larger than proved useful in the field because the fine distinctions the classification made possible resulted in the identification of many kinds of landcover that were irrelevantfor our research. For example, there was no reason for us to be able to distinguish kiwi plants from maize, which our classification enabled us to do. In retrospect, we now see that fewer landcover classes (say,fifteen to twenty) would have been preferable,because such a classificationwould have resulted in a beneficial lumping together of rock outcroppings, and would have created other continuous zones-as in fact they were-of barrenland, instead of a number of separate units in the classified imagery.The finer distinctions involved in developing a spectral signature of an archaeologicalfeature, or archaeological feature combined with a particularvegetation, would still have been theoretically possible. The relevant portions of the MSS images were then subdivided by Stein into twenty scenes, each representing about 100 km2on the ground, and printed for field use. Transparentoverlays at the same size were also printed, five for each scene, each displaying ten of the fifty false colors of classes of landcover,so that field teams were able to use them conveniently
I6
JAMES
,
AND
WISEMAN
ZW~ ~.
.
.
KONSTANTINOS
.
.
ZACHOS
Figure1.5.The erodedlandscapeof abovethe Louros ~ .......Kokkinopilos ~ ~~~~~ . _ __.River ............ gorge
to determine what on the ground was actually being represented by each false color; this kind of fieldwork is called "ground-truthing."The hard copy of the scenes and transparencieswere at a scale of 1:50,000, so they could be used in conjunction with our topographical maps of the same scale; the transparenciescould be used as overlays of the maps, just as they were on the printed scenes. Ground-truthing, a focus of our fieldwork in 1991, required precise location of the observed landscape, so the field teams were also provided with copies of the panchromatic scenes, and even more detailed subscenes. Locations were marked on 1:5,000 topographical maps, and aerialphotographs (scale: 1:20,000) also were used to help locate specific features in the landscape; both maps and photographs were obtained from the Geographic Service of the Hellenic Army. Additional locational information was obtained by 1) global positioning systems (GPS), which provideUTM as well as longitude/latitude readings through communication with the navigational satellites (21 in number in 1991) that constantly orbit earth; 2) altimeter readings (more accurate at that time than GPS in determining altitude), when benchmarks are not readily available;and 3) readings by electronic laser theodolite, for still more precise location in three dimensions, as appropriate.These ground-truthing expeditions, which were led by Timothy G. Baugh during the first, preparatoryfield season, resulted in the identification of 27 of the 50 classes of landcover.An additional 12 classes were created for areaswith distinctive features related to human activity whose spectral signatures might serve as guides to the location of other similar areas:e.g., quarries or ancient sites. One of those new classifications was the eroded Pleistocene landscape of Kokkinopilos (Fig. 1.5), which eventually led to the discovery of five other similar landscapes, and prehistoric sites, as mentioned above. The experience gained in using GPS, satellite imagery,and topographic maps in 1991 was invaluable in developing standardproceduresfor the surveyteams of 1992-1994.
THE
25. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman 1987. 26. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman 1987.
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT
I7
What is more,the ground-truthingexpeditionsof 1991 providedseveral membersof the staffwith a fundamentalfamiliaritywith the Epirotelandscape. Anotherkind of remotesensing,aerialphotographyfrom a tethered blimp,wasemployedby the projectto documentsomeof the largerknown ancientsites.Foursiteswerephotographedwith radio-controlled cameras in 1992 by field teamsled byJ.Wilson MyersandEleanorEmlenMyers: the fortifiedtownof KastroRogonsouthof the LourosRivergorge;Kastro Rizovouni,a fortifiedtown in an enclosedplain northof KastroRogon; the RomanaqueductnearAyios Georgiosin the LourosRivergorge;and VoulistaPanayia,a Hellenisticsite overlookingthe narrowsof the same gorgefurthernorthat Kleisoura.MichaelHamilton,who wasthe project's staffphotographer, led the blimp-photography teamin 1993 that photographedthe largefortifiedClassicalandHellenisticsite at the abandoned modernvillageof Palaiorophoros, northof the townof Louros.The use of this techniquewas limitedby a numberof factors.The necessityfor permits frommultiplecivilianand militaryauthoritiesresultedin numerous, costlydelaysanddisruptionof schedules(e.g.,blimpphotographyin 1991 had to be cancelledand the 1993 seasonwas severelycurtailed).The expensewas significant,andwasgreatlyincreasedin 1993whenwe decided, for safetyreasons,to use heliumin the blimpinsteadof less expensive,but highlyflammablehydrogen.In addition,therewerethe normaldelaysand logisticalproblemsimposedby the techniqueitself, such as the need to awaitfavorablewinds (thatis, none or verylight) andotherclimaticconditions.The photographicresultsof this technique,however,are highly useful,especiallywhen, as on the NikopolisProject,multiplecamerasare usedto providecoverageboth in blackandwhite andin color.A particular advantageof photographyfroma tetheredblimpis thatthe viewsarevertical and so can be used in mapping,unlikethe obliqueviews frequently gatheredby camerason aircraft.It is also possiblein a single flight to obtainphotosat a seriesof elevationsup to a maximumof 800 m, thereby providingboth close-upsand extensivecoverage(see Fig. 1.6).The aerial photographalso can be scannedand then combinedwith the multispectralimage of that area,a techniquewe used in the studyof the fortified town site of Palaiorophoros. The BostonUniversityblimp-photography systemwas designedbyJ. Wilson Myers,who modeledit on the systemhe had developedearlier, and is describedin detailelsewhere.25 A multispectralvideo camera,sucused on a tetheredblimpin the Corinthiaby a BostonUniversity cessfully teamin 1986,26was not usedby the NikopolisProject,but couldusefully be deployedin the future,sinceit canprovidehigh spatialresolutionin six bandsof the electromagneticspectrum. Geophysicalprospectionof variouskindswas carriedout at a number of sites,primarilyto providedataon possiblesubsurfacefeaturesin areas where surfacesurveysuggestedsignificanthumanactivity.Only limited prospectionwaspossiblein 1992 becauseof staffingandequipmentproblems, but successfulprogramsof investigationwere conductedin 1993 underthe directionof JohnWeymouthof the Universityof Nebraskaand
I8
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
Figure1.6. Aerialview of the fortifiedtown site at KastroRogon from an elevation of 400 m. Photoby J. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers
in 1994, when Weymouth was succeeded by his protege, Apostolos Sarris. Instrumentation included a proton magnetometer, electrical resistivity meter, and electromagnetic conductivity meter, of which the first was most frequently used. Weymouth and Sarris are preparing a report on their investigations for volume 2 of this series, and the results are also being incorporated into reports on the town sites where geophysical prospection detected significant subsurfacefeatures such as probable kilns and buildings. The permit of the Nikopolis Project was for survey, not excavation; indeed, under Greek law a single permit might cover only one or the other. As a result, the project had an arrangementwhereby one of the cooperating Greek ephoreias would perform excavation if a site was discovered by the project to be in need of emergency attention. The discovery at the Roman villa site of Strongyli, for example, that burialshad been plundered by clandestine diggers and parts of floor mosaics had been exposed prompted excavations by the Greek ephoreia to ensure conservation.27A similar situation arose at Frangoklisia, probably another Roman villa, on the Ionian coast near Loutsa.28The project did carry out limited excavation in 1991 at the request of the Prehistoric and Classical Ephoreia in the Roman aqueduct below the village of Ayios Georgios, so that details of the water channels and the chronological sequence of aqueduct bridges across the Louros River might be studied and drawn (Fig. 1.7). Our work here resultedin, among other conclusions, the confirmation that the northern bridge was built and utilized for the aqueduct after the earlier,Augustan bridge had been damaged and abandoned.
27. Douzougli 1998a, 1998b. 28. Zachos 1998.
THE
Figure1.7. Aerialview of the water channel(right)andaqueductbridges acrossthe LourosRiverfroman elevationof 320 m. Photo by
NIKOPOLIS
I9
PROJECT
i .
t a
'
J. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers
f
s
DOCUMENTATION All team leadersand individualinvestigatorskept a dailyrecordof their activitiesandobservationsin bound,hardbacknotebooks,which alsocontainedphotographicprintsanddrawings,andwereindexeduponcompletion.The notebookswerenumberedsequentially. This permanenthistorical record,partiallyin narrativeform,was supplementedby an arrayof printedformsthatwerefilledout in the fieldor laboratory, as appropriate, providingdetailedinformationon all aspectsof the investigations,from surfacesurveyto artifactinventory.These two kindsof writtendocumentationwerecross-referenced on a dailybasis,but it wasprimarilythe series of printedformsthat providedthe bulk of the informationthat was enteredinto the computerdatabases.I summarizebelowthe principaldatabasesof the NikopolisProject.All formswere numberedby yearand sequentialaccessionwithin the year,e.g., 92-1. Databasesmarkedwith an asteriskaredealtwith in greaterdetailin Chapter2. 1. Ground-Truthing Form(GTF). A GTF was filledout at every locationwhereground-truthingwas conductedto identifythe landcoverof classesin the satelliteimagery. *2.Tract(T). The tract,an areaof arbitrarysize, is the project's primarysurveyunit whetherin the countrysideor within a large site.The databaseincludeslocation,size, description,conditions of the survey,total artifactcounts,and summaryresults.
20
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
*3. Site/Scatter(SS). An SS is anylocationwheretherewas a concentrationof artifactsor that is markedby visible,in situ remains.This categoryincludesanylocationfroma small scatterof lithicsto a fortifiedtown.The databaseincludes location,size, description,chronology,and surveydata. *4.Walkover(W). A W indicatesa nonintensivesurveyor a visit or reexamination. eitherfor reconnaissance 5. Sample.The sampledatabaseincludesthe description,counts, dates,and otherdetailsof all culturalmaterialcollectedduring survey.Samplenumbersareidenticalto the numbersof the surveyunitswheretheywerecollected. 6. Inventory.Artifactsselectedfor inventorywerecataloguedand Selectioncriteriainstoredaccordingto material/function. cluded,amongothers,significancefor datingor functional analysis,or the likelihoodof publicationas a type artifact. 7. SpecialAnalyses.This databaseprovidesa recordof the context and natureof samplestakenfor laboratoryanalyses,fromclay samplesto geologicalcores. 8. Photo Inventory.A recordof all black-and-whiteand color photographs taken by the Nikopolis Project, in the field, photo studio, or laboratory. 9. Drawing Inventory.A record of all drawings made by and for the project.
Relational databases 1-6 were all created in FoxBase+ for Mac, which seemed to the staff, including the computer scientists and engineers, the most suitable at the time. Unfortunately,when the softwarewas redesigned as FoxPro in 1993, databases in earlierversions of the software could not be upgraded;all windows for data entry would have had to be redesigned and the data reenteredto use FoxPro,a duplication of effort we declined to do. The program, therefore, lacks some of the flexibility and ease of some of the more recent databases, but still has served the project well. The design of the relational databases reflects the archaeological concerns and experience of the senior staff, and there was much (both fruitful and lively) discussion between the archaeologists and the computer experts who put it all together. The various forms and notebooks were supplemented by copies of maps, primarily the 1:5,000 topographical maps, on which field teams marked surveylocations and other observations. Each member of the staff also prepareda staff report at the end of each season, which summarized the activities each person performed, the forms and notebooks in which the records were kept, and whatever other comments the staff desired to make.There were numerous other logistical records,including logs to keep track of the forms assigned for field use, and extensive cross-referencing. We hold redundancy in archaeological records to be a virtue because it makes it possible to discover the inevitable recording errorsthat occasionally creep into databases, however carefully they are kept. All databases and other archives of the Nikopolis Project are stored in the Center for Archaeological Studies at Boston University.
THE
NIKOPOLIS
PROJECT
2I
POST-FIELDWORK ANALYSES During study seasonsin 1995 and 1996, materialscollectedduringthe surveyswerereexaminedandstudiedin Ioannina.The ByzantineEphoreia formermosque,FetiyeDzami, madeavailable forstudyspacethe secularized locatedon the highestpartof the fortressof Ali Pashaandadjacentto the new Museumof Byzantineand Post-ByzantineArchaeology.The glorious view fromone side of the mosqueincludedthe lake of Ioanninaand the PindosMountains,andthereweretreesnearbythat offeredshadefor staff memberswho might be workingoutside.The staff is particularly gratefulto the ByzantineEphoreiafor providingsucha splendidplaceto study,and to the Prehistoricand ClassicalEphoreiafor permittingthe surveymaterialto be transportedacrosstown from the Archaeological Museumto the Kastroduringtwo summers. During each of the two studyseasons,the seniorstaff also had the preciousopportunityto revisitsurveyareasunaccompanied by surveyteams to direct,and not burdenedwith surveysto conductor detailedformsto fill out. The staff,then, were ableto contemplateon the spot the observations of previousyears, and had the leisure to discuss observations andinterpretations with eachotherin the midstof the landscapewe were studying.
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
29. Wiseman,Zachos,and Kephallonitou1996, 1997, 1998. 30. Wiseman 1991,1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997a. 31. Rapp andJing 1994; Runnels 1994; Stein and Cullen 1994;Tartaron 1994;Tartaronand Zachos 1999; Wiseman 1997a, 1997b;Wiseman and Douzougli-Zachos 1994;Wiseman, Robinson, and Stein 1999; reportsby severalstaff membersrecentlyappeared in Isager2001. Articles and abstractsin presshave been omitted here. 32. Runnels and van Andel 1993b; Tartaronand Runnels 1992;Tartaron, Runnels, and Karimali1999. 33. Papagianni2000, which is based on her (1999) dissertationat the Universityof Cambridge. 34. Besonen 1997.
Preliminary reports of the Nikopolis Project appeared regularlyin Greek in the ArchaiologikonDeltion29and in English in Contextand the Nikopolis Newsletter,publications of Boston University's Center for Archaeological Studies.30Papers by several members of the staff have appearedin full or in abstract form in the published transactions of the several conferences and symposia at which they were presented,31and a few special reports have been published in journals and edited volumes of essays.32In addition to the doctoral dissertationsof Moore and Tartaron,which were based mainly on project results and have been cited above, a dissertation by Dimitra Papagianni also includes researchon material from the Nikopolis Project.33Chapter 5 in this volume, written by Mark Besonen, George (Rip) Rapp, and ZhichunJing, is based in part on Besonen's M.S. thesis.34 The present book is the first of two volumes of final reports. Chapter 1, by Wiseman and Zachos, provides a history of the Nikopolis Project, and discussions of the research aims, the interdisciplinary methodologies employed, the databases,and the organization of staff and responsibilities. In the second chapterTartaronpresents in detail the methodology of the diachronic surface survey and places both the methodology and the aims within the historical and theoretical context of survey archaeology,especially as that field has evolved in the archaeology of Europe. These two chapters,which constitute an introduction to the work of the project, provide a historical, theoretical, and methodological frameworkwithin which the results of the overall interdisciplinaryproject may be understood and evaluated. They are not intended to be summaries of the results them-
22
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
selves, which arepresented in the reports that follow in this volume and its forthcoming companion volume. In Chapter 3 Runnels and van Andel present the results of the Palaeolithic survey,which they conducted as a supplement to the diachronic survey. Their methodology, developed over some fifteen years of survey in southern and central Greece, was based first on the investigation of the paleoenvironment, especially the geological history of Pleistocene sediments and other landforms.Their report thus deals comprehensivelywith the geomorphology and changes in the environment of southern Epirus in early prehistoric times, as well as the cultural evolution of its human inhabitants, from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. One of the most remarkableof the open-air Palaeolithicsites investigatedby the project is Spilaion, an Early Upper Palaeolithic site near the currentmouth of the Acheron River, where the ground surface was littered with an estimated 150,000 lithic artifacts. Runnels, Evangelia Karimali, and Brenda Cullen report in Chapter 4 on their study of the Spilaion assemblage, including the results of a spatial analysis of the distribution of the artifacts. Chapters 5 and 6 carrythe discussion of the geomorphology of southern Epirus and its relationships to archaeologicalsites from the end of the Pleistocene to the present. Both reports are based on extensive geologic coring programs and intensive laboratory analyses of the cores, as well as other geomorphologic investigations in the field. ZhichunJing and George (Rip) Rapp document the changes over the past 10,000 years in the coastal landscape of the Nikopolis peninsula and the area to its east, which comprises most of the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf. The locations of the important Classical, Roman, and medieval town sites in this region, and of human habitation generally, are related to the dramatic changes in the landscape,which are themselves shown to result from a variety of environmental, geomorphologic, and cultural factors. Besonen, Rapp, and Jing report in detail on the post-Pleistocene geologic history of the lower Acheron valley,tracing the changing course of the Acheron River,the creation and demise of the Acherousian lake, and the gradual change over time of the deep embayment known to Strabo as the Glykys Limen, where large fleets of ships found anchorage both in Greek and Roman times, to the small bay of the present day at the mouth of the Acheron River.The historical implications of the coastal changes are also discussed. In a final chapter the editors comment briefly on the results reportedin this volume. Volume 2 of LandscapeArchaeologyin SouthernEpirus, Greecewill include a catalogue of sites/scatters and all tracts surveyed; reports on the pottery,lithics, and other artifacts;and a chronological presentation of the cultural remains in their environmental contexts.
CHAPTER
2
THE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SAMPLING
FIELD
STRATEGIES
SURVEY: AND
METHODS
by ThomasF Tartaron
1. KellerandRupp1983;Barker 1991; Cherry 1983, 1994. 2. Alcock 1993; Cherry 1994;
Alcock,Cherry,andDavis1994; Kardulias1994a; Bintliff 1997. 3. Cherry 1994, pp. 92-95. 4. Binford 1964. 5. Fish and Kowalewski1990; Trigger1989, p. 311. 6. Fish and Kowalewski1990; but see Alcock, Cherry,and Davis 1994, pp.137-138. 7. Kintigh 1990; Plog 1990. 8. Parsons1990; Sumner 1990. 9. Fish and Kowalewski1990.
Systematic surface survey has been practiced and refined in the Mediterranean region for more than a quarter century,1and there is no longer serious controversy about the legitimacy of survey as a robust methodological tool for regionally focused research, or about the contribution it has made to the study of all periods of the Mediterranean past.2 Although the many achievementsof surveyprojectsareself-evident and arouse much optimism,3 few would suggest that a state of disciplinary maturity has been attained. The developmental years have witnessed continuous and serious challenges to many of the theoretical and methodological foundations upon which surface survey rests, as archaeologists have increasingly recognized the complexity of the surface archaeological record, and the inadequacy of many of our methods and conceptual frameworks for analysis and interpretation. Vigorous debate continues on a range of theoretical and practical matters. Recently,the validity of probabilisticsampling schemes and quantitative methods, once regardedas powerful means of characterizingentire regions from carefullychosen samples,4has been called into question. Experimental data suggest that such "samples"often fail to capture the true variabilitypresent in the archaeologicalrecord,making suspect the notion that patterns discerned for a portion of a region are necessarily valid for the whole.5 Fish and Kowalewski are particularlyvocal in advocating "total"regional coverage to offset the problem of sampling,6but this approach fails to solve-and in some cases to address-a range of problems, which are well documented by Kintigh and Plog.7 Among these is the fact that many of these "full-coverage"surveys ignore the powerful effect of survey intensity; thus, one project that employed a 30-m spacing interval between walkers,and another in which intensive and systematic coveragearetreated as secondary concerns, hardly point the way forward to revealing the fullness of human activity upon a landscape.8In more practical terms, while the general principle of covering a region, however narrowly or broadly defined, in its entirety would seem unimpeachable, the immense increase in costs entailed in such coverage must be justified by suitably enhanced results. In view of the cases presented by Fish and Kowalewski,9we must at present conclude that sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.
24
THOMAS
F. TARTARON
At minimum, the critical parametersof intensity and systematic data collection must be integral, not independent,'? variablesin full-coverage survey design. Most Mediterranean surveys, while acknowledging potential problems with sampling, have relied on some type of stratification of the survey universe, typically incorporating samples of a full range of environmental zones with survey locations derived from known distributions of archaeological remains.T" Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that whereas archaeologists ask ever more expansive and complex questions of the archaeological record, the development of increasinglyrefined methods capable of providing the answers has failed to keep pace. Archaeologists have not been able to resolve a range of difficulties that stem, on the one hand, from the inherent complexity of the surface record and, on the other, from an inability of existing methods to record the scatters in a way that faithfully represents their distribution, density, and degree of clustering. The issues are both observational and analytical in scope. The intrinsic complexity of the surfacearchaeologicalrecordhas been measured in a number of recent studies. It is well understood that surface scatters of artifacts at a given location are constantly modified by diverse naturaland culturalagents over time, as replicationand experimentalstudies have clearly demonstrated.12Ammerman's work in particularreminds us that the local circumstancesand timing of an inspection strongly influence the results, and that repeatedvisits over a period of years may be necessary to capture the fullness of the archaeological record. (This became abundantly apparent to us at locations such as Grammeno and Ormos Vathy; see below.) Yet the precise effects of erosion and deposition, water action, plowing, and other processes on forming and transforming the surface record are not alwayswell understood. Simulation studies have provided a number of promising approaches,'3but they seem not to have been widely applied, in part because it is difficult to control a broad range of variables in nonexperimental situations, and because for each survey,unique conditions pertain. Some relationship between surface scatters and subsurfaceremains is usually assumed, but rarelydemonstrated.14 In recent years, however, survey archaeologists have developed a battery of techniques designed to measure the relationship between surface scatters and the subsurface remains with which they are presumed to be associated. These techniques not only evaluate our measurements of this relationship but improve upon them. Thus, the application of long-term replication studies,'5 geophysical remote sensing,16 phosphate studies,'7 and controlled collections followed by limited, targeted excavation'8all contribute positively to the measurementof subsurfacephenomena from surfaceor plowzone scatters,either by identifying subsurfaceremains directly or by isolating the variables affecting the surface/subsurfacerelationship.i9The most promising results have emerged when these techniques are practiced in combination. At one Fort Ancient site in southwestern Ohio, the patterning of surfacematerial was found to supply information that was lacking or ambiguous from excavation, with the result that an anomalously early village of circularplan was recognized.20The Laconia Survey applied controlled collection, phos-
10. Fish and Kowalewski1990, p. 2. 11. Alcock, Cherry,and Davis 1994, p. 138. 12. E.g., Ammerman 1981,1985, 1993; Shott 1995. 13. Odell and Cowan 1987; Shott 1995; Dunnell and Simek 1995. 14. Dunnell and Simek 1995, pp. 306-307; Downum and Brown 1998, p. 111. 15. E.g., Ammerman 1981, 1985. 16. E.g., Weymouth and Huggins 1985; SarrisandJones 2000. 17. E.g., Cavanagh,Jones, and Sarris1996. 18. E.g., Shott 1995. 19. See Dunnell and Simek 1995; Odell and Cowan 1987; Shott 1995. 20. Hawkins 1998.
THE
21. Cavanagh, Jones,andSarris 1996. 22. Downum and Brown 1998. 23. Downum and Brown 1998, pp.119-120. 24. Wandsniderand Camilli 1992. 25. Bintliff and Snodgrass1988a, p. 506. 26. Alcock, Cherry,and Davis 1994, p. 141. 27. E.g., Odell and Cowan 1987; Stoddartand Whitehead 1991. 28. See especiallythe contributions to Sullivan1998.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
25
phate analysis, and geophysical methods to a number of small ruralsites in southern Greece.21A notable finding of this work was that the extent of habitation sites tends to be largerthan the scatterof surfaceartifactswould suggest. In a large culturalresourcemanagement (CRM) project in southern Arizona, certain artifact types were found to be more reliable predictors of subsurface remains than others.22This study also found that in cases where post-depositional disturbances are great, subsurface remains may have largely or completely vanished, making the surface assemblage the sole remaining source of information.23 Wandsnider and Camilli concentrated on the interface of survey design, survey performance,and the physical properties of the archaeological record, asking in effect what we are measuring with our survey methods, and how this impacts the investigator's aim to faithfully document the archaeological record.24Specifically, they sought to measure the disparity between the archaeological record(the total population of artifacts that is availableto be found), and the document(the actual population of artifacts discovered). In a series of controlled collections, they measured the effects that intensity and interval of transects,ground visibility,and the size, color, and shape of artifactshave on the document that is produced.Their results indicate that discovery is biased toward obtrusive and highly clustered artifacts;low-density scatters are acutely underrepresentedbecause the typical CRM surveyin the United States is not designed to detect them. Thus, the apparent clustering of surface material may be more an artifact of the measurement technique than an inherent property of the record itself. In Greece, however, where there exists a long tradition of intensive, nonsite surveys, the data reveal striking regional variability in artifact density and clustering. While the Boeotia survey reports an "almostunbroken carpet" of off-site pottery scatters,25other intensive surveyshave recordeda lowerdensity, more discontinuous pattern in which artifacts tend to occur in discrete clusters with little intervening scatter.26 The success of the discipline in finding viable solutions to these challenges holds obvious implications for the validity of inferences from the surface record.The present state of progress toward that goal depends in part on one's perspective (is our cup half empty or half full?), but it is also important to recognize that all field situations are not equally amenable to the kinds of innovative approaches that appear with ever-greater frequency in the literature.Thus, in the event of poor preservation of surface materials, less-than-ideal conditions of site visibility, or restrictive permit regulations that preclude excavation and other complementary operations, rather pessimistic assessments of the utility of surface data can be expected.27Yet a guarded but growing optimism is apparentin recent years-based on an increasing archive of successful applications in a wide range of settings-that carefulresearchdesign and field methods can unlock the intrinsic interpretive potential of the surface archaeological record.28 In conclusion, rather than constituting a cause for alarm,the discomfiture over the limitations and uncertainties surrounding surface survey reflects a phase of critical self-awareness in survey archaeology,and a willingness to tackle the problems head-on rather than simply bemoaning
26
THOMAS
F. TARTARON
them.29The Nikopolis Project, mindful of a host of problems and potential solutions, sought to introduce certain refinements, in part responding to some of the issues raised above, and in part designed specifically for the unique conditions of the Epirote landscape. Though it is not the aim of this chapter to examine in detail the contingencies of archaeological survey, an attempt has been made to come to grips with many of themsometimes successfully and sometimes not. Instead, its purpose is to explain in specific terms the principles on which the survey was designed, and the means by which data were collected.
THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT AND REGIONAL STUDIES IN GREECE There are compelling reasons that the sampling strategy and methods of data collection be describedin explicit detail for each surveyproject.While it is certainly true that the range of research strategies and field methods must be flexible enough to respond to widely varying conditions of local topography,vegetation, and access, as well as past archaeological investigation and currentresearchgoals, it is nonetheless imperativethat a framework be provided by which survey results can be evaluated on their own merits, and compared to those of other surveys. The emergence and proliferation of systematic, intensive survey techniques in Greece provide the potential for such a frameworkby introducing methods, using well-defined, quantifiable parameters,which form a basis for comparison of data among projects.30While acknowledging the complexities of establishing objective criteriaby which data can be evaluated and compared (and achieving that objectivity in one's fieldwork),31it cannot be doubted that comparability of information, more than a commendable ideal, is in fact a matter of great urgency. Surface survey comprises an ever-increasing proportion of archaeological researchin Greece for severalreasons, among which are the moderate cost and logistical complexity of surveys relative to researchexcavations;the perception that survey is a less destructive technique;32and the growing interest in landscape archaeology and regional dynamics, which are best investigated using survey methods. As the pace of survey research quickens and wide tracts of the Greek countryside are explored, some thought should be directed to the legacy of information that is to be left to future generations as the combination of surface survey activity and modern development diminishes the country'sarchaeologicalresources.33The most ominous prospect of ending up with a patchwork of projects whose data are not comparable is that we shall never learn much about interregional,diachronic trendsprecisely the sorts of issues about which regional archaeological survey ought to be informative. The detailed publication of the major theoretical and methodological components of a systematic survey design-research goals, sampling schemes, and data collection methods-plays a key role in constructing a basis for evaluation and comparison. The considerable attention devoted
29. Cherry1994,p. 105. 30. E.g., Cherry 1982; Bintliff and Snodgrass1985; Wright et al. 1990; Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991; Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994; Wells and Runnels 1996; Davis et al. 1997; Mee and Forbes1997. 31. Kellerand Rupp 1983, pp. 4344; Bradley,Durden, and Spencer 1994. 32. Surfacesurveycannot be considereda nondestructive technique, however.Under certaincircumstances, as in the case of a field that is plowed frequently,artifactson the surfacemay be replenished,redistributed,or fragmentedacrossthe surface.But in many cases,the tracesof human activity discoveredon the surfacehave no correspondingsubsurfacesources,or the mechanismsfor bringing additional materialto the surfacein the short term arelacking.In these instances,artifact collection may have the effect of permanentlyremovingevidence. Another concernis the confounding effect of the piling up or scatteringof artifactsleft behind by archaeologists and others making surfacecollections. At the very least, this action adds a post-depositionalstratumfor which allowancewill have to be made in all futureresearch.On these issues, see Lloyd and Barker1981, p. 390; Ammerman 1981, 1985, 1993; Cherry 1983, pp. 397-400 (discussion). 33. Runnels 1981.
THE
34. E.g., Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, 1988a;Wright et al. 1990; Cherryet al. 1991; Wells, Runnels, and Zangger 1990; Wells and Runnels 1996, pp. 15-22; Davis et al. 1997. 35. Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, p. 53. 36. Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994. 37. Cherryet al. 1988;Wright et al. 1990. 38. Bintliff 1985; Bintliff and Snodgrass1985. 39. Wells and Runnels 1996. 40. See Chapter 1;Wiseman, Zachos, and Kephallonitou1996, 1997, 1998. 41. E.g., Gaffney andTingle 1985; Bintliff 1985. 42. Wandsniderand Camilli 1992, p. 183.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
27
to laying out field methods (and their essential linkages to research aims, analysis, and interpretation), particularlynotable in the reports of recent intensive surveyprojects,34cannot help but encourage a replicative or selfperpetuating effect. Methods that work well in the field and are of sound theoretical basis will be recognized, imitated, and refined, with the result that an evolution toward methods yielding statistically valid data amenable to comparison with other regions is set into motion. Recent experience has shown that it is both desirable and possible to devise such field methods, even though the exact replication of methods from one survey to another is rarelypractical and often undesirable.35 The Nikopolis Project surface survey,accomplished in three field seasons from 1992 to 1994, was, like any other, a particular response to a unique set of research interests, environmental conditions, and logistical limitations. Methods and innovations that were developed in earlier surveys in Greece and elsewhere were nonetheless incorporated, and adapted for use in the context of southern Epirus. Particularly influential were those employed in systematic, intensive surveys of recent years:the Argolid Exploration Project,36the Nemea ValleyArchaeological Project,37the Cambridge/BradfordBoeotian Expedition,38and the BerbatiLimnes Archaeological Survey.39By positioning our survey methodology squarely in this (now well-established) tradition, we acknowledged the validity of the tradition, and sought to produce data that will be, as much as possible, directly comparableto those recordedin other regions of Greece. Yet in putting together the methodological package described below, we made a conscious effort to addresscritically some of the shortcomings we perceivedin previoussurveypractice,and to develop methods that would work well on the Epirote landscape, though perhaps not elsewhere. A first area of concern was to create a program of geomorphological investigation that was more closely integrated with the intensive survey than was typical at the time.40Because southern Epirus contains a high percentage of erosional landscapes, it was essential to establish control on the movement of soils and sediments so that we did not misunderstand the depositional contexts of cultural material we encountered. Coarse-scale geomorphological mapping of the survey areawas supplemented by fine-scale analysis of the contexts of many sites and other locations of interest. In cases where built features were known or suspected, geophysical survey often augmented the results of surface collections. Coastal geomorphology was studied in the lower Acheron valley and on the northern shore of the Ambracian Gulf to measure the change in coastlines over time. We were also convinced that not enough emphasis had been placed on the resolution of quantitative density data from off-site locations, although the benefits of high-resolution data collection were not unknown.41 We agreed with Wandsnider and Camilli's recommendation to decrease survey transect intervals and overall survey pace as a way to ensure that both the low- and high-density surfacerecords are documented.42To pursue this objective,we designed a method of close-interval surveywith high-
28
THOMAS
F. TARTARON
resolution data recording that could be used, with simple modifications, for discovery-phase reconnaissance,investigation of rural sites, and urban survey.
THE PURPOSE AND PLACE OF INTENSIVE SURVEY IN THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT In many ways, the intensive survey of the Nikopolis Project was different in scale and purpose from the earliersurveys in which it found inspiration. First, the culturallandscape of southern Epirus was investigated by a number of means, of which intensive survey was but one. Other methods by which activity areas were discovered and investigated included 1) extensive survey, comprising systematic but nonintensive "walkovers"(see below), scouting, and the independent Palaeolithic survey;2) a wide-ranging season of ground-truthingof satelliteimageryin 1991, duringwhich known sites were visited and unknown sites were noted (but not investigated); 3) geomorphological studies, in which naturalprocesses affecting sites and landscapes were examined, and unknown sites sometimes found; 4) aerial balloon photography;5) geophysical survey;and 6) documentaryresearch.43 A consequence of this full, multidisciplinaryprogramwas that crew members were shared among the teams listed above, and additionally assigned to laboratoryand data input tasks. Furthermore,the Nikopolis Projectwas conceived and operated as a field school intended primarily for undergraduate students, requiring the senior staff and graduate assistants to engage in many hours of instruction, and requiring students to spend substantial time learning other components of the overall project. Whereas no apology is offered for our researchdesign or educational model, in practice these circumstancesplaced limitations on availableperson-hours, and most notably on the total territory covered by the intensive survey,which was also constrained by the deliberately intensive methods we employed (see below). The principal purposes of the intensive surveywere to test its feasibility in the Epirote landscape; to reveal the overall characteristics of the region's archaeological resources;and to examine rigorously certain locations of particular prehistoric or historical interest, such as the lower Acheron valley and the Ayios Thomas peninsula (Fig. 2.1). It was not known whether the southern Epirote countryside would be as well suited to intensive surface survey as had been the southern Greek mainland and islands, where most such surveys have taken place. In fact, the climate and topography did present unusual challenges.The southern Epirote climate, transitional between Mediterranean and temperate, is characterizedby a much higher annualrainfallthan that of southernGreece and, consequently, the vegetation is more lush. The terrainis, on the whole, more rugged and mountainous, although such topography is by no means lacking in the south. Furthermore, the land is less developed agriculturally,so there is less open terrain.A significant consequence of these conditions was that surveyingin large,contiguous blocks of tractsbecame difficult, and at times impossible.
43. See note 40.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
THE
,7-vL
SURVEY
29
I
,..,,k,
Louros River
Acheron River
Parga
X
:...,/,-,,
astEphyra(Kastri
PhanariBay:.: , (Ammoudia).Lower AcheronValley *- t.
*':Grammeno
Ionian Sea Nikopolis
a:
0
5
10
SAMPLING
44. Hammond 1967; Dakaris 1971, 1972; Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967. 45. Redman 1973.
15
20
'"
..-. :.. .: ."...-Peninsula
0.064 MM IN REDEPOSITED Sample
Description
Remarks
VA93-01 VA93-05 VA93-02
Poorly disaggregatedsediment Poorly disaggregatedsediment Limonite concretionsto 3 mm and poorly disaggregatedsediment Poorly disaggregatedsediment Small (0.5-3 mm) limonite nodules and poorly disaggregatedsediment As above As above Limonite nodules,2-10 mm in diameter Limonite nodules,2-6 mm in diameter Limonite nodules,2-6 mm in diameterand heavily Mn-stained, plus poorly disaggregatedsediment As above Poorly disaggregatedsediment As above
Paleosol Bt Paleosol Bt
VA93-04 VA93-03 VA93-06 VA93-07 VA93-08 VA93-09 VA93-11 VA93-12 VA93-13 VA93-16
20-
VA93-04
Paleosol Bt Paleosol Bt Paleosol Bt
VA94-19 Galatas
Kokkinopilos Go CD
-, .r?" A
-,
0
I
F
FF
I
I
F
-
20-
VA93-08
VA94-23
Kokkinopilos
Galatas
10I! 0
,
,
I
I
f
I
........
i
I
.
I
I
._
a -
20-
VA94-14 Galatas
Loutsa
VA94-04
- o
10 -
Figure3.14. Typicalgrain-size frequencydiagramsof terrarossa redepositedin poljesandloutses. Materialcoarserthan silt size (>0.064mm) is veryrare.Percentage of clay(
I
-120 'paleosol m -pale gray silt 11paleosol
0
Ico
lw0 0
- 110 masl karst surface
0
10
log microns
100
CURTIS
74
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure3.18. Morphipoljeoutcrop with paleosolsforminghard, protruding benches
AYIAcomposite
profile
339 Bt (M2) *) *?
**
- VA94-27 - VA94-28
55 5 5 - VA94-29 55 51$5
mottled terra rossa Bt(M5) gravel (debris
mottled
flow)
terra rossa
- VA94-30
335-
stratified -
(lowest
- VA94-31
stone
mottled terra rossa tools)
massive
dark red terra rossa
Bt (>M5?) 330 masi
limestone
karst
Occasional bands of fine to medium stream gravel were laid down by small ephemeral streams during a brief period of flooding of the polje floor or as thin debris flows produced by catastrophic failure of the slope mantle or a fan (Fig. 3.18). These bands testify to brief invasions of a highenergy regime, probably during times of exceptionally high rainfall because they are too thin and sparse to indicate major climate changes of stadial/interstadialor glacial/interglacial rank.
Figure3.19. Compositeprofileof Ayialoutsashowingthe lithological sequenceandpaleosols.Palaeolithic stone tools occur throughout the section from ca. 333 to 339 masl. Paleosol maturity codes (MS 2, MS 5) from Table 3.8.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
75
Figure3.20. (above)Stratifiedlower sectionof the Ayialoutsalooking west. Mousterianartifactsare embeddedin the exposedsection wherethe figure poin ting; (below) is detailof Mousterian artifacts the in situ. The history of the deeply dissected loutsa at Ayia is simpler (Fig. 3.19). A rugged karst surfacewith a relief of 50-200 cm locally retains in depressions a truncated, the sions matureBt Bt horizon horizonas as at at Morphi. Elsewherethe truncated, very verymature Morphi.Elsewhere oldest deposit is a pale (5YR 6/8), finely crystalline dolomite sand analogous to the basal calcite sand at Kokkinopilos. The loutsa fill itself is a well-bedded, red and gray mottled deposit (Fig. 3.20), interbedded with layers bearing stone tools and near the top a debris flow. A little higher, a mature, truncated paleosol is overlain by a modern soil. In summary,even without its telltale red color, redeposited terra rossa unfailingly discloses its origin by its bimodal grain-size distribution. Temporary or permanent wet conditions of deposition are indicated by soil features (mottling, gley). Dry conditions are revealed by color-banding, desiccation zones, and thin beds anomalously rich in fine quartz that represent periods when mainly dust was being deposited. The fine mmscale horizontal stratification seen associated with artifact scatters at
CURTIS
76
N. RUNNELS
| . mcoas:t.al;pa-:n_ coastal
plain
AND TJEERD
^^HE^y
^^::^
H. VAN ANDEL
v^^^RFigure
3.21. The AdriaticSea during
Fi the last glacialmaximum,20-18 kyr B.P., when sea level was over 100 m
,-.
present coast
'
lonian
Sea
J____________________________________________________________________
lowerthan today.Rivercourses acrossthe emergedcoastalplainare extrapolations. AftervanAndeland Shackleton1982, fig. 4
Kokkinopilos and Ayia, and common elsewhere, is a result of deposition in very low energy conditions, far too low to entrain even the smallest flint debitage. As the fine stratificationis not easily seen, failure to observe it in the past has led to faulty stratigraphic interpretations, such as the view that at Kokkinopilos, and by implication in other redbed sequences, the artifact assemblages are on secondary location. Occasionally, artifacts are associated with debris flows or small-scale stream gravels, but those are rarebrief incidents in the history of poljes. Ultimately, the relevance of our knowledge of the genesis and history of Epirote poljes to our understanding of its Palaeolithic inhabitants depends on our ability to fit a time dimension to them. The debate about the age of Kokkinopilos, so far the only polje viewed with an age perspective, still includes those who regard all redbeds as Pliocene in age (except for portions reworkedby recent erosion) and others who see them as belonging to the Late Quaternary.We shall return to this subject below. SEA
LEVELS
AND
COASTAL
PLAINS
All but the narrowest Mediterranean shelves are the flat surfaces of sediment wedges, which, when exposed at lowered sea level, may form wide coastal plains (Fig. 3.21). Often well watered and bordering today's rugged coastlines over long distances, they offered major wildlife resources and convenient migration paths for early humans.72
72.vanAndel1989;vanAndeland Shackleton1982.
AGE OF THE NOMOS
EARLY STONE
E I X, w
OF PREVEZA
77
50-
t
100-
0
20
Figure 3.22. Global sea-level variations for the past 140,000 years, reflected by two oxygen isotope records based on bottom-dwelling deep-sea foraminifera (Shackleton 1987; Labeyrie, Duplessy, and Blanc 1987) and calibrated with raised coral reef data. Dots: U/Th dates on corals (Bard, Hamelin, and Fairbanks 1990; Stirling et al. 1995); lozenges: recent U/Th dates from Huon Peninsula coral terraces in New Guinea (Chappell et al. 1996). Numbers at the top indicate oxygen isotope stages.
D
80 AGE (kyr)
MIDDLE
AND
LATE
QUATERNARY
PALEOSHORELINES
TraditonalQuaternarystratigraphic names,suchastheWirm orWeichsel in have no the Mediterranean. Therefore,we use here meaning glacials, basedon oceanicoxygenisotopestages(OIS) the globalchronostratigraphy of ImbrieandMartinson.73 During the last 140,000years,the intervalof interestto us,globalsealevelwastwiceat a low glacialstand(ca.-120 m in OIS 6 and2) andtwiceat an interglaciallevelslightlyabove(OIS 5e) or at (OIS 1) its presentvalue.It remainedat eitherextremefor onlyfiveto ten millennia,butoccupiedintermediatelevelsforroughly100,000years,from the climaticdeclinefollowingthe last interglacial(OIS 5d-e) throughout most of the subsequentpleniglacial. Globalglacialandinterglacial sea-levelpositionscanbe estimatedfrom oxygen isotope ratios (180/160) of bottom-dwelling microfossilsthat record
the volumeof seawaterstoredin ice caps.To obtaina truepictureof sea level against time, the 180/160 curve must be calibratedwith past sea-level
73. Imbrie et al. 1984; Martinson et al. 1987. 74. van Andel, Zangger,and Perissoratis1990.
positionsdeducedfromraisedreefsandcoastalterracesor fromshorefeaturessubmergedon continentalshelves(Fig. 3.22). In the absenceof offshoreseismicreflectiondatafor the Epirusshelf,pastshorescanbe determined only by appropriatepresentbathymetriccontours(Table3.6), but Late Quaternarysedimentstend to be thin on Greekshelvesanderrorsof positionarewithin the limits of precisionof the isobaths.74 Overthe past140,000years,thewidthandareaof the emergedcoastal plainin Epirushavevarieda greatdeal(Fig. 3.23;Table3.6). Exceptduring the two briefglacialmaxima,a total of some 20,000 years,the coastal plain, althoughcontinuous,was narrow.If the resourcepotentialof an environmentalzone is assumedto be roughlyequalto its area,most of the time the coastalplainswereat best equalin potentialto the combinedarea of all poljes.
78
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
PALEOSHORELINE TABLE 3.6. APPROXIMATE DEPTHS AND COASTAL PLAIN WIDTHS, 140 KYR B.P. TO PRESENT Interval OIS
(kyrB..)
Event
6 5e 5d-a 4 3 2 2 1/2 1 1
>135 130-117 117-74 74-59 59-24 24-20 18-15 15-8 11 9
Glacial maximum
Shoreline depth(m)
-130 0 to +10 Interglacialpeak -20 to Run-up glacial First glacial maximum -80 to -90 Mild phase -60 to -70 -120 Main glacial maximum -110 to -100 Earlydeglaciation -90 to -20 Main deglaciation -40 Mesolithic starts Mesolithic ends -20
Coastalplain width (km) 10-20 0 1-4 5-15 5-7 10-20
1-5 1-2
OIS = Oxygen isotope stage. Shore depth from Figures3.22 and 3.24. Coastal plain width is a representativerange,indicatingdistancebeyond the present shoreline.(Note: at times the plain between Corfu and the mainlandwas considerablywider.)
Whenever the sea stood above -80 m, the shelf between Corfu and the mainland was largely flooded. Given a present least depth between -45 and -50 m, however, the two were joined by a land bridge during all of OIS 6 and from 90 kyr B.P. to 10 kyr B.P. This persistent connection between Corfu and the mainland may have been a key point in strategies for hunting migrating herds of large herbivores. In the Ambracian Gulf, which has a shallow sill, the -20 and -50 m isobaths show that between 10 and 105 kyr B.P. it was occupied by a lake. The glacial sediment load of the Louros and Arachthos Rivers, the only major sediment-carrying rivers in the area,was dumped there in the form of a delta complex very similar to the present one.75 Because of the rapidity of climate change and sea-level rise during the decline of the last glacial maximum, and its importance for the latest Palaeolithic and Mesolithic occupation in western Epirus, we need a more precise sea-level curve for that interval. This requires compensation for glacio- and hydro-isostatic effects, for which we may use Lambeck's corrected curve for Kavallabecause that area is at the same distance from the northern European ice edge as Epirus.76The corrected curve (Fig. 3.24) shows that the sea began to rise slowly some 18,000 years ago, accelerated rapidly around 14 kyr B.P. and continued through the Mesolithic to reach about -10 m 6,000 years ago. Lambecks isostatically compensated curve reads time in radiocarbon years. If we convert the deglaciation sea-level history to calendaryears by using the U/Th-dated curve of Bard, the deglaciation rise begins earlier, the Mesolithic shorelines are shallower (-30 m at the start and -15 m at the end of the period), and the coastal plain is proportionally narrower.77
75. Piper,Kontopoulos,and Panagos 1988. 76. Lambeck 1995, fig. 6:e; 1996. 77. Bard,Hamelin, and Fairbanks 1990.
EARLY
Figure3.23 (above).The emerged coastalplainoff Epirusat six key momentsbetweenthe maximumof the OIS 6 glacialto the present interglacial(OIS 1), accordingto Table3.6 and Figure3.22. Isobaths representingpaleoshoresarebased on nauticalandtopographiccharts and arehighlygeneralized.The Mesolithicshorecorrespondswith the Mesolithicintervalin calendar years(Fig. 3.24). Figure3.24 (right).Two sea-levelrise curvesfor the deglaciationintervalof late OIS 2. Bard,Hamelin,and Fairbanks1990,in calendaryears,is
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
' present sea level
0 _
E E/ )
/
Bard et a. (1990)
/
CZ-500, c)
_-'
O
/ / / Lambeck (1995)
0o a)-100
/ / _ -
based on U/Th dates of submerged
/
Mesolithic (cal BP) --
coralterracesin Barbados; Lambeck1995, in radiocarbonyears (Fairbanks 1989), is based on the', same samples and has been used to
datethe isostaticallycompensated localsea-levelhistory.
79
. .
, , , ,I 20,000
I
15,000
,
i
I
10,000
Age in years before present
' 5000
80 THE
(OIS
CURTIS
COAST
N.
OF EPIRUS
RUNNELS
IN THE
AND
TJEERD
LAST
H.
VAN
ANDEL
INTERGLACIAL
5)
For all but one of the periods in the interval OIS 1-6, the associated paleoshores are now below sea level and, in the absence of high-resolution seismic reflection studies, their nature and true position cannot be known accurately.The exception is the 10,000-year long peak of the last interglacial (OIS 5e), with observed sea-level positions that in stable areas range from 0 to +10 masl,78although most of those elevations do not differ significantly from the present level after a correction for glacio- and hydroisostatic effects has been applied.79 In Greece the paleoshores of the last (Tyrrhenian)interglacialhave in many places been raised above their original levels by coastal tectonics. They are marked by a distinctive warm fauna of corals and large robust mollusks, including the warmwatergastropod Strombus.80 In coastal Epirus raised shore deposits are in evidence at severalpoints (Fig. 3.25). They have generally been regardedas Late Pleistocene or earliest Holocene in age, notwithstanding the high uplift rates that the low sea levels of that intervalwould imply.A large outcrop exposed at Anavatis, on the other hand, has been mapped as Pliocene on the basis of shallowwater agglutinating foraminiferaof little stratigraphicvalue.81 The Anavatis complex, now at approximately 40 masl, is exposed in the south wall of a sand and gravel pit where it consists of thick, massive to thin-bedded layersof unconsolidated,white to pale yellow, fine, well-sorted sand (Fig. 3.26:1, 3). The sands are interbedded with thin (2-20 cm) layers of gray-black, finely (1-10 mm) laminated silt deposits with the characteristicgrain-size distributionsof marshor tidal flat silty clays (Fig. 3.26:2, 8). Locally, sand-filled channels are cut into underlying beds. Some of the moderately calcareous sand beds contain abundant coastal marine mollusks such as Cerastoderma, while shell debris is common in burrowsin the laminated silts. There are also a few lenses of rounded, well-sorted fine (15 cm) gravel. There can be no doubt that this is a coastal or very shallow marine deposit. In the opposite north wall of the pit, a thick series of unconsolidated medium-coarse sands and fine-coarse gravelsis exposed, traversedby many faults of small displacement. The coarse strata are interbedded with thick (5-20 cm) lenses of fine sand or grayish green silty clay,perhaps formed in pools on a braided, low-angle fan. Grain size (Fig. 3.26:4, 5) and chaotic bedding point to braided or torrentialstreams.At ca. 48 masl the sequence is topped by a paleosol. The maturity level of this paleosol (MS 4/5)82and extensive frost-shattering of the finer gravels indicate deposition during the cold Late Pleistocene pleniglacial (OIS 4-3). The paleosol contains an early Mousterian industry (see below). The torrentialunit, although apparentlydeposited in a low-lying area, is too close to the coastal unit of the opposite scarp to be contemporaneous. Moreover, if the coastal sediments were late glacial in age, the low sea level of the time would require an uplift rate of some 4 m/kyr, quite in excess of other tectonic rates in the region (as discussed above).More probably, they underlie the torrential unit and so are of interglacial age. Sea
78. Bardet al. 1993;Chenet al. 1991; Edwardset al. 1987; Ku, Ivanovich,and Luo 1990; Stirling et al. 1995. 79. Lambeckand Nakada 1992. 80. E.g., Kelletat 1974; Kelletatet al. 1976; Keraudrenand Sorel 1987; Schr6derand Kelletat1976. 81. Etudegeologique. 82. For a discussionof paleosol maturitystages (MS), see below, pp. 86-89.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
8i
OF PREVEZA
Figure3.25. Locationsof raised paleoshoredepositsof the last interglacial(OIS 5e and OIS 5c) in coastalEpirus
Figure3.26 (below).Cumulative grain-sizedistributionsof coastal sedimentsof the last interglacialand earlyHolocenefromthe Anavatis sandpit (1-5, 8) andAlonakiBeach (6, 7): 1) VA94-2,shallowmarine or dunesand;2) VA94-3,silty laminatedmarshclay;3) VA94-37, shallowmarineor dune sand; 4) VA94-39a,torrentialstreamsand; 5) VA94-39b,same;6) VA95-2, Holocenedunesand;7) VA95-3, same;8) VA94-38,marshor tidal siltyclay.Sedigraphanalysesof the fraction4.000-0.002 mm. 100
--
z
0 Q
-
_
50-
LU D 0-
0
.5
.25
.125 .062
.031
GRAINSIZE (mm)
.016 .008 .004
.002
.001
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure3.27. The raisedTyrrhenian beachatTsarlambas,visibleas a low, rockycoastaldepositon the right level for that time ranged from about +10 to -20 m, yielding a reasonable uplift rate of 0.4-0.6 m/kyr for the Anavatis area, as luminescence dates confirm.83 Other paleoshore deposits occur at severalpoints along the coast west of Preveza. At Alonaki Beach and Tsarlambas(Fig. 3.27), a few meters of well-consolidated, horizontally bedded, low-angle cross-bedded series of fine to medium, well-sorted sands topped by a truncated very mature paleosol (MS 5) are exposed at the base of the coastal cliffs. The sand is moderately calcareous and contains many small, thick-shelled gastropods and a few corals.We regardthese bench-forming deposits, now located ca. 3 masl, as a Tyrrhenian paleoshore which can be traced intermittently as far as the cape at Mytikas. Thick-shelled gastropod fragments, probably Strombus,also occur in boreholes in a down-faulted sequence at the entrance to the Pantokrator suburb of Preveza.84 A similar sand complex crops out east of Preveza at Ayios Thomas on the flank of a coastal hill. Topped by a red (10R 6/6) mature paleosol, the well-sorted, subrounded medium sands with lenses of rounded gravel may represent a raised Tyrrhenian coastal fan. At Rodaki, south of the mouth of the Paliourias River,a raised coastal complex is exposed consisting of weakly consolidated, low-angle, crossbedded, fine, pale yellow (10YR 8/2) sand with thin layers of coarse sand and stringers of small pebbles. It is topped by a dark red (2.5YR 4/4-3/4), mature (MS 5) truncated Bt horizon. Because the complex is located 8-20 masl, we regard it as another Tyrrhenian beach and coastal dune deposit. Like all other coastal deposits, and in stark contrast to the terrarossa, the sand contains abundant feldspar (Table 3.7). Nearby is an important site of consolidated red, thin-bedded sand and gravel containing a Middle Palaeolithic industry (see below), but because of complex active faulting and poor outcrop conditions its relation to the assumed interglacial shore deposits is unclear. Similar coastal deposits with characteristic Tyrrhenian fauna occur at 30 and 10-12 masl on Corfu.85
lumines83.An infraredstimulated 23 kyr cence(IRSL)dateof ca. 128?+ B.P.placesthe depositwithinthe main (OIS 5dphaseof the lastinterglacial e). AnotherIRSLdateof ca. 188? 30 fortechnical kyr B.P. is questionable reasonsandbecauseit placesthe interbedded marshdepositin the OIS 6 glacialmaximumwhensealevelwas low.SeebelowandTable3.10. 84. P.Paschos(pers.comm.). 85. Sordinas1983,p. 343, table1.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
83
TABLE 3.7. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF MODERN AND LAST INTERGLACIAL COASTAL SANDS IN WESTERN EPIRUS Sample ALONAKI
Quartz (%) BEACH
VA95-02 VA95-03
Feldspar(%)
(Holocene
53 93
Or/PIRatio
Remarks
dunes)
47 7
3.2 1.2
ANAVATIS (coastal deposits) VA94-02 57 43 44 VA94-37 56
2.6 3.0
RODAKI (coastal deposits) VA94-05 54 VA94-06 65 VA94-35 58
2.1 2.8 2.2
46 35 42
fair amount of calcite
fair amount of calcite
Or/Pl Ratio = orthoclase/plagioclaseratio.
At Ormos Odysseos, on the south side of the Acheron River valley, the remains of a thin alluvialfan sequence, its top at 4 masl, occur on a low, north-dipping karst surface. It consists of strongly consolidated, dark red (2.5YR 3/4), coarsesand and red clay,overlainby a definitely mature,Pleistocene coastal dune paleosol, now a little above present sea level and of last interglacial age. Associated Middle Palaeolithic findspots are discussed below.
VEGETATION
HISTORY
AND
CLIMATE,
140-10
KYR B.P.
Our understanding of the Late Quaternaryvegetation and climate history of western Epirus rests mainly on long cores from Lake Ioannina, first studied by Bottema and more recentlybyTzedakis (Fig. 3.28).86The cores, supplemented with other data from Greece, Italy, and the Balkans, reasonably reflect the long-term climatic history of northern Greece, but afford little insight regarding the diverse local conditions of the mountainous terrain of western Epirus with its largely orographic climate conditions.87Cores in lowland and highland lakes are beginning to provide some detail for local areas and for a range of elevations, but because they cover only later phases of the deglaciation period and the Holocene, the results are not directly applicable to the long interval from 60 to 25 kyr B.P.88 86. Bottema 1974, 1994;Tzedakis 1993. 87. Willis 1994; Culibergand Sercelj1996; van Andel andTzedakis 1996. 88. Willis 1992, 1994;Turnerand Sanchez-Gofii 1997. 89. Smit and Wijmstra 1970. 90. Bennett, Tzedakis,andWillis 1991;Tzedakis 1993.
During the penultimate glacial of OIS 6, a discontinuous steppe vegetation of sagebrush (Artemisia),chenopod species (indicative of aridity), and grasses predominated in southern Europe. Cold-stage pollen from Tenaghi Philippon in Macedonia contained Eurotia ceratoidesand Kochia laniflora, species found today in the central Asian steppe and semidesert that point to a cold, arid climate.89In sheltered spots of the western Balkans and mountains of Italy,however, scattered temperate tree populations survived in refugia where temperaturevariations were not extreme and precipitation was sufficient, thus enabling a swift returnof the woodland when the climate improved.90
CURTIS
84
N.
AND
RUNNELS
TJEERD
LATE
H.
VAN
ANDEL
DEGLACIATION
(I2-IO
KYR B.P.)
Climatewarming,moister;oakwoods mixedwith warmthloving speciesdevelop;coastalregionshave open Mediterraneanwoodland of pine, evergreenoak, wild olive, and pistachio. L- A'
LAST GLACIAL MAXIMUM (OIS
2)
Dry, cold climate;sagebrushand chenopod steppe, open deciduous woodland on south-facing slopes or middle elevationsbenefitingfromorographicrains. 3) Milder,moisterclimate;steppewith open deciduouswoodlandin favorableplaces. MILD
MID-GLACIAL
E
INTERVAL
(OIS
(OIS 4) Cold,dryclimate;steppegainson openwoodland;treescon\tract into refugiatowardfinalphase. FIRST
c 40.
GLACIAL
TRANSITION
EXPANSION
TO GLACIAL
(OIS
5D-A)
Cool and warm periods alternatebetween Mediterranean mixedevergreenanddeciduouswoodlandandcold,drysteppe. LAST
INTERGLACIAL
(OIS
5E)
Climatea little warmerthan now;deciduousoak/elmforest followed by Mediterraneanwild olive and evergreenoak woodland;maximumsummerinsolation. (OIS 6) and Cold, aridclimate;chenopod sagebrushsteppe;refuigia for temperatetrees.
PENULTIMATE
GLACIAL
80-
100
0 Tree pollen (%)
When the OIS 5 interglacial began, trees spread outward from the refugia in a vegetation succession beginning with deciduous oak (Quercus) and elm (Ulmus), followed in southern Europe by a major expansion of Mediterranean forest characterized by evergreen oak and values of wild olive (Olea) even higher than in the Holocene.91 This was the time of maximum summer insolation (12-13% above present value) of the last interglacial and indeed the last 150,000 years. In the eastern Mediterranean, the climatic oscillations that led from the end of the full interglacial (OIS 5e) to the first large ice advance in OIS 4 produced alternations between the cold, dry chenopod and sagebrush steppe and returns of the Mediterranean mixed evergreen and deciduous woodland.92These interstadial landscapes were more open than in OIS 5e, however, and semidesert plant communities were present even during warmer phases.93Because their refugiawere close, tree populations expanded rapidly in each interstadial, but the gradual climatic deteriora-
Figure3.28. Climateandvegetation changesduringthe last two glacialinterglacialcycles(OIS 1 through OIS 6), illustratedby the variationof the arborealpollensum. Basedon Tzedakis 1993, 1994
91.Tzedakis1994. 92. Bottema1994;Tzedakis1994; Wijmstra1969;WijmstraandSmit 1976;Wijmstra,Young,andWitte 1990. 93. CheddadiandRossignol-Strick 1995.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
85
tion and increased aridity are evident in ever larger expansions of chenopods and sagebrush. Still, the cold, arid steppe took over only toward the end of OIS 4, driving the warmth-loving tree populations into refugia even in northwest Greece.94 OIS 3 is marked by several warmer intervals during which a mixed deciduous woodland with beech (Fagus), oak, elm, hazel (Corylus), and lime (Tilia) partly covered northern Greece; southern Greece was sparsely repopulated by deciduous and evergreen oak, pine (Pinus), and juniper (Juniperus)woodland.95Although OIS 3 was a good deal milder than is usually assumed, the Mediterranean woodland at the time was open in character; highest tree densities are recorded in only a few places with optimal soil conditions and sufficient moisture, such as northwestern Greece. During the latest Pleistocene a chenopod and sagebrush steppe typical of a dry,cold climate covered most of the Balkans and Greece.96A low but persistent level of tree pollen suggests, however, that the monotony of the steppe may have been relievedby patches of very open deciduouswoodland. This woodland would have been concentrated on favored south-facing slopes in middle elevations that benefited from orographic rains, precipitation being a more important limitation than temperature.97 This vegetation type vanished around 11 kyr B.P.and was replaced in northern Greece by a deciduous oak forest mixed with more warmth-loving species such as hop hornbeam (Ostrya) and pistachio (Pistacia).98 In coastal regions the Mediterranean woodland of evergreen oak (Quercus ilex), pine (Pinus halepensis),Phyllyrea,wild olive, and pistachio took over slightly later. The impact on animal populations was considerable:wandering herds of herbivores, such as wild ass (Equus hydruntinus),bison, and perhaps Saiga antelope, vanished from the cold coastal and inland plains and were replaced by the more diverse but far more dispersed wildlife of the forest, dominated by red deer and wild boar.99 In northern and western Europe, sharp oscillations between warm and cold climates, of which the Younger Dryas (12.9-12.5 to 11.6-11 kyr Whether such oscillaB.P.) was the last, marked the deglaciation period.100 tions had any real impact in southeasternEurope and the Near and Middle East is in doubt; neither Bottema nor Willis find convincing evidence for them in southeastern Europe during the deglaciation.'10 94. Tzedakis 1993.
95.Wijmstra1969;Tzedakis1994. 96. van Zeist and Bottema 1982; Willis 1994; Willis et al. 1995. 97. Willis 1994. 98. Bottema 1974, 1978. 99. Jameson,Runnels, and van Andel 1994, pp. 331-338; Miracle 1995. 100. Bard and Kromer1995; Kromeret al. 1995. 101. Bottema 1995;Willis 1994. 102. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992. 103. van Andel 1998a.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE LATE QUATERNARY WESTERN EPIRUS
OF
Open-air sites are notoriously difficult to place in a chronological context. Bailey, in expressing doubt regarding the utility of Palaeolithic open-air sites, had this difficulty very much in mind.102We have approached the dating problem in two ways: 1) by paleosol stratigraphy,designed to arrange sites in stratigraphicorder by means of paleosol maturity levels;103 and 2) by the use of thermal luminescence (TL) and infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) to obtain calendricalages for the aeolian silt fraction in redeposited terra rossa.
86 PALEOSOL
CURTIS
N. RUNNELS
STRATIGRAPHY
AND TJEERD
H. VAN ANDEL
IN GREECE
Mediterranean soils evolve in a summer-dry, winter-wet climate that is relatively uniform over large areas. In time the soils mature, forming chronosequences with time-dependent characteristics.104 They are therefore valuable for the identification of Palaeolithic surfaces, stratigraphic correlation across diverse bedrock lithologies, and temporal sequencing of findspots.105The paleosols discussed here are the alfisols typical for the extensive regions of Mesozoic and Paleogene limestone and flysch and of the Quaternary alluvium derived from those terranes. On different substrates,other kinds of paleosols are found that may also be red or brownish red, such as the rendzinas on Late Tertiary marls in the Peloponnese, but they are not considered here. In using paleosol chronosequences we have limited ourselves to traditional descriptions of soil horizons based on field characteristicsthat allow the assignment of paleosols to six maturity stages (Table 3.8).10?6 Chemical methods can refine the definitions of the stages, but have not yet been used widely in Greece.107 In a typical Mediterranean soil profile, winter rains percolating down from a dark organic A horizon leach a pale E horizon and precipitate solutes in a yellow-brown to red Bt horizon, which becomes progressively enriched in iron oxides that intensify the color with time (Table 3.8). The Bt horizon has an internal structure evolving from small granular aggregates to ever larger blocks and prisms called peds; accumulating illuvial Wherever CaCO3 is clay particles form shiny clay films on ped surfaces.108 present in the substrateor the groundwater,dissolved CaCO3 precipitates to form a calcareousBk horizon below the Bt. Underneath, the soil grades into the unaltered or only little altered substrate,the C horizon. The Bt horizon expresses its increasing maturity by means of changes in color, structure, and the thickness and abundance of clay films.109The Bk horizon similarlydevelops as a sequence of precipitatedCaCO3 stages.110 Both horizons ultimately reach a point where no further maturation can be detected, unless erosion or renewed deposition terminates the process and sets a new sequence in motion. 104. Birkeland1984; Vreeken1975. The sequence of maturity stages is shown in Figure 3.29, using dates 105. Holliday 1989; Morrison 1976. based on superimposed archaeological sites, 14C-dating of organic sedi106. Birkeland1984, app. 1; ment particles, and luminescence dates of silt grains. All of these dating Retallack1988. methods estimate the time of deposition of the substrate and hence the 107. Fitzgerald1996; Harden 1982; onset of soil formation. The time needed to form a given paleosol can be Harden andTaylor1983; McFadden, determined from U-series dates of calcareouspaleosol nodules.111Digests Ritter,and Wells 1989; Smith, Nance, and Genes 1997. of all described paleosol Bt horizons in western Epirus are listed in Table 108. Birkeland1984, p. 16; 3.9 with their maturity stages. Retallack1990, p. 40. Paleosol stratigraphyhas worked well in the Peloponnese, Thessaly 109. Birkeland1984, figs. 1-6, 8-10, and Macedonia, and in the Pindos region of Epirus,112but western Epirus tables 1-4, 8-2. raises problems of its own. Because the redeposited terra rossa is often 110. Birkeland1984, fig. A-2; Machette 1985. initially red, clay-rich, and CaCO3-free, the abundance and thickness of 111. Ku et al. 1979; Ku and Liang clay films on ped surfaces,the remaining Bt diagnostics, are the only ma1983. turity criteria. Color is of no value except where reduction in a water112. Pope and van Andel 1984; logged depositional environment has bleached the sediment and started Runnels and van Andel 1993a; the process of soil formation. Woodward,Macklin, and Lewin 1994.
...
EARLY
AGE
STONE
TABLE 3.8. MATURITY INDICATORS QUATERNARY PALEOSOLS
OF THE
..
87
OF PREVEZA
NOMOS
OF GREEK
OF THE B HORIZON
BkHorizon CaCO3
BtHorizon Structure
ClayFilms
>2 kyr B.P MS 1 10YR, medium gray-yellowishbrown
granular
none
none
>4 kyrB.P MS 2 10YR-7.5YR, yellowish to reddishbrown
subangularblocky
thin, few
I-II
subangularblocky
thin, common
angularblocky
thin, many
II-III
angularblocky to small prismatic
thick to continuous
III-IV
Stage
Color
ca. 10-15 kyr B.P
MS 3
7.5YR, reddishto darkbrown
II
ca. 40 kyr B.P.
MS 4
5YR, yellow red to reddishbrown
ca. 80 kyr B.P
MS 5
2.5YR, reddishbrown to red
ca. 110-200 kyrB.P 2.5YR to 10R, red-brownto red MS 6
IV
medium to largeprismaticor platy thick, pervasive
MS = maturitystage;Color = Munsell color chart.For Bt horizon diagnostics,see Birkeland1984, app. 1. Bk horizon characteristics afterBirkeland1984, fig. A-2. Boundaryages (from Fig. 3.29) are approximations.
II.
*
.
*f
.
I I
I
I
I
II
I
I
MS6
MS5
Dating method
MS4
+
archaeological
o
calibrated radiocarbon
* U/Th disequilibrium :: ::
....
* TL/IRSL
M1S3
X stratigraphic
I-
MS2 .....
Figure 3.29. Maturity stages and approximate ages of the Mediterranean paleosol chronosequence. Note that paleosol maturity asymptotically approaches a final stage beyond which no change can be observed. Age scale is logarithmic; no vertical scale. Dates are from Demitrack 1986; Pope and van Andel 1984; Pope, Runnels, and Ku 1984; Runnels and van Andel 1993b; Zangger 1993; and Table 3.9 (below). After van Andel 1998a, fig. 5
~~~~~-- . . ~~~~~~MSI ii! ......:: |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i' io i ~~~~ ~
::.:~~~
....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~...:. +S
*iii
~,-.. .. ..+.... :' r,.
+e
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
ii
is ';
*+* .
+ ,I 0
1,000
10,000
100,000 years BP
88
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
TABLE 3.9. SHORT DESCRIPTIONS AND MATURITY HORIZONS AT KEY SITES IN COASTAL EPIRUS Site
Sample
ALONAKI SS92-23.2 SS92-22.7 SS92-22.7 SS92-22.7 SS92-22.7 SS92-22.7 SS92-22.1
P2 P3topBt P3baseBt P4 VA94-12a VA94-13 P5
Maturity Stage
Color
Structure
ClayFilms
MS 4/5 MS 4 MS 5 MS 5 MS 5 MS 4 MS 5
2.5YR 5YR 2.5YR 2.5YR 2.5YR 5YR 2.5YR
ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky
thick, many thick, many thick, abundant thick, abundant massive thick, many thick, abundant
MS 1 MS 2 MS 5
5YR 5YR 10YR
Bt on sandb Holocene dune sandb Bk on sandb (CaCO3 stage II)
P1 P2top P2base
MS 3/4 MS 3/4 MS 5
5YR 5YR 2.5YR
ang blocky ang blocky ang blocky
medium medium thick, abundant
Pltop
MS 5
2.5YR
med ang blocky
thick, abundant
MS 4 MS 2 top, VA94-27 base,VA94-28 to 31 MS 4/5 MS 6
2.5YR 10YR 2.5YR 2.5YR
ang blocky med granular ang blocky platy
(no information) few thick, abundant
base
MS 2
7.5YR
med granular
thin, few
ALONAKI BEACH SS94-23 Pltop, VA95-01 SS94-23 Plmid, VA95-02 to 4 SS94-22 Plbase AMMOUDIA SS92-21 SS92-21
STAGES OF PALEOSOL
BT
ANAVATI S
SS94-16 AYIA
SS93-9.1 SS93-9.2 SS93-9.2 SS93-9.2
massive, pervasive
AYIOS THOMAS
CHEIMADIO
SS94-2 SS94-18
VA94-01 VA94-07
MS 5 MS 3/4 MS 3
2.5YR 5YR 7.5YR
blocky,prism f ang blocky ang blocky
thick, abundant thin, few thin, pervasive
GALATAS SS92-13
Ptop, VA94-14 to 24
MS 4
2.5YR
ang blocky
medium, abundant
VA93-05
MS 5
2.5YR
med ang blocky
thick, many
VA94-04
MS 4
2.5YR
med ang blocky
thin, pervasive
P4
MS 5 MS 4 MS 5
2.5YR 5YR 2.5YR
ang blocky Bt on sandb Bt on sandb
thick, abundant
KOKKINOPILOS
SS91-3 LOUTSA
SS94-12 RODAKI
Above E55c SS92-15 SS92-15
Top, VA94-05, 34 Base, VA94-06, 35
Sample = Sample number(prefaceVA) or paleosol profile number(prefaceP); Color = Munsell soil color chart;Structure= f(ine), med(ium) ang(ular)blocky (Birkeland1984, app. 1). aFromsame stratumas "chippingfloor"industry. bColorson sand or sandstonetend to be 1-2 hue valueslighter than on clay-richsediments. cAlongmain coastalhighwayfrom Prevezato Albania.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
89
Erosion followed by deposition produces complex soil sequences. An example can be seen on the Tyrrhenianbeaches west of Preveza at Alonaki where the interglacial beach sand is topped by a truncated, light red (10R 6/6), very mature Bt horizon overlain by 2-4 m of similar but unconsolidated dune sand (Fig. 3.26:6,7) containing two paleosols. A lower immature (MS 2) Bt horizon of early Holocene age has Mesolithic finds on top of and within its upper 50 cm. It was later truncated and covered by wellsorted dune sands, which locally show an uppermost, very immature paleosol (MS 1). Dune migration and local deflation are continuing today. DATING
113.Dakaris,Higgs,andHey 1964; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967; Higgs and Webley 1971. 114. Huxtableet al. 1992. 115. Bailey 1992.
116.Bailey,Papaconstantinou, and Sturdy1992; Huxtableet al. 1992. 117. Huxtableet al. 1992. 118. Galanidouet al. 2000. 119. See, e.g., Wintle 1996.
OF EPIRUS
SEDIMENTS
AND
FINDSPOTS
The first attempt to obtain a chronology of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Epirus was undertaken by Cambridge University teams beginning in 1962. Higgs obtained a series of radiocarbonassayson bone, charcoal,and other materials from Asprochaliko and Kastritsa.113 Kastritsawas dated to approximately10-23 kyr B.P.(10,000-20,000 b.p.), and the Upper Palaeolithic deposits at Asprochaliko evidently began to accumulate somewhat earlier,ca. 29 kyr B.P.(26,000 b.p.), but otherwise overlappedthe Kastritsa deposits in time.114The Middle Palaeolithic levels at Asprochaliko proved to be beyond the effective range of the radiocarbon technique (at that time, ca. 39 kyr B.P.)and Higgs found nothing datable at Kokkinopilos. The later work of Cambridge University teams has added to the chronology. Radiocarbon dates from Late Upper Palaeolithic Klithi (10,420 b.p.-16,490 b.p.)15 fall between the glacial maximum (18-20 kyr B.P.)and the last cold event before the onset of the Holocene, the Younger Dryas of 11-12 kyr B.P.(10-11 kyr b.p.). New dates are also availablefrom Asprochaliko, based on 14C assays and TL analyses of sediments and burned flint.116The new dates place layers 16 and 18 (basal Mousterian) at ca. 98.5 kyr B.P.(TL), and layer 14 (upperMousterian) at ca. 39 kyrB.P.(37,000 b.p.). Uncertainty remains, however, in part because the TL dates lack the detail necessary to evaluate them. An attempt to date sites Alpha and Beta at Kokkinopilos with optically stimulated luminescence was inconclusive, suggesting only that sediments at the test sites might be older than 150 kyr B.P.117 New dates from Kastritsa,placing the beginning of occupation somewhat earlier,range from 27 to 16 kyr B.P.(24-13 kyr b.p.).118 This program, although adequate for the study of the stratified deposits in the rockshelters, is of little use for dating open-air sites. Most open-air sites are too old to be dated by 14C, even though reliable dates are now being obtained up to 45,000 B.P.,and substances suitable for K/Ar or U/Th dating, such as tephra or flowstone, are lacking. Relative dating is difficult in the absence of floral or faunal remains, and comparisons of lithic industries are useless in the absence of stratified deposits with a succession of lithic types. LUMINESCENCE
DATING
OF SEDIMENTS
Thermoluminescence dating of sediments has been practiced with varying success since 1979.119Since 1985 it has been possible to date sediments using optical dating methods in which a light-sensitive lumines-
9o
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
While severallight-sensitive signals have been cence signal is measured.120 luminescence infrared stimulated used, (IRSL) is the preferred method for dating loess and colluvial sediments derived from loess.121 Our confirmation of a suggestion byTippett and Heythat the silt in the Kokkinopilos redbeds might be the result of long-distance wind transport,122 a suggestion rejectedby Bailey, made this component an attractivetarget for luminescence dating, notwithstanding an earlier, inconclusive attempt by Debenham.123For this purpose, a suite of samples was collected in sealed, foil-wrapped plastic tubes under conditions of total darkness.TL and IRSL dating were carried out by Li-Ping Zhou in the Godwin Laboratory at Cambridge University and IRSL dating by Andreas Lang at the Forschungsstelle fur Archaometrie, Max Planck Institut fiir Kernphysik, in Heidelberg, Germany (Table 3.10).124 During long-distance aeolian transport, silt-sized quartz grains will have been fully bleached before deposition. After deposition the grains become covered with more grains and are exposed to radiation from natural sources of radioactivity in their environment. Dose rate estimates depend on uranium, thorium, and potassium concentrations determined by alpha counting, X-ray fluorescence, and neutron activation analysis.In the current study, two methods were used to determine the radiation received by the samples since deposition, known as the equivalent dose (DE). In the additive method (a) a series of laboratorydoses is given to sample disks in order to increase the luminescence signal. This produces a luminescence growth curve that, when extrapolated back to a base level provided by a bleached sample (bleaching: 180 minutes forTL, 60 for IRSL), allows the naturalsignal accumulated since the last exposure to light to be converted to a measure of the equivalent dose. With the regeneration method (r), f3doses are given to sample disks after exposure to light. A match of the naturalluminescence signal with the regenerated one then allows the determination of the DE. The application of this method is ultimately limited by the long-term stability of the signal and by reaching a dose level at which the luminescence signal no longer increases with further applied doses. Thermal instability will result in an underestimation of the true age, whereas saturation of the luminescence signal will permit estimation of a "greaterthan"age. For samples of nonwindborne sediments, bleaching of the earliergeological signal may be incomplete. This will result in an overestimation of the TL age, and possibly the IRSL age, if the laboratorybleaching is more effective at reducing the signal than the original light exposure. For IRSL, the signal can be reduced to 3% of its initial value by exposure to one minute of bright sunlight, whereas 1,000 minutes are requiredfor the TL Therefore, for nonwindborne deposits, ages signal from the same grains.125 obtained using the IRSL data sets are preferred. With the TL and IRSL dates (Table 3.10) and the paleosol maturity stages described above (Table 3.9), we compiled a chronological diagram of the last two glacial/interglacial cycles in the Preveza region that for the first time seriates many open-air sites (Table 3.11). Its "golden spikes"are the confirmation of the existence of an older Middle Palaeolithic between 60 kyr B.P.and the end of the last interglacial,the identification and dating
120. Huntley,Godfrey Smith, and Thewalt 1985. 121. Lang and Wagner 1996. 122. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964. 123. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992. 124. Zhou, van Andel, and Lang 2000. 125. Wintle 1997.
EARLY STONE
AGE OF THE NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
9I
AND INFRARED STIMULATED TABLE 3.10. THERMOLUMINESCENCE SEDIMENT DATES FOR WESTERN EPIRUS LUMINESCENCE Sample
Method
VA93-05 VA94-27
TLr IRSLa IRSLr IRSLa IRSLr IRSLr TLa
VA94-29 VA94-30 VA94-32
TLr IRSLa VA94-36
VA94-37
VA95-02 VA95-03
VA95-04
D/R
385 ? 79 27?+2
4.22 4.47
31?4 275 ?22 354?40
4.16
376 ?49 56?+3
4.52 5.57
10?2
51?2
9?2 59 ? 9
5.45
320 ?24 278 ?16
IRSLr
289?49 443 + 34
2.18
445 ?+65
2.23 2.03 1.82 3.32 2.82 1.57 1.42 1.97 1.71
TLa IRSLa
91+?14 6.1?0.6 7?1 65.5 ? 6.8 84?11 83.1? 12 10?2
TLr IRSLr
IRSLr TLa IRSLa TLa IRSLa TLa IRSLa
Age (kyrB.P.)
56?+2
TLa
TLa VA94-38 VA95-01
DE
6.2 ?0.7
7.1 ?0.7 9.3 ?+0.9
11.0?1.8
Kokkinopilos,paleosol (MS 5) Ayia, upperpaleosol (MS 2) Ayia, lower paleosol (MS 4) Ayia, lower paleosol (MS 4/5) Alonaki, redepositedterrarossa (MS 3)
Loutsa, surfacepaleosol (MS 4)
51?+8
294 ?41
14.8 ?0.7 18.3 ?1.4 34.4+ 2.6 31.3 ? 8.8
Remarks
52?+8 DEPOSITION SOILFORMATION debris flow
A
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
> SOILFORMATION DEPOSITION
II111II
H.
VAN
ANDEL
EXAMPLE: KOKKINOPILOS Bt(M5)
ni','
A
r '"li,A"l",
,
4
Bt(M1)
,iii,,,, Bt(M2)
4 . Bt(M1)
Bt(M4)
AIc.4944^ debris flow .A
A
A
.,,,.,*flint
3 A
A
Bt(M1) 1811111
Bt(M1)
I
AA
3
li lPI
"handaxe"
Bt(M3)
Bt(M2)
2 111111111
"""""""""'Bt(M1)
gravel
Bt(M1)
||l||Is1|||||| Bt(M2)
1
kst karst
karst
karst
mIIIIpaleosol (Bt) or desiccation zone
AA
Palaeolithic
stone
tools
paleosol formation. In a landscape where the slope mantle has not yet been destroyed, terra rossa deposition rates in an active polje may be as high as 10-15 cm/kyr.129In contrast, soil formation is slow.130 If deposition is significantly faster than soil formation, either no soil or an immature one will form when deposition is temporarily interrupted by a period of drought. Stone tools may then be left on desiccation surfaces, on thin and immature paleosols, or in and on marginal fan deposits (Fig. 3.30, left). If, on the other hand, deposition raises the land surface more slowly than the Bt and Bk horizons form, the horizons will thicken upward into the overlying sediment, a process that is common in the lower floodplains of small riversin the semiarid climate of the Peloponnese and Thessaly.131 When the polje approaches old age, the rate of soil formation begins to equal or exceed the rate of deposition. In the now raised polje at Morphi, for instance, a volcanic ash dated at 374?+7 kyr B.P.and located 12 m below a very mature paleosol estimated to be ca. 100,000 years old implies an average deposition rate of a mere 4 mm/kyr.132 The maturing Bt horizon
Figure3.30. Relationshipbetween paleosolmaturity,terrarossa depositionrate,and Palaeolithic stone tool age in poljesandloutses. Stone tools aredepositedon old surfaces,the age of whichis defined byTL or IRSL dates.Left, sequence 1-4: Depositionrateexceedsrateof soil formation;immaturepaleosols areassociatedwith old Palaeolithic material.Center,sequence1-4: Rate of soil formationequalsor exceeds depositionrate;maturingBt horizon growsupwarduntil it engulfsstone tool assemblage.Right:Profilefrom Kokkinopilos,incorporatingboth phenomena.
129. Kukal1990, pp. 101-103; Runnels and van Andel 1993b. 130. Spaargaren1979; Williams and Polach 1971; Magaritz,Kaufman,and Yaalon1981; Demitrack 1986; McFadden and Weldon 1987; Harden et al. 1991; Bockheim,Marshall,and Kelsey 1996. 131. Pope and van Andel 1984; Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994. See also Birkeland1984, figs. 8-10. 132. Pyle et al. 1998.
EARLY STONE
AGE OF THE NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
95
then growsupwarduntil it engulfsanystone tools, protectingthem from soil andwind erosion(Fig. 3.30, center). The Kokkinopilossection (Fig. 3.30, right) demonstratesboth processes.Duringits youth,the poljeaccumulateda thicksedimentsequence with scatteredimmaturepaleosolsand widely spacedstone tool assemblages;in its old age,however,whenthe dissolutionof limestonewasslower than its removal,the depletionof the slope mantlesharplyreducedthe sediment supply.Moreover,uplift eliminatedmost of the runoff from springsand initiatedheadwardstreamincision.This droppedthe rateof depositionbelow that of soil formationand produceda thick, consolidatedBt thatincorporatedstonetools andkeptthem safeuntilNeolithic, BronzeAge, or in this case,post-Romansoil erosionexhumedthem.133 A differentexampleis Ayia (Fig. 3.20), a shallowloutsawith only 810 m of fill, now almost entirely removed by recent erosion. A composite
profile(Fig.3.19) showsa lower,red-and-graymottledsequencewith distinctcentimeter-scalestratificationformedin an alternatingly dryandwet environment.Palaeolithicstone tools are intercalatedin this sequence, which, nearthe top, was interruptedonce by a debrisflow underneatha mature(MS 5) paleosol.The thin, muchyoungerupperzone has an immature(MS 2) Bt horizon.
THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL GOALS
133. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992; Runnels and van Andel 1993b;van Andel, Zangger,and Demitrack 1990.
AND
SURVEY
PROCEDURES
The survey of prehistoric sites took place between 1991 and 1995. Special attention was given to the red sediments (paleosols and redeposited terra rossa) because of their known association here and elsewhere with Palaeolithic artifacts, and the structure and characteristicsof paleosol horizons were investigated to establish a rough chronology of the archaeological finds. In practical terms we used the availablegeological and topographic maps as a rough guide. Our goal was to produce a complete picture of Palaeolithic activity,in as wide a variety of geographic contexts as possible, within the time availablefor searching. Fifty-seven days of fieldwork were undertakenby a specialistteam devoted entirelyto the searchfor Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites and consisting of three to four persons at all times, with the addition of student volunteers to assist.Two strategies were pursued. The first strategy was to locate and search all occurrences of Pleistocene soils and sediments in the study area (Fig. 3.8). The second strategy was intended to increase the coverage of the surface by inspecting nonredbed surfaces, such as dunes, alluvial fans, bare hillslopes, and remnants of the old peneplain (e.g., in the vicinity of the village of Loutsa). The search for Palaeolithic and Mesolithic materials was also part of the general diachronicsurvey.The general surveyteams, consisting of three or four field school students and two experienced graduate students as leaders, were trained to identify and collect all lithic artifactsbefore walking survey tracts.This point should be emphasized: in order to minimize selection bias, fieldwalkers were taught to recognize and collect all lithic
96
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
artifactsregardlessof size, raw material,type, or date. The quantityof lithic artifactscollected(ca.13,000 pieces)andthe rangeof periodsrepresented (Lower Palaeolithicto moderngunflints)are evidencethat this trainingwas effective.This procedurewasusefulin two ways.Largetracts of presumedpost-Pleistocenesurfacewereinspectedandthe usuallynegative resultshelped to confirmour assumptionthat we were not missing any sites in these areas.The teams also walkedPleistocenedepositsnot inspectedby the specializedteam(e.g.,the AyiosThomaspeninsula),discoveringimportantPalaeolithicfindspotswhich materiallyincreasedour confidencethat a reasonablycomprehensivepictureof the preservedarchaeologicalrecordhad been obtained.The tractfinds collectedby these teams were inspectedon a daily basis by one of us (CR), and in cases wheregeneralsurveyteamsbroughtin lithics from tracts,walkovers,or site/scattersthat were of interest,the specialistprehistoricsurveyteam revisitedthe areato make a separateinspectionand collect and record additionalsamplesas walkovers. At the timewhen Palaeolithicor Mesolithicartifactswerediscovered by the specialistprehistoricsurveyteam, the followingprocedureswere employed(a more detaileddescriptionof collectionproceduresused by generalsurveyteamsis givenin Chapter2). The firstconcernat all times was to determinethe sourceof flints found on the surface.Our working modelof site formationprocesseswasbasedon the assumptionthatflints were associatedwith redepositedterrarossa,and to test this hypothesis eachfindspotwas searchedcarefullyfor a sourceof the lithics.At a numberof sites (e.g.,Alonaki,Galatas,Kranea,and Kokkinopilos),flints embeddedin the sedimentswere associatedwith paleosols(Bt horizons)of variousmaturitystages,formedwhen the originalsurfacehad been exposed for a sufficientquantityof time. At Ayia, on the otherhand,fresh unweatheredflintswerefoundin unbroken,"mint"conditionwithin uninterrupted,consolidated,horizontallybeddeddepositsat a depthof 3 m below the modernsurface,wherethey must havebeen depositedduring brief,perhapsseasonal,dryintervals.There canbe no questionthat these flints arepart of the redbeddepositand must be consideredin situ in a geologicalsenseandnot laterintrusions.The evidenceforlaterreworking of redbeddepositsat Kokkinopilos,citedby Baileyas proofthat the flints are accidentalintrusions,134 is basedon excavationssituatedin gullies in the northeastmarginsof the site; these gullieswere probablysubjectto local reworkingthat did not affectthe entirepoljefill. The numberof flints exposedin a paleosolhorizonwas limited,and the samplefor each findspotwas supplementedby collectingflints from the surfacethatweredeemedto be derived,or highlylikelyto be derived, fromthe paleosol.This elementof subjectivejudgmentwas basedon extensive experience,and was justified by the close spatialassociationof materialswithin the outcropandjust belowits weatheredface.The flints areoften stainedwith redclayfromthe paleosolsor havefragmentsof Bt materialadheringto them.The collectionsincludeall retouchedartifacts, cores,completeflakes,blades,andflakingdebitagewith typologicalcharacteristics(e.g., corerejuvenation pieces).Only incompleteandtypologiunclassifiable were discardedon-site. cally fragments
134. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
97
Our purpose was not to collect samples for analyses that requirelarge numbers of pieces for detailed typology or spatial analysis of activity areas. With the exception of one site (Spilaion; see Chapter 4), we did not attempt to map the spatial distribution of materials. Recent erosion of the paleosols was responsible for extracting flints and scattering them on the surface and in erosional gullies that dissected the redbed sequence. In our view only excavations of the paleosols would reveal culturallymeaningful spatial patterns. The samples collected from the surface were intended only to provide sufficient information to assign the findspot to a cultural period and to compare it with other findspots in the region. Papagianni has undertaken a more detailed technological analysis of the Mousterian from our collection, utilizing essentially all Mousterian artifacts found in Epirus since 1962.135 The treatment of artifacts collected on the surface was simple. The lithics were soaked in water to clean them before they were bagged for storage in PVC bags labeled with provenience data. All samples were recorded in field notebooks and on printed recording forms, which permitted the samples to be tracked through cleaning and storage, and the information transferredto the project'scomputerized database. Once cleaned, the lithics were described and assigned to typological categories according to the system of classification originally developed by Fran9ois Bordes, with certain modifications that have become accepted in recentyears.136 Selected specimenswere pulled from the samplesfor drawing and photography.These selected specimens were given separateinventory numbers, in addition to their sample numbers, to aid retrieval. ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES
IN THEIR
GEOLOGICAL
SETTING
135. Papagianni1999. 136. Bordes 1992; Debenath and Dibble 1994; Mellars 1996, pp. 169192.
Our surveywas carriedout in the territorywest of the Louros Rivervalley, with an emphasis on the coast from Parga to Preveza, and produced evidence for human activityfrom the earlyPalaeolithicthrough the Mesolithic. The majority of sites are coastal with the exception of those in the Thesprotiko and Cheimadio valleys. An interesting finding was a number of smaller, perhaps specialized, sites that may include quarry sites and flintknapping areas,which supplement our picture of the regional settlement pattern. Our programdiscoveredor confirmed forty-four prehistoricfindspots called "Site/Scatters"and designated "SS,"followed by the year and number of the site recorded in that season (e.g., SS92-22 for Alonaki in the Acheron valley, the twenty-second findspot recorded in the 1992 season; see Appendix). Approximately 4,600 lithic artifacts were collected from these findspots and were used to assign them to general periods. Of these findspots, four produced Lower Palaeolithic materials, thirty produced Middle Palaeolithic, six produced Upper Palaeolithic, and six Mesolithic. We supplemented our surveywith data from an extensive program of augering in the Acheron River valley and the Louros delta (see Chapters 5 and 6); a geochronological program of radiocarbon(14C),thermolumines-
98
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
TABLE 3.12. EARLY STONE AGE CHRONOLOGY Period
Calendar Years(kyrB.P.)
Mesolithic
7 to 10.5
Upper Palaeolithic
13 to 34
Middle Palaeolithic(EarlyPalaeolithic)
>31
Lower Palaeolithic(EarlyPalaeolithic)
>100
cence (TL), and infrared stimulated luminescence (IRSL) dating of alluvial sediments and sand dunes; and laboratory sedimentological analyses. A chronological summary is given in Table 3.12. THE
EARLY
PALAEOLITHIC
The traditional terms of "Lower"and "Middle" Palaeolithic have been questioned in recentyearsprimarilybecause they referboth to chronostratigraphic units and lithic typology, which overlap and are not congruent. The Lower Palaeolithic was once regarded as a Middle Pleistocene sequence of Acheulean industries with the handaxe-cleavercomplex as type fossils. The Middle Palaeolithic was a Late Pleistocene flake industry (the Mousterian) with Levallois technology. It was also thought that the Acheulean was associated with Homo erectusand the Mousterian with Neanderthals or other archaic Homo sapiens.137 All of these assumptions have proved to be unreliable. The Acheulean, with handaxes, continues until the last interglacial (ca. 115-130 kyr B.P.) in many places, while new finds have placed the beginning of the Mousterian at more than 100,000 years before the last interglacial (ca. 200-250 kyr B.P.).There are significant overlapsin chronostratigraphicterms, and the Acheulean and Mousterian also sharethe use of the Levallois technique,flake tools, and handaxes (or "bifaces"in formal typology). It is thus no longer possible to correlate lithic technocomplexes and hominid grades. Some authorities question whether Homo erectuswas responsible for the European Acheulean, which might also be attributed to archaic Homo sapiens, and both Neanderthals and anatomically modern Homo sapiensare associated with classic Middle Palaeolithic in the Near East. Neanderthals in western Europe and perhaps the Balkans are responsible for industries that are similar to and contemporarywith industries ascribed to the Early Upper Palaeolithic (EUP). It is unlikely that traditional lithic industrial identifications can be other than labels of convenience, permitting us to discuss problems and describe newly discovered materials but which in no way imply either chronological position or cultural affinities. In these cases, Rolland recommends calling the traditional Lower and Middle Palaeolithic "EarlyPalaeolithic"to avoid the problems inherent in the earlier classification.138 We will follow that suggestion in this report, although we also use the older terminology when greaterchronological or typological precision is required. Localities with the earliest materials (on stratigraphic and chronometric grounds) are found at Kokkinopilos, Alonaki, and Ayios Thomas. Kokkinopilos (SS91-3) is the most important of these, and has been de-
137. Mellars 1996, pp. 2-4. 138. Rolland 1986.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
99
Figure3.31. Palaeolithicsite/scatters in the Thesprotikovalley,showing the locationof findspotsassociated with redbeds.Kokkinopilosis a majorsite. Galatasand Kraneaare presumedto be specializedactivity sites. Smallfindspotsarefoundon the marginsof the poljedepositsand at the entrancesto the valley. Hatchedareasaremodernsettlements.
139. Runnels and van Andel 1993b. 140. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964.
scribedin detail (Fig. 3.31).139A pointed biface (handaxe)of late Acheulean type was found stratified within a zone of interbedded subaeriallyweathered but mainly subaqueous polje or loutsa deposits (Fig. 3.17) ca. 17 m below a paleosol containing a later Middle Palaeolithic industry dated to ca. 90 kyr B.P. (Table 3.11), close to the present center of the polje and near its thickest deposits. Three undisturbed immature paleosols mark the interval between the Middle Palaeolithic paleosol and the handaxe zone, which is almost entirely sterile except for a thin (ca. 50-cm) bed of matrixsupported fine flint gravel a few meters above the handaxe. At about the same or slightly higher stratigraphiclevels, other localities roughly to the south and southwest of the findspot produced heavily patinated artifacts of large size. In 1991 we observed numerous artifacts eroding from the sediments in the northwest part of the deposit and perhaps similar to the "chipping"floors described by Higgs in the northeast part of the site some 300 m away.140 The artifactsconsisted of large flake tools, non-Levallois in with denticulate and notched edges. We were prevented from technique, making a collection of these artifacts and from sampling this layer for geochronological dating by a post-issue alterationto the Nikopolis Project's research permit; we are thus unable to give details about the lithics from the handaxe layer or to directly date the handaxe. Our best estimate of date (150-200 kyr B.P.) is derived from extrapolation of plausible sedimentation ratesbased on the dating of the very matureMiddle Palaeolithic paleosol at the top of the sequence, obtained on a sample taken before our researchwas stopped (Table 3.10; VA93-05).
IO0
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure3.32. Palaeolithicand Mesolithicsite/scattersin the Acheronvalley.Alonakiis a major site. Smallerfindspots(e.g., Skepare asto,Loutsa,andValanidorrachi) sites. Other specializedactivity findspots(e.g., Ayia Kyriaki,Tsouknida,Ammoudia),perhapstemporarycamps,arelocatedon the edge of the valley.Two Mesolithicsites (Ammoudia,Loutsa)arefound near the coast,andTsouknidawas located on the edge of an ancientlakeor embayment.Hatchedareasare modernsettlements. A second area of interest that produced material of Early Palaeolithic characteris Alonaki in the Acheron valley (Fig. 3.32). Alonaki (SS92-22, SS92-23) appears to be a loutsa-type karst depression filled with alluvial/ colluvial, redeposited terra rossa. An extensive outcrop was inspected and found to have at least two distinct Bt horizons. The upper Bt has a maturity of MS 4 and the lower Bt MS 4/5 or 5 (Table 3.9). The sequence has a total depth of more than 3 m below the surface, and appears to contain more than one Palaeolithic industry. Large flake artifacts were found throughout the deposit, including the lowest part, exposed in a clay extraction pit. Although our ability to correlatethe industries with outcrops of different depths is limited, it appears that a conventional Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian is found on or near the upper Bt horizon and a significantly earlier large flake industry in the lower Bt horizon. A curious feature of the Alonaki deposits is the presence of dense concentrations of angular stones mixed with lithics, which occur in discrete units 1-3 m in diameter and ca. 0.30 m thick (Fig. 3.33). They are unsorted and matrix-supported, but their sharp boundaries (at top, bottom, and laterally)against redeposited terrarossa argue strongly against an origin as a stream channel or debris-flow deposit. These features resemble in some ways the "stoneclusters"identified at Early Palaeolithic sites as far afield as Hoxne in England, which are sometimes described as artificial in origin.141 The Alonaki "stone clusters"are associated with the artifacts of the lower Bt horizon, large flakes with wide, thick platforms and large bulbs of percussion and equally large cores of non-Levallois type (Fig. 3.34). These materials were recovered from the bottom of a shallow ero-
141. E.g., Singer,Gladfelter,and Wymer 1993, p. 124.
EARLY
Figure3.33. View of a stone cluster: at Alonakiillustratingthe sharply definededgesof the feature
,i
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
IOI
-i
sional gully that cuts through the site as well as in the modern clay extraction pit. In a few cases they were prized from within the structures found
in the lower Bt horizon, and must clearly be regarded as in situ within the paleosol. In the surface collections some mixing with later materials is unavoidable, but in the lower levels of the deposit, wherever in situ artifacts were observed, they were always of the non-Levallois big flake type. These large artifacts differ in raw material, technique, and retouched tool typology from the Mousterian and consist chiefly of core-choppers and flakes (Fig. 3.35). The raw material is a dull dark brown, fossiliferous chert, derived from Eocene limestone, that contrasts with the glassy bluish-gray nodular flint without macroscopic fossils that is derived from the
Mesozoic Pantokrator limestone and was widely used to manufacture Mousterian artifactsin Epirus.The Eocene chert has been worked by hardhammer direct percussion. Flakes have large broad platforms and welldefined, swelling bulbs of percussion. The size of the platform and the pronounced swelling of the bulb are indications that considerable force was used to detach each flake from its core. Cores include core-choppers (Fig. 3.36) and large cobbles from which flakes were removed from one face using a broad plain striking surface (Fig. 3.37). The resulting flake scars are wide and deep. There is not enough material for a metrical analysis or a study of the complete reduction sequence, but the characteristicswe can observe seem to point to the production of broad flakes from boulders and large cobbles as the chief goal. There are other characteristicsthat separatethe lower Bt industry from the Mousterian. Retouch is confined to direct, invasive retouch, and large notches were created by a single inverse or direct blow (Clactonian technique). Notched and denticulated edges are common, and typical Mousterian forms, such as points and side scrapers,are lacking in this material.
102
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
1
2
3
4
5
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure 3.34. Early Palaeolithic artifacts from Alonaki: 1) double convergent side scraper; 2-4) notched pieces/denticulates; 5) convex side scraper.Scale1:2
Figure 3.35. Early Palaeolithic choppers from Alonaki. Scale1:4
EARLY
Figure 3.36 (above,left). Early
Palaeolithiccore-choppersfrom Alonaki. Scale1:2 Figure 3.37 (above, right). Early
PalaeolithiccorefromAlonaki. Scale 1:2
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF
PREVEZA
Io3
Also from this area is a small biface (handaxe), found near Ormos Odysseos (W94-20), about 500 m to the west of Alonaki (Fig. 3.38). Here a thick mantle of Pleistocene red clay, sand, and gravel (and possibly involving a paleosol as well) covers a limestone karst surface inland from a coastal paleosol superimposed on a sand dune of probable interglacial age (SS92-25) which also contains Palaeolithic artifacts (Fig. 3.39). The inland deposit is today overgrown with bushes, but goats have worn trails through them and the tracks have eroded down to bedrock exposing outcrops up to 3 m thick. The handaxe was found in one such ravine (Fig. 3.40). The area is essentially level and the handaxe could not have been transported very far. Other artifacts were observed in the deposit, which may be of the same general age as the lower Bt horizon at Alonaki. The sand dune, which overlies the Bt deposit at its northwestern corner, is nearly at present sea level, but is definitely of Pleistocene age and hence can only belong to the high sea level of the last interglacial period (or an even earlier interglacial). In our estimation the preponderance of the evidence the high maturity of the Alonaki paleosols and the overlying interglacialcoastal suiteplaces the lower Bt paleosol with its associated artifacts before the last interglacial, or more than 130,000 years ago, close to the lower age suggested for the Kokkinopilos handaxe (150-200 kyr B.P.). Other Early Palaeolithic materials are found in the southern part of the survey areanear the town of Preveza.Tracts walked on the Ayios Thomas peninsula at the northern end of the Ormos Vathy (T93-17, T93-3, T93-4, T93-5) recovered large numbers of Mousterian pieces from a
I04
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure 3.38. Early Palaeolithic biface (handaxe) from Ormos Odysseos. Scale 1:2
Figure 3.39. Interglacial sand dune (SS92-25) at Ormos Odysseos, looking southwest
Figure 3.40. Ormos Odysseos, biface findspot (W94-20), looking south
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
/
Figure3.41. EarlyPalaeolithicbiface or bifacialcorefromAyiosThomas.
NOMOS
'
OF PREVEZA
\
Io5
-
Scale 1:2
paleosol associated with marine deposits of Eemian age. Among these materials are large flakes of Eocene chert similar to the Alonaki lower Bt artifacts,including a rough amygdaloidalbiface or bifacial core (Fig. 3.41). Very few outcrops exist in this area and the exact source of these materials could not be pinpointed. The deposits are bedded horizontally and the material cannot have been transportedfar.Although no age assignment is possible, we suspect that these materials are of the same general age and type as those from Alonaki. Except for Kokkinopilos, Early Palaeolithic materials are found only on the present coastline, and it is for this reason that they have not been noticed before. An inspection of Higgs's collections in the Ioannina Archaeological Museum showed that they contain no artifacts similar to the lower Bt materials at Alonaki. THE
142.Dakaris,Higgs,andHey 1964.
MOUSTERIAN
(MIDDLE
PALAEOLITHIC)
Most Early Palaeolithic artifacts in the Preveza nomos are Mousterian in type. In his pioneering survey,Higgs found large numbers of Mousterian artifacts on surface sites in Epirus, including thousands from Morphi, Karvounari,and Kokkinopilos.142Specialist prehistoric survey identified thirty findspots (site/scatters in databaseterminology); although this number could be easily multiplied by additional fieldwork, we believe it includes a representativerange of site types and habitats. Our study collection from Mousterian findspots includes more than 1,500 artifacts, and about 10% of the 13,000 lithics collected by the general survey teams are also Mousterian. The abundance of the Mousterian may be attributed to several factors. Geological contexts of the appropriate age are more common than those of earlier periods or those immediately following. Mousterian sites are also more conspicuous ("obtrusive"in survey terminology), and the preferentialselection of redbeds for their camps makes them easy to find: the large, often heavily patinated, artifacts stand out as white spots on a
io6
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
The erosionaffectingmanyof the redbedshas no doubt redbackground. contributedto the obtrusivenessof sitesby deeplyincisinggulliesanddenudingthe depositsof vegetation. BesidesEpirus,the Mousterianis foundin the Argolid,Corfu,Elis, The preferKephallinia,Messenia,Thessaly,andmanyotherlocalities.143 ence for open-airsettlementsis one reasonfor this ubiquitousness. While UpperPalaeolithicoccupationof cavesandrocksheltersis commonin the lastglacial(OIS2, ca.25-12 kyrB.P.),Mousterianoccupationof rockshelters or cavesis rare:Asprochaliko,Kephalari,andFranchthiareat presentthe onlypublishedexamples.Site selectionstrategymaybe anothermajorfactor,and climatealso playeda role.The Mousterianis found in the early glacialperiod(OIS 4-3), a time markedin westernEuropeby numerous climaticoscillationsfrom nearlyfull glacialto warmconditions,some of which (e.g., the Hengelo interstadialat ca.40 kyrB.P.andthe Denekamp interstadialat ca. 36-32 kyr B.P.) were quite mild.144If these conditions alsoprevailedin southeasternEurope,thiswouldsuggestthatMousterian settlementwas encouragedby,or limitedto, the warmphases. The identityof the makersof the Mousterianis a contentiousproblem,but the EuropeanevidenceindicatesthatNeanderthalswerethe producersof this industry,a workinghypothesiswe accept.145 Likethe Eurothe Mousterian in shows pean finds, Epirus similarly relativelylittle variation.That of the basallayers(16 and18) atAsprochaliko,datedto ca. 98.5 kyr B.P., is characterized by the frequentuse of the Levalloistechto cores to In adnique prepare producenumerouslargelamellarflakes.146 andothereldition,Levalloispoints,largeconvexside scrapers(racloirs), ements are typical.This Mousterianbelongs to OIS 5 (ca. 115-74 kyr B.P.) andperhapscontinuesinto OIS 4 and3 (ca.74-59 kyrB.P.),the early glacial.The Mousterianof Asprochaliko'supperlevel (layer14), poorly dated by radiocarbonassaysrangingfrom 29 kyr B.P. (26,000 b.p.) to >39,900b.p., 47is quite similar,but makesless use of the Levalloistechnique and is rich in Mousterianpoints and smallside scrapersin a wide range of types. It was once describedas a diminutivefacies called the Micromousterian,but this designationhas been questionedfor Asprochalikobecausethe differencein sizebetweenthe basalandupper(orlate) Mousterianis not greatenough to warrantthe qualifier"micro"for the latter.148There is no question,however,that the late Mousteriandiffers fromthe precedingLevallois-Mousterian in some typological,technical, andmetricalcharacteristics andthat it is younger. Mousterianartifactsfound on the surfacecan be placedin chronologicalorderonly with greatdifficulty(Table3.11). There are abundant surfacesiteswith Mousterianfinds:Kokkinopilos, Ayia(SS93-9),Alonaki (SS92-22 and SS92-23), Kranea(SS92-14), the Anavatisquarry(SS9413 andSS94-16),Skepasto(SS92-20),andValanidorrachi (SS91-4),among others.Late Mousterianartifactsarefound at Kokkinopilos,Ayia (in its upperlevels),Alonaki (SS92-22), Galatas(SS92-13), Loutsa (SS93-31, SS94-12),andsome smallersites.A possiblesourceof chronologyfor the laterMousteriancomes from the SouthernArgolidandThessalywhere similarMousterianartifactsaredatedbyradiocarbon andU/Th seriesfrom 55 to 30 kyr B.P.149
143. Bailey et al. 1999; Runnels 1995. 144. van Andel andTzedakis 1998. 145. Mellars 1996, pp. 1-8.
146.Bailey,Papaconstantinou, and Sturdy1992; Huxtable et al. 1992. 147. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992, p. 138 148. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992; Huxtable et al. 1992. 149. Pope, Runnels,and Ku 1984; Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993a.
EARLY
150. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964.
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
IO7
A major interest of our survey was the reconstruction of Mousterian paleoenvironments, settlement, and land use. Our discussion of this topic is divided into two parts in accordwith the twofold division of the Mousterian, although the many elements of continuity should be stressed.The decisive featuregoverning land use and settlement patterns is the distribution of karst features such as poljes, loutses, and dolines that served to attract and concentrate animal, plant, and mineral resources and permitted and encouraged a seasonally scheduled, partially logistical strategy of land use. Throughout this discussion we referto strategiesthat make structured, planned, and repeated use of a landscape as logistical or partially logistical land-use strategies. The earlierMousterian is found in abundancein the redbedsof Epirus, particularlyat Kokkinopilos.The variety of locations showing evidence of early Mousterian activity is perhaps the best picture of partial logistical land use. The largest concentrations of artifacts are found at Alonaki, Kokkinopilos, and Ayios Thomas (Ormos Vathy). A fourth findspot is in the vicinity of Morphi in Thesprotia, where large numbers of Mousterian artifactswere collected by Higgs.150 These larger sites are supplemented by a series of small sites at Ayia, Kranea, Loutsa, and Anavatis. Still smaller sites, possibly specialized in character,are found at Skepasto and Valanidorrachi,located near flint outcropswhere quarrying,flintknapping,and testing of nodules were the main activities. The site of Rodaki may have been occupied by Neanderthals utilizing coastal resources, although the lack of faunal remains here and elsewhere makes this hypothesis difficult to evaluate.The principal characteristics of the known smaller sites are these. All presented easily available surfacewater,which ponded on the clay surfacesof the loutses in late winter and spring and slowly evaporated in summer. We found standing water and evidence of recent wet conditions on these sites to the end of June and into earlyJuly.Loutses mainly depend on winter rain ratherthan on major springs and are found as shallow depressions in exposed localities where they dry out early.They are more exposed to the elements than poljes, which are located in deep basins that offer more sheltered conditions. Large poljes, like the modern Valtos Kalodiki, retain water much longer, or permanently in the form of shallow lakes, swamps, ol marshes. There were found reeds, aquatic plants, willows, and stands of trees in well-watered side valleystogether with a variedwildlife. Camps were placed along the margins of the poljes-partly to be on well-drained ground and partly to avoid scaring off the game-but near springs or the inlets of winter or spring streams. Locations were probably shifted often. If groups returned on a seasonal basis over a long time, the spread of artifacts from overlapping camps would make spatial analysis difficult and may account for the large quantities of artifacts. Loutses and poljes were magnets for animals and humans in this glacial landscape. Rivers in the summer carriedsome meltwater,but they had incised their channels to reach lower shorelines. Away from the rivers, springs were sources,but in the karstlandscape the limestone bedrock has no surface water in the dry season. The poljes preserved water when it would be least available,in the late summer and autumn months, and they
Io8
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
offeredpredictableplacesto find food as well.The predictabilityof these spatiallyconcentratedresourcesmayexplainthe partiallylogisticalsettlementpatternseenin Mousteriantimes.In a fullylogisticland-usepattern, the smalleroutlyingactivityareaswouldhaveservedveryspecializedfunctions,as is thoughtto be the casewith the ibexandchamoishuntingcamp at Klithiin the late Palaeolithic,151 but thereis no evidencefor this degree of specializationin the Mousterian. In contrastto the modifiedlogisticalpatternpostulatedhere, some scholarshavedevelopeda pictureof Neanderthalsas opportunisticforagerswho movedaboutthe landscapein searchof food.152 Such a modelof residentialmobilityalso postulatesa repeateduse of scheduledseasonal stopsat particularsites,andthis patternof landuse mayhavegradedinto variouskinds of logisticalforagingthat dependedto a greateror lesser degreeon a few basecamps. In our model of modifiedlogisticalland use, the differenttypes of sitesoffereddifferent-sizedanddifferently-timed packagesof water,plants (for food, handlesfor tools, shelter,fuel), and animals.There was also a good chanceof findingusefulquantitiesof flint for toolmakingin most locations.Ayia is a typicalexampleof the smaller"loutsa"site, consisting of sometimeslargenumbersof artifactsassociatedwith smallreddeposits, typicallyno morethan300 or 400 m in diameterandlocatedat somedistancefromlargerpoljesitessuchasMorphiandKokkinopilos(Fig.3.42). The findspotsnearLoutsaand Kraneaarealso examples.These sites are found in remotemountainouslocationsat elevationsup to 400 masl or more.The lithics fromAyia includeflintknappingdebrisand retouched tools indicatinga wide rangeof activitiesat the site (Figs.3.43, 3.44). Even smallersites show more specializedactivities.Skepastoand in the Acheronvalleyappearto be flintknappingsites.At Valanidorrachi there are manyworkedand unworkednodules of flint, some Skepasto weighingup to 15 kg, erodingfromlimestone;associatedwith thesenodules are numeroustest-cores,Levalloisand other cores,Levalloisblades and flakes,and rarefinished artifacts(e.g., two Levalloispoints).The Anavatisquarrysites,with paleosolscontainingboth coresand finished tools, appearto be small encampmentson a torrentialstreamfan (Figs. 3.45, 3.46). An interestingexampleof the morespecializedtype of site is Rodaki, a red depositlocatedat the presentmouth of the PaliouriasRiver(Fig. 3.45). A largenumberof artifactswere found stratifiedin a complexsequenceof paleosols,separatedby a normalfaultfroma thick sequenceof marinedepositsof probableinterglacialage (Fig. 3.47). The artifactsare in situ in a stonyred paleosolthat is cappedby a layer(ca.2 m thick) of stone-freeduneor coastalsand.The lower,stonypaleosolwith artifactsis nearlycompletelyburied,but the upper30 cm of its thicknessis exposed. This partis rich in artifactsthat aredifficultto classify(Fig. 3.48). They resemblematerialsfrom the islandof Zakynthosat the site of Vassiliko where Sordinasfound them in red sedimentsinterstratifiedwith marine The Zakynthosartifactsareundated,but appearto be a spedeposits.153 cializedvariantof the Mousterian.154 In this respectthey bear a resem-
151. Bailey 1997. 152. Mellars 1996, pp. 356-365. 153. Sordinas1968. 154. Kourtesi-Philippakis1996.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
Io9
Figure3.42. The Palaeolithicsite of Ayiaandits setting.The site is locatedin a smallloutsaat an elevationbetween300 and400 masl. Hatchedareasaremodernsettlements.
155. Kuhn 1995, pp. 46-72. The Italian sites are dated to the earlyto mid-glacial(ca. 110-35 kyr B.P.). 156. Cf. Kuhn 1995, pp. 95-97.
blance to the Pontinian of Italy, a littoral Mousterian rich in small side scrapersfound both in caves and on open-air sites.155It should be noted that these rather simple tools made on small pebbles are not very diagnostic and may reflect similar choices of raw materials for toolmaking rather than similar cultural traditions. It is notable, however, that this type of Mousterian is found only in coastal localities, where larger sizes of raw materials are also available,suggesting that the similarity of the industries may in fact be significant. The Rodaki artifacts are small in size and made from pebbles collected from the nearby riverbed.The most characteristic types aresmall core-choppers,'56transverseconvex scrapers,bladelikeflakes, and rare end scrapersand notched pieces. This industry does not use the Levallois technique and we regard it as a specialized coastal facies of the Mousterian.
IIO
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
3
1
2
Figure 3.43. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia: 1) double convergent side scraper; 2) Levallois flake; 3) end scraper; 4, 6) blades; 5) core on a flake.
5 4 6
Scale 1:2
Figure 3.44. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia. Scale 1:2
EARLY
Figure 3.45. Palaeolithic findspots in the vicinity of Kastrosykia. In this area of heavy vegetation, paleosols and redbeds are exposed only sporadically. Findspots represent small concentrations of lithics, probably remnants of ephemeral campsites. Individual Palaeolithic artifacts were noted in tracts and walkovers throughout the area, indicating that many more findspots exist. Hatched areas are modern settlements.
Figure 3.46. Anavatis site/scatter 94-13, located in the middle of the photograph on the leveled area, looking northeast
STONE
AGE
OF THEOF THE NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
III
CURTIS
II2
N.
AND
RUNNELS
TJEERD
Other veM
Ui
-ou'/ta:s
Ammoud!a,!l sites or. :raw~_,
. ; .
H.
VAN
sites smaare__
:u
.
numbers _smfall!
a
.-__I
:
i,~~ .~
ibot.
6
-,
;i and~~~~_~ .i *..-
=
Figure 3.47. View of Rodaki (SS92redbed (left) and
" ";ak~-'~5.Pleistocene Kyr!i~'~i '' '
.
ANDEL
3-ot
marine deposits (fight) are separated ;by a vertical normal fault. The Palaeolithic artifacts were found in a Z*| Pleistocene deposit in the foreground, which is overlain by the
redbed.1:2 Scaleistocene
side flake. scraper;below, bladelike
Ot
very small her sites arefound
both the Aheron (e.g., Tsouknida, in
Thesprotiko (Iliovouni, Romia, Mesaria, and Galatas) valleys that are candidates for specialized sites, perhaps hunting stands, seasonal camps, kill f numbers o Mous imall
artifacts, typically fewer than 20 terian sp
ecimens,
a major sites such as Alonaki, all within few hours walking distance from Kokkinopilos. Morphi, and movement of Mousterianpeople. Scattered flakeswere found on former islands in Lake Mavri (Thesprotiko) and in the remote mountainous polje of Cheimadio. It is difficult to interpret these small findspots, which may be the disturbed remnants of now vanished sites, but it is reasonable to suppose that most of them represent ephemeral episodes of activity in the
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
II3
landscape.IndividualMousterianpointswere collectedas strayfinds by the generalsurveyteams at Eli, at severalplaceson the Ayios Thomas peninsula(up to five pointswere noted),at the mouth of the Ambracian Gulf, andat KastroRizovouniin the Thesprotikovalley.These pointsare clearevidenceof off-site humanactivity,probablyrepresentinghunting losses.157
The distributionof existingsites mustbe usedwith caution,as most are found in redbeddepositsat relativelystablepoints in the landscape, and areconsequentlythe only placeswheresiteswouldbe preserved.InThis probterveningareasshowmuchevidenceof erosionanddisturbance. lem is most acutetowardPreveza,wherethe surfaceis coveredwith modernvegetationandoffersverylimitedopportunitiesforobservingthe Late Pleistocenesurface. Sites such as Kokkinopilosshow much activityin this period,and others(e.g.,the two sitesat Loutsa,Galatas)wereprobablyoccupiedonly at this time. Our chronologicalcontrolis not sufficientlypreciseto deterexminewhetherothersites (e.g., Kranea)went out of use. Stratigraphic where the Moustfrom is available cavationevidence Asprochaliko only eriancontinuesperhapsto the beginningof the UpperPalaeolithic,ca.29 kyr B.P. (26,000 b.p.).158The late Mousterian,foundin layer14, perhaps representsa shorterperiod of occupationor less intensiveactivity.It is basedon a differentpatternof coreworking,one that deemphasizesthe Levalloistechniqueandmakesgreateruse of diskcoresto produceshort, pointedflakes.Tool types changealso,with Mousterianpoints and side andconvextypes,becomingthe mostcomtransverse scrapers, particularly mon. Although the size differenceshave been exaggeratedin the past, thereis a smallshift in the directionof smallertools.A similarchangeis noted elsewherein Europe,occurringafter60 kyr B.P. Kuhnhas shown that this changeoccursin the PontinianMousterianof Italywith a translanduse.159 It seems formationin settlementpattern,lithics,andpresumably to be a reasonablehypothesisthat Neanderthalforagingstrategieswould changein the faceof globalclimatechange. In Epirus,the less abundantevidencefor the laterMousterian,especially on the smaller,more dispersedspecializedsites, may reflecta responseto climatechange.LateMousteriansareconcentratedon the larger, perhapsmorereliable,poljesof KokkinopilosandMorphi,andthe Alonaki loutsa.All threewere also particularlywell positionednearrivervalleys with accessto largerplains.The greatervarietyof specializedhuntingequipment seen in the Mousterianpoints and leafpointsmay hint at an increased reliance on hunting.160 157. Cf. Runnels 1996 for a similar pattern. 158. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992. 159. Kuhn 1995. 160. Mellars 1996, pp. 193-244. 161. Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993a. 162. Mellars 1992.
The availableevidencesuggeststhat the last Mousterianwas widespreadin GreeceduringOIS 3.Thereis anothernoteworthyfeatureof the laterMousterian.In the stratifiedThessaliansitesthisindustryshowssigns of contactwith and borrowingfrom the EUP (Aurignacian)tradition, presentin the neighboringregionsof the Balkansca. 30-45 kyr B.P.161 Suchmixedindustries,clearlyderivedfromlocalMiddle Palaeolithictrawith the Aurignacianin the Balkansand ditions,overlapchronologically where they are westwardinto Franceand Spain (e.g., Chatelperronian) regarded as the work of late Neanderthals.162It is particularlydifficult to
CURTIS
II4
N. RUNNELS
AND TJEERD
H. VAN ANDEL
sort out these industries in the absence of controlled, well-dated, stratigraphic excavations,but the Greek version, as seen in Thessaly, is clearly of It has Mousterian points, leafpoints, and Middle Palaeolithic character.163 side scrapers,sometimes made on Levallois flakes and worked with typical Mousterian oblique, scalar,steep retouch.The EUP elements areend scrapers, carinated burins, and marginally retouched blades, all made from the same raw materials as the associated Mousterian pieces. It is noteworthy that this industry is still found at the top of the sequence of river deposits where typical Mousterian artifacts were discovered in a paleosol with an associated date of 31 kyr B.P.(28,000 b.p.).'64If this late Mousterian was a product of Neanderthals, it is an indication that they continued in existence, in Greece at least, for some time after they had been replaced by anatomically modern humans elsewhere in the Balkans and centralwestern Europe. As in Thessaly,the Mousterian continued at Asprochaliko until quite late.165It is possible that the splintering of Neanderthal populations into isolated refugia by the intrusion of modern humans through the heart of Europe may have contributed to their eventual demise by preventing interbreeding and disrupting ancient patterns of migration and communication. There is another possibility for European Neanderthals. If the dates for the earliest Aurignacian in the Balkans get pushed back fartherin time to ca. 45 kyr B.P.or more, the overlap with the late Mousterian peoples becomes greater.Movements of modern humans, the presumed makers of the Aurignacianindustry,into territoriesonce occupied exclusivelyby Neanderthals could have caused the displacement of the latter.166 The Neanderthals may have been confined to less favored reaches of Greece as a consequence of finding more northerly parts of the Balkans too cold or already occupied by anatomically modern Homo sapiens. Sometime after 31 kyr B.P.,the Mousterian and thus the Neanderthals were gone from Greece. THE
UPPER
PALAEOLITHIC
A small number of sites belonging to the Upper Palaeolithic are known in Epirus, primarilyfrom excavations by Higgs, Bailey, and a team from the Ephoreia of Caves and Paleoanthropology. Stratified Upper Palaeolithic (UP) sequences in Epirus, including Asprochaliko, Kastritsa, Klithi, and Boila, and one site in Corfu (Grava Cave) have sequences of UP layers with Gravettian and Epigravettian industries.167Radiocarbon dates indicate that the Upper Palaeolithic began before ca. 34 kyr B.p.168 Curiously,evidence for the initial stages of the EarlyUpper Palaeolithic is very rarein Greece.169In her review of the evidence Perles noted only a small sample of EUP artifacts from the basal layer at Franchthi Cave that may date to more than 30 kyr B.P.,and she drew attention to possible Aurignacian elements in the unpublished sites of Arvenitsa, Kephalari, and Ulbrich in the Argolid.170In recent years, new EUP finds have been forthcoming: in Thessaly, Aurignacian artifactsoccur in a late Mousterian industry found in sites in the Peneios River valley west of Larisa;71a similar industry was investigated at two open-air sites in the northwestern and Koumouzelis has reported a late AurigPeloponnese near Patras;172 nacian level with an estimated age range from ca. 34-24 kyr B.P. from a
163. Runnels 1988. 164. Runnels and van Andel 1993a. 165. Bailey,Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992. 166. Mellars 1992. 167. Bailey 1992, 1997; Bailey et al. 1999; Kotzambopoulou,Panagopoulou, and Adam 1996; Sordinas1969. 168. Bailey et al. 1983b; Bailey, Papaconstantinou,and Sturdy1992. 169. Runnels 1995. 170. Perles 1987. 171. Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993a. 172. Darlas 1989.
EARLY
Figure3.49. EarlyUpper Palaeolithicend scrapersfrom Spilaion. Scale1:1
173. Koumouzeliset al. 1996; Kozlowski1999. 174. Adam 1989, p. 253.
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF
PREVEZA
II5
rockshelter site in the Kleisoura Gorge in the Argolid.173In the nomos of Preveza, EUP artifacts are extremely uncommon. They are lacking in Asprochaliko,174but a few artifacts of EUP type (chiefly end scrapers) were collected at findspots in the survey area (e.g., Galatas and Vouvopotamos). Definite EUP artifactsof Aurignacian type were found in abundance at only one site, Spilaion, which is located on a limestone ridge between the Early Palaeolithic site of Alonaki and a former channel of the Acheron River. Spilaion has a large and dense accumulation of lithics on its southeastern slope. The extraordinary abundance of lithics on the surface (ca. 150,000 pieces) permitted a detailed spatial analysis, including a controlled collection from gridded sample sites and computer-assisted analysis of the distribution and association of the lithics (see Chapter 4). The finds are typical Upper Palaeolithic, including carinated and nosed end scrapers, burins, and retouched blades (Fig. 3.49). Spilaion is undated, but the site was occupied long enough to accumulate numerous concentrations of flintknapping debris marking positions of prehistoric activity. The site is strategically located at a point where routes to the north (via the parallelvalleys from Preveza to Parga) cross those running east-west, from the coastal plain to the interior.The EUP people seem to have had little interest in the poljes and loutses that determined Middle Palaeolithic settlement. The concentration of activity at Spilaion suggests that we are dealing with a base camp. The sheer density of artifacts,including concentrations of debitage suggesting episodes of flintknapping, and the scarcity of retouched tools are the best evidence for a degree of sustained and repeated activity.The analysis of the retouched tools and the flintknapping concentrations suggests a range of activities that are expected in a base camp, shown by the more or less complete reduction sequence of stone debitage (cores, cortical pieces, blanks, tools, and debris). In the Early Upper Palaeolithic there seems to have been little interest in caves or rockshelters, here or elsewhere in Greece, and the absence of Aurignacian deposits in the stratified and excavated sites in Epirus complicates the task of interpreting settlement patterns. It is nevertheless clear that the Aurignacian site at Spilaion represents a complete breakwith the Early Palaeolithic pattern of dispersed settlement and land use based on the exploitation of loutses and poljes.
II6
CURTIS
N.
RUNNELS
AND
TJEERD
H.
VAN
ANDEL
Figure3.50. LateUpperPalaeolithic backedblades.Scale1:1 With increasing frequency Late Upper Palaeolithic (LUP) backedblade industries(Gravettianand Epigravettian)dating to 29 kyr B.P. (26,000 b.p.) and after are found in Greece. Backed-bladelet industries are found principally in caves or rockshelters, several of which have been tested by excavations.Asprochaliko,Kastritsa,Klithi, Boila, Grava,Franchthi,Kephalari, Kleisoura, Seidi, Theopetra, Ulbrich, and Zaimis are the chief examples, and other sites have been tested in Boeotia, Elis, and Thessaly.175 Intensive systematicsurveysin the Argolid, Berbati,Nemea, and Messenia, however,have produced surprisinglylittle evidence for LUP open-air sites. To take but one example, the surface survey in the vicinity of Franchthi Cave brought to light only a handful of LUP artifacts;the three or four sites with small geometric tools and backed blades were all small, seriously disturbed by subsequent erosion, and undated.176Site E81, for instance, had only a single backed blade and other, isolated finds of backed blades were made in tracts, perhaps lost as the result of Upper Palaeolithic hunting activity.A similar situation was noted in the Berbati-Limnes survey, where the only LUP materials were scattered backed blades or end scrapers, found in the course of tractwalking and no doubt left by the hunters who occupied the Kleisoura shelters.177 In the Nikopolis survey,small numbersof LUP materialsof Gravettian or Epigravettian type (Fig. 3.50) were noted at two sites near the village of A typicalfindspot Loutsa, at GalatasinThesprotiko, and at Kokkinopilos.178 of this period is located near Lake Pogonitsa on the Ayios Thomas peninsula, where a scatter of half-a-dozen artifacts was found in small pockets of sediment in cracks in the karst limestone. The difficulty in relating these scattered finds to a pattern of land use and settlement is compounded by two factors. The lower sea level at the time of the last glacial maximum created an extensive coastal plain that greatly enlarged the useful territory.It was also a habitat supporting biota not found in the highland interior or represented by any existing habitats on the mainland today.179A second problem, noted by Bailey, is that late glacial foragers required large exploitation territories,while today we see only a small portion of this territory in the small areas covered by surface surveys.'80The LUP settlement pattern was probably hierarchical,with a network of sites serving as home bases and special activity sites. This hierarchy could extend from an ibex hunting camp in the mountains (e.g., Klithi), to seasonal bases in the upland basins (e.g., Kastritsa), to winter
175. Bailey 1992, 1997; Bailey et al. 1999; Kotzambopoulou,Panagopoulou, and Adam 1996; Koumouzeliset al. 1996; Kyparissi-Apostolika1996; Perles 1987; Runnels 1995; Sordinas 1969. 176. Jameson,Runnels,and van Andel 1994, pp. 335-340. 177. Runnels 1996. 178. Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964. 179. van Andel 1989. 180. Bailey et al. 1983a.
EARLY
STONE
AGE
OF THE
NOMOS
OF PREVEZA
II7
base campsat lowerelevations(e.g., Grava,Asprochaliko).Without taking the largesize of this territoryinto consideration,the smallscattersin anyone positionareunintelligible.'81 The only candidatefor a LUP site of anyconsequencein the nomos of Prevezais Asprochaliko,where faunalremainsof ibex, deer,elk, and aurochsareevidenceof the chiefpreyof localforagers.But the smallnumber of artifactsand less dense depositsat this site when comparedwith Kastritsain the IoanninabasinareevidencethatAsprochalikowas neverWhether thelessa highlyspecializedsitein a larger,hierarchical system.'82 or not Asprochalikowas a residentialbasecampor a way stationbetween the plainsand the mountains,it is still the most likelyfocus for the scatteredsurveymaterials,whichmaybe remnantsof small,specializedcamps The populaor huntingstandsutilizedin the exploitationof the territory. tion in the entirenomosof Prevezaat this time was probablylimitedto a singlesmallbandof ca.25 to 75 personsresidenton a seasonalbasis.The nearinvisibilityof the Late UpperPalaeolithicin the surveyareacan be explainedby the smallsize of the humanpopulation,the limitedterritory andthe evidentshift to a settlementpattern investigatedarchaeologically, someof which centeredon residentialbasecampsin cavesandrockshelters, werelocatedoutsidethe limits of the studyarea. POST-PLEISTOCENE
181. Bailey 1992; Bailey et al. 1983a. 182. Bailey et al. 1983b. 183. Bailey 1992. 184. Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966. 185. Sordinas1969. 186. Sordinas1970. 187. Petrusoet al. 1994. 188. F. HarroldandJ. Wickens (pers.comm.).
SETTLEMENT
HISTORY
The evidence suggests that the principal LUP sites in Epirus were abandoned at the end of the last glacial (ca. 10-13 kyr B.P.). Klithi, Grava, and Kastritsa have no record of occupation in the immediate post-glacial period.183Higgs noted a disturbed and mixed upper layer at Asprochaliko that is sometimes called "epipalaeolithic"in the literature,but this undated level, described as having "backedblades and geometric microliths,"is just as likely to be Late Upper Palaeolithic as Epipalaeolithic.184 There are,however,two excavatedMesolithic sites near Epirus. Sordinas excavated a Mesolithic coastal site at Sidari (Corfu) dated to ca. 8.5 kyr B.P. (7.8 kyr b.p.), and he noted the many differences in lithic technology, raw material,and subsistence activity at that site when comparedwith the backed-blade industries of Upper Palaeolithic Grava Cave on the same island.185Sidari is an open-air coastal midden site characterizedby extensive use of marine resources and by a microlithic industry based on atypical trapezoidal fragments of flakes.186Sordinas regarded Sidari as a new settlement by people arriving on the island by sea. The site of Konispol Cave (near the southern border of Albania) is close to the Epirote and Corfiote sites, none of which is more than 70 km from another.The excavatorsof Konispol found tracesof LUP occupation, abovewhich is a Mesolithic deposit up to 0.90 m thick dated from 8-8.4 kyr B.P. (7-7.6 kyr b.p.).187The Mesolithic industry consists of small flakes and blades with intensive minute retouch. There are many composite tools and also denticulates, notches, pergoirs, and end scrapers.Microlithic trapezes are present, made by retouching segments of flakes and blades. The fauna include ibex and lesser quantities of aurochs, elk, and pig. The site was apparently a temporary shelter used by seasonal hunters on an episodic basis.188It is unclear how the Konispol Mesolithic industry compareswith
II8
N. RUNNELS
CURTIS
'Mesolithic
t
1 1 .
s, .
3,
00 4.
'909 1
>
tf 0
r,,
4 tj30$
20
1
LASTr1^
'
9IC-0 0
o
-t
I0
tf 4
-:J.0
*
....
0
As T r
I
3S
4*0
J3
40
;
Figure 4.13. Spatial distribution of individual categories of retouched tools. Each box represents the total area covered by the areas were not collected. Densities are indicated by the colors shown in the keys.
EARLY
UPPER
PALAEOLITHIC
SPILAION
I53
towardthe east.Lastly,bladescomprisea separatecategory,sincethey are limited in number.Bladesarerathermoredispersed,althoughthey tend to overlapspatiallywith bladecores. of these concentrationsas primaryor secondaryis Characterization the most difficulttask.As alreadynoted,recordingof the stateof preservation of artifactssharingcomparabletechnologicalcharacteristics(i.e., Palaeolithic)was impossibleat Spilaiondue to the obliterationby the patina of all vestiges of use-wear,recycling,and resharpening.In cases of secondarydeposition,one wouldexpectcorticalflakes,productsof an earlierphase,to be foundmixedwith tools,the finalproductsof the sequence. Althoughthis patternis discernedat Spilaion,it maybe explainedby the opportunisticcharacterof blankproductionand the selectionof anytype of blank(corticalflakes,exhaustedcores,etc.) for retouch.There are no distinctiveor clear-cutstagesof reductionto be found at this site;reduction evidentlyproceededin intermingledstages,succeedingeachotheron the basisof immediateneedsand materialrestrictions. If the lithicscatterat Spilaionis a primarydeposit,the spatialclustering betweencorticalandplainflakesmayindicatethat coredecortication andflakeproductionwerenevertwo distinctstagesof the sequenceat this site.Giventhe ratherincompletedecortication of minimallypreparedcores, these two stepswere interrelatedpartsof a continuousphasecomprising partialcleaningof the core and immediateblankdetachment(i.e., flakes were detachedfrom the cleanedsurfaceimmediatelyafterits decortication).The correlationbetweencortical/plainflakesandtools is betterunderstoodif we takeinto accountthe fact that most of the retouchedtools weremadeon corticalandplainflakes.In contrast,the dispersalof cores and theirgroupingin distinctclusterssuggestthat they were transferred andflakedat anyspot. Turningto the distributionplotsof singlecategoriesof retouchedtools (Fig.4.13), ouraimwas to detectanyassociationsbetweenindividualtool types and theirblanks(e.g., flakesand corticalflakes).Of majorinterest is the correlationof end scraperswith the hot spots of corticaland plain flakes,sincethe lattercomprisethe blanksfromwhichscrapersweremade. Anothersignificantassociationis thatbetweenplainflakesandretouched flakes.All othertooltypes(i.e.,endscraperson blades,denticulates, notched clustersin the centerof the northflakes)tendto formpartiallyoverlapping ern grid. Generally,tool concentrationsdo not consistof largenumbers of artifacts,but therearesome significantcorrelationpatternsarisingbetween some tool types and the debitagecategorieson which they were formed. In sum,ouranalysisindicatesthatnaturalprocesseswerenot the most significantfactorsin shapingthe spatialpatterningat Spilaion.Although naturalprocessesareoften significantin casesof denseopen-airdistributionsof lithics,suchas at Spilaion,ouranalysisshowsno significantcorrelationsbetweenartifactsize andslope,a relationshipnecessarilypresentif significantdisturbanceby naturalprocesseshad takenplace.The only indicationof naturalprocessesshapingthe distributionis the slight positiverelationshipfoundbetweenthe numberof artifactsandthe slope.The ratherstrongtendencyof corticalandplainflakesto clusterat the southern side of the grid maybe partiallythe resultof downslopemovement.
I54
C. N. RUNNELS,
E. KARIMALI,
AND B. CULLEN
Spatialmappingand correlationanalysisyielded comparableresults asto the degreeof spatialassociationof differentdebitagecategorieslinked in an operationalchain(e.g., the reductionsequenceof blankproduction and toolmaking).The strongestassociationsproducedby both analyses arebetween1) corticaland plainflakes;2) cortical/plainflakesand some tool groupsmadeon theseblanks(i.e.,end scrapers,retouchedflakes);and 3) bladesandbladecores. The smallsize of the sample(ca.2.1%of the totallithicson the site) and the considerabledegreeof patinaon the majorityof the artifactsdiscourageus fromdrawingmoredetailedconclusionsfromthe shapeof the artifactdistribution.The most difficultproblemposed by the analysisis whetherthe largenumberof artifactsat Spilaionwere the resultof primaryor secondarydeposition.If these associationsarethe resultof pricharacter of flintknapping marydeposition,theyhighlightthe opportunistic at Spilaion.The primaryaimof flakedetachmenton this sitewasto create immediateblanksfortool production.Thus,therewereno clear-cutstages of production,as corescouldbe partlydecorticatedandreusedat a different spot for flake detachment.In spatialterms,this resultedin the dispersalof flakecoresin all areasand the formationof overlappingclusters with debitagetypeslinkedto succeedingstagesof production. It is alsodifficultto determinethe durationof the activityrequiredto accumulatethe largenumberof artifacts,whethertheseactivitiesoccurred overa long periodof time or consistedof a few,shortintensiveepisodesof flintknapping.We were equallyunsuccessfulin determiningif stratified sedimentsonce existedat Spilaion,the removalof whichwouldhaveconcentratedthe artifactson the bedrock.Yet, our technologicalstudysuggests that the site was utilizedprimarilyin one period,the EarlyUpper Palaeolithic,a conclusionsupportedby the uniformityof types,materials, and techniques.
CONCLUSIONS Spilaionis a high-densityscatterof lithicswith prodigiousquantitiesof flintknappingdebitageorganizedin discreteactivityareas,presumablyin culturallydeterminedspatialassociations.The artifacttypologypointsto the EarlyUpperPalaeolithic(Aurignacian)as the main periodof use of the site, and the "hotspots"may thus be as much as 30,000 yearsold or even more.The site was evidentlynot used extensivelyin other periods. Scatteredand highly erodedartifactsof Middle Palaeolithic,Neolithic, andBronzeAge typeaccountforless thanone percentof the totalsample, and canbe discountedin the analysis. The Spilaionassemblageis classifiedas Aurignacianon the basisof tool typologyand flintknappingtechnology.The rarityof typicalAurignacianretouchedbladesand the absenceof Dufourbladeletsand microretouchedpoints,types typicalof the Italianand west EuropeanAurigbut nacian, are notable featuresof the Typical Balkan Aurignacian,28 otherwisethe assemblageconformsto the generalpatternof Aurignacian assemblages in Greece.29
28. Kozlowski 1999, p. 106. 29. Darlas 1989; Koumouzelis et al. 1996; Kozlowski (pers. comm.); Perles 1987.
EARLY
30. Zilhao and D'Errico 1999, p. 43. 31. Kozlowski1999. 32. Kozlowski1999. 33. Zilhao and D'Errico 1999, p. 43. 34. Darlas 1989; Koumouzeliset al. 1996; Perles 1987; Runnels 1988, 1995. 35. Perles 1987, phaselithiqueI. 36. Perles 1987, p. 96. 37. Koumouzeliset al. 1996. 38. Darlas 1989. 39. Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993a. 40. Allsworth-Jones1986; Runnels 1995. 41. Runnels 1988; Runnels and van Andel 1993a. 42. Koumouzeliset al. 1996; Kozlowski1999, p. 114. 43. Kozlowski1999, p. 108. 44. Kozlowski1999; Kuhn, Stiner, and Giile9 1999; Olszewski and Dibble 1994, p. 70.
UPPER
PALAEOLITHIC
SPILAION
I55
An attempt has been made recently to deny that the Early Upper Palaeolithic of the Balkans (termed "Bachokirian"and found at Bacho Kiro and Temnata Caves) is in fact Aurignacian,30but this view is not accepted by those most familiar with the assemblages in question.31The issue is partly one of nomenclature.The Bachokirian is unrelated to the underlying Middle Palaeolithic industries at Bacho Kiro and Temnata and is unbut Zilhao and D'Errico doubtedly Early Upper Palaeolithic in character,32 wish to reserve the use of the label Aurignacian strictly for those EUP industries having Dufour bladelets, numerous burins, and bone and ivory points.33By their definition the Spilaion assemblage is not Aurignacian but Bachokirian. We believe that this distinction does not help to clarify matters and serves only to confuse the reader.For the present, we shall continue to refer to the EUP industry in Greece as Aurignacian. Aurignacian sites similar to Spilaion are rare in Greece. Surface sites are found in Elis and Thessaly, and the cave sites of Kephalari,Kleisoura, and Franchthi in the Argolid also contain Aurignacian materials.34The lithics from the earliest Upper Palaeolithic layer at Franchthi Cave35exhibit typological traits of the Aurignacian (carinatedand nosed end scrapers) but they were found in extremely small numbers and therefore cannot be taken as certainly Aurignacian.36Finds from a rockshelter in the Kleisoura Gorge near Argos exhibit a similar preference for end scrapers on flakes and short blades.37The surface sites in Elis38and Thessaly39produced industries of mixed character,combining Mousterian and Aurignacian elements (e.g., carinated and nosed end scrapers, marginally retouched blades and burins, along with Levallois flakes and Mousterian side scrapers),and similarMiddle Palaeolithic or Early Upper Palaeolithic industries with this mixed characterare known in the Balkans.40 The age of the Greek Aurignacian has not been precisely determined. It was apparentlypresent at sites exposed in the banks of the Peneios River in Thessaly between 45 and 30 kyrB.P.,as determinedby radiometricdates.41 The recently excavated Kleisoura shelter has a rather late Aurignacian, dated to ca. 34-22 kyr B.P. (uncalibrated).42We cannot say where in this long period Spilaion is to be placed, and can only give a rough chronological range of ca. 45-22 kyr B.P. for the cultural activity at the site. Outside of Greece, the Spilaion assemblage can be comparedwith the assemblages from Bacho Kiro (layers9-11) and Temnata Cave (layers3-4) in Bulgaria, where the Aurignacian layers have been dated from 45 to 28 kyr B.P. The Spilaion assemblageis thus similarto the Aurignacian (uncalibrated).43 and other EUP assemblages of the eastern Mediterranean sensu lato.44 If we are correctin assigning the majorityof the Spilaion lithics to the Early Upper Palaeolithic, this one site has more than 250 times as many artifacts as are found on the other EUP sites in Greece. Thus Spilaion is perhaps the largest lithic site in Greece. It is extraordinaryeven by local Epirote standards.The entire lithic collection from the rest of the Nikopolis survey,which is based on the total collection of lithics from all tracts, is less than 15,000 pieces. The largestMiddle Palaeolithic sites in the Preveza region (e.g., Kokkinopilos), which are certainly among the richest lithic sites in the country, have less than one-tenth the number of lithics visible on the surface at Spilaion. The size and preservation of the EUP lithic
I56
C. N.
RUNNELS,
E. KARIMALI,
AND
B. CULLEN
scatter at Spilaion, therefore, presents a rare but important opportunity to study a site of this period, despite the complete absence of stratified deposits. Artifact-rich surface sites are common in Greece, but there has been We acknowledge that such some debate about their value for archaeology.45 sites cannot be studied by means of traditional excavation techniques, but we believe that the study of spatial patterning permits archaeologists to make greater use of them. If the quantities of artifacts preserved are large enough, spatial analyses can be useful in interpreting past culturalactivity, even where stratigraphicassociations have been lost or were never present. The number of these artifact-rich sites has increased greatly as the result of intensive surface reconnaissance on a regional scale. Such sites are not exclusively prehistoric or marked only by scatters of lithics. We believe that the methods detailed in this report can be applied successfully to historical sites and to sites with rich concentrations of sherds, rooftiles, and other cultural materials.The identification of patterns in the artifact distribution at Spilaionshouldserve as an incentive for the continued study of surface sites in Greece and throughout the Mediterranean.
45. This debate is summarizedin
Cherryet al. 1988andAlcock,Cherry, andDavis1994.
CHAPTER
5
THE
COASTAL
THE
AMBRACIAN
AND
ITS
EVOLUTION
EMBAYMENT
RELATIONSHIP
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
OF
TO
SETTINGS
by ZhichunJing and George (Rip) Rapp Coastal landscapes are a sensitive interface for environmental change. In the past 10,000 years, the Ambracian embayment and its vicinity have witnessed dramatic landscape changes in response to Holocene eustatic sea-level rise, sediment infill, erosion, and tectonic movement (Fig. 5.1). The changing landscape in this area,utilized since the Lower Palaeolithic period,1has affected both the spatial and temporal distribution of archaeological remains.Thus, the pattern of prehistoric and historical settlement must be understood in the context of the evolving coastal landscape. Paleoenvironmentalreconstruction associatedwith archaeologicalinvestigation in Epirus has focused on the Palaeolithic period,2and no investigation has been conducted to examine the Holocene environmental context of settlements based on the subsurface stratigraphy.A limited number of studies based on geologic or sedimentary perspectives have been undertaken to address the evolution of the coastal landscape during the Holocene. Although these studies revealedsea-level and coastline changes, they provide no essential data for the interpretation of archaeological settings in terms of either the temporal or spatial scales dealt with in the investigation of settlements in the embayment of Ambracia and its vicinity.3 In this chapter,we describe the changing landscape in the Ambracian embayment during the Holocene based on an analysis of the subsurface stratigraphy,and we establish the environmental context of various prehistoric and historical settlements. In order to reveal the subsurfacestratigra1. Hammond 1967; Dakaris 1971; Runnels and van Andel 1993b; Bailey 1997. 2. Bailey,King, and Sturdy1993; Dakaris,Higgs, and Hey 1964; King and Bailey 1985; SturdyandWebley 1988; Sturdy,Webley,and Bailey 1997; Turnerand Sanchez-Gofii 1997; VitaFinzi 1978, pp. 139-158.
3. Piper,Panagos,and Kontopoulos 1982; Piper,Kontopoulos,and Panagos 1988; Poulos, Lykousis,and Collins 1995;Tziavos 1997. Both Poulos, Lykousis,and Collins (1995) and Tziavos (1997) studied the Quaternary subsurfacestratigraphythroughthe analysisof 3.5-kHz seismic reflection profilesacrossthe AmbracianGulf,
providingsome criticalinformationon the formationand developmentof the basin duringthe Late Pleistocene and earlyHolocene. Tziavos (1997) carried out some drillingin the coastalplain north of the gulf aimed at studyingthe paleogeographicevolution of the basin duringthe Quaternaryperiod.
ZHICHUN
158 _
_
-
_-
_
,-
GEORGE
i i~~~
',;'
..
3
P7I I
/,
',' Acheron
~
R.
,
.
......
N
N
26
(......L~ ._j
/
... /
T
..
?
.
I.I-^^
/ ,'/
'?
-/-!
1 ------;
V%
A
I
....
~..r..
Li (7' S^'-^~~~~~~~"''i I I ..m:%,'
. -4 '""
RAPP
(RIP)
I
^v-^
?
AND
JING
'
m.
.
I v-'... I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-. .
'2 --/t/. ,2' ***'--/ / 2)\-^ StavrosL2S \.' '2/
Rokia
n-
....
...? ...
r,
**:-^
..:
;-\
/
,
,.'-
"
.
u ~1. II.M (ina r.n ~m z~o I. en o
.7:
\ii,
.
.
...Salaora -/1
.
1. P .A ..A.
T oiV.a
.
.
V. \l
.
" .,,.v
?'?..
0T^-I
m..
Nlesoioic
',;KJ,, "I
L
1. Actium
.
1__
rtiarx ["*,,'" ',
Fvsch
2. Anactoriurn 7. Ormos Vathy
I I. Cassope
12. Riza
8. Michalisi
13. Palaiorophoros
.7
IIHoloc' .lisocL..
3. Pantokrator
6. Comaruis
1.... KM
._
6,
.-
Alluvi."
Hoi,cene Swamp
4. Margarona
5. Nikopolis
9. Archangelos
10. Kastrosykia
14. Cheimadio
21. Kastri
17. Vigla 18. Kastro Rizovouni 22. Kanalaki
v\
7,?
..
. v....;
.
-
*
I
-" s~~~~~~~~~~^ .^
-2
k
*^
-
u 3200
sbw Al
-
.
,
.
AA "if A
_W_
_ v
nearshore ' n , *A'J . .^4A
..
Av A
A
l:->t^
1
llll-
4000
llll4800
ll
5600 m
was drilled in reclaimed swamp with an elevation of 1 masl. The top part of the core consists of a 1.9-m thick light yellowish brown (2.5Y 5/4) massive silt, sandy silt, and silty sand with some mud laminations. Within the top unit, gray (N6/) mottles increase downward. The unit is interpreted as a swamp deposit formed at the front of the deltaic floodplain. In core 94-18 the top unit is a deltaic floodplain deposit composed of 3.4-m thick olive yellow (2.5Y 6/6) and dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silt, clayey silt, sandy silt, and silty sand containing many decayed grass rootlets and freshwaterostracodaspecies (Candona).Underlying the swamp or deltaic floodplain deposits in both cores is a 4-5 m thick estuarine or lagoonal unit that consists of greenish gray (5BG 5/1) interbedded sandy mud, mud, and muddy sand. The unit contains both brackish and freshwater ostracoda species (Cyprideis,Candona),but more freshwaterspecies appearin the upper part of the unit. Based on its stratigraphiccontext, the estuarine or lagoonal unit must be the product of maximum marine transgression (4500-1500 B.P.). The estuarine or lagoonal unit rests on a swamp deposit composed of greenish gray (5G 6/1) and bluish gray (5B 5/1) peaty mud and darkbrown (7.5YR 3/2) peat and peaty mud. This swampy unit is believed to have formed before maximum marine transgressionand it may extend quite far into the previous valley of the Louros River. A 0.7-m thick gray (N6/0)
I84
ZHICHUN
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
gravellysandis interlayeredwithin the swampyunit in core 94-16. The gravellysand layer contains many brackishand freshwatermicrofauna includinggastropoda,ostracoda(Cyprideis,Candona),and foraminifera (Elphidium).It may representa nearshoredepositformedduringa relativelyshortperiodof sea transgression. crosssectionA-A' (Fig.5.17) is basedon fourcores,94Stratigraphic 19, 92-11, 92-07, and 92-08, betweenMt. Rokiain the north and Mt. Mavrovouniin the south.The surfacealongthis traversedips gently towardthe south.The northernhalfof the sectionis coveredwith floodplain alluvium,and the southernhalf is occupiedby reclaimedswamp.Kastro Rogon is locatedat the northernend of the section,and Strongylilies at the southernend. The stratigraphic sequencebeginswith a basalswampunitin core9419 at the northernend of the section (see above).Correspondingto the swampunit is a nearshoredepositat the southernend nearStrongyli.The nearshoredepositlies at a depthof 3.6 m in core92-08 and4.15 m in core 92-07 and it consistsof darkgray(N4/0), gray(N5/0), andgreenishgray (5GY 5/1) interbeddedsandymud,muddysand,silt, andmudwith some thin shelly sand lenses.This nearshoreunit is very rich in marineand brackishgastropoda(Monodonta, bivalves,foraminifera (TrochamCyclope), mina,Elphidium, torosa, Ammonia),andostracoda(Cyprideis Protelphidium, datesweremeasuredon charredgrasssamples Tworadiocarbon Loxoconcha). fromthe nearshoreunit.The samplefroma depthof 6.68-6.75 m in core 92-07 gavea calibrateddateof 4440-4010 B.P. The samplefrom3.8 to 3.9 m in core 92-08 dated to 4080-3640 B.P. Both dates suggest that the nearshoredepositformedduringmaximummarinetransgressionbeginning around4500 B.P. As statedearlier,an estuarineor lagoonaldepositrests on the basal swampunit in core94-19. This estuarineor lagoonalunit is seenin all the coresacrossthe section.It consistsof greenishgray(5GY 5/1 and 5BG 5/1), gray(N5/0), anddarkgray(N4/0) softmudthatcontainssomebrackish ostracodaspecies(Cyprideis), foraminifera(Elphidium),andveryfew freshwaterostracoda(Candona).The majorportion of the estuarineor problagoonalunit formedduringthe periodof maximumtransgression, ablybetween4500 B.P. and 1500 B.P. In core 92-08 the estuarineor lagoonalunit is only 0.6 m thick andis coveredby a 1.8-m thicknearshore depositcomposedof sand,shellysand,andsandymudwithabundantbrackish shells.The dominanceof nearshorefaciesin core92-08 maybe attributed to its locationon the edge of Mt. Koryphi.During the Romanperiod, the seashell-enrichednearshoreenvironmentcould have provided importantfood resourcesfor the inhabitantsof Strongyli. Overlyingthe estuarineor lagoonalunit is a swampdeposit that is buriedby floodplainalluviumin cores 94-19 and 92-11 and crops out southwardin both cores92-07 and92-08. In core94-19 the swampyunit is muddypeatandpeatymuddatedto 1560-1290 B.P. The swampformation startedat the northernend of the sectionafterthe end of maximum marinetransgression(ca. 1500 B.P.) and movedgulfwardas fluvialsediments fromthe LourosRiverfilled in the estuaryand graduallycovered the swamp.
-0
-
Mav
Rokia
m
12 10
8 6 4 2 0
-2 -4 -6 -8
-
-10 0
m 400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
Figure 5.17. Stratigraphic cross section A-A' near Kastro Rogon. For core locations, see Figure 5.14; for legend, se
i86
ZHICHUN
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
evolutionof the KastroRogonBeforediscussingthe paleogeographic and its area archaeological implications,we firstneed to examStrongyli crosssectionacrossthe whole coastalplain-lagoonine the stratigraphic barriersystemto the northof the AmbracianGulf so thatwe canplaceour interpretationin the contextof the whole embayment(see Fig. 5.2). Figure5.18 is a crosssectionbasedon five cores:93-11, 93-09,92-10, 92-09, and93-16. The northernend of the sectionis at the foothillof Mt. Rokia and the southernend is at the Salaorabarrier.This traverseshowsa very gentle topographyfrom the foothill in the north to the edge of Rodia Lagoon. The stratigraphic sequencebeginswith a 2-m thickgravellysandwith manyangularto subangularpebblesseen only at the base of core 93-11, located350 m southof the 10-m contourof Mt. Rokia.The basalgravelly sandis of fluvialor colluvialoriginand constitutedthe pre-transgression surfacealongthe edge of the tectonicembayment.This sandlayeris overlain by a 0.9-m thick swamplayercomprisedof darkyellowishbrown (10YR 3/4) peat and peaty mud.The peat deposit dates to 6890-6500 B.P., ca.2,000 yearsearlierthanthe dateobtainedfromthe basalpeatlayer in core94-19 (4830-4410 B.P.).The age differencemaybe due to a lower elevationassociatedwith the formerdate (see Table 5.1). Moreover,the largerangeof datesfor this basalpeat layerimpliesthat relativesea level roseveryslowlyfrom7000/6500 B.P. to 4500 B.P., allowing peatto develop in the coastalfringeswamp. On the basalpeatlayerlies an estuarineor lagoonalunit composedof a darkgreenishgray(5BG 4/1 and 5G 4/1) soft mud interbeddedwith sandymudandmuddysand.The estuarineor lagoonalunit containsvariable amountsof decayedplant remainsand marineand brackishfauna suchasforaminifera Xesto(Ammonia, Elphidium)andostracoda(Cyprideis, Fromthis unit moremicrofaunaarefoundin landward leberis,Basslerites). cores,particularlyin cores93-11 and 93-10 (not shownin crosssection), and moreplantremainsareseen in coreson the lagoonside,especiallyin core92-09. A dateof 1210-890 B.P. was measuredon a wood sampleat a depth of 5.15-5.25 in core 92-10. Core 92-09 yieldedfour radiocarbon dates.The corewas drilledin the swampon the edge of RodiaLagoon. The top 1.75 m of this core is darkreddishbrown(5YR 3/2) peat and muddypeat. Underlyingthe peat unit are darkgray (N4/), gray (N5/), and greenishgray(5GY 5/1) interbeddedsandymud, muddysand,and sandcontainingplantremains.All fourradiocarbon datesareyoungerthan 900 B.P., indicatingincreasingsedimentationratesfrom the foothills to the lagoonwith gradualinfillingof the lagoon. The estuarineor lagoonalunit is overlainby a swampunit.The lower boundaryof thisswampunitrisesgraduallysouthward, suggestinga gradual of with increased estuarineinfilling. progradation post-transgression swamp At the northernend of the section,a layerof peatymud(0.6-0.9 m thick) seen in both cores 93-09 and 93-11 constitutesthe bottom part of the swampunit.The peatylayeryieldedmanybrackishostracoda(Cyprideis) andforaminifera(Elphidium, A radiocarTrochammina, Cribroelphidium). bon samplefrom core 93-09 datesthe peatylayerto 1710-1410 B.P. As discussedabove,the top peat deposit in core 94-19 yielded a calibrated
m
18 16 14 12 10
1' S
8 6 4 2
Rodia 92-10
-
0
E
-=
"
~
e,19 _
swamp
Tsouk Lagoo
L Lagoon
92-09 JA
_-2-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
,(partially reclaimed)
-2
back bar ,710-1,410 B..P.
v"
'
swam
-4
^^^:$. \\ -6 -8 -10 -12 0
-14 0
2
2
?
I
4
I
?
6
I
8
? 10
i
12
Figure 5.18. Stratigraphic cross section north of the Ambracian Gulf showing sedimentary sequences and environment coastal plain-lagoon-barrier system. For core locations, see Figure 5.2 (section is labeled I-I'); for legend, see Figure 5.5
I88
ZHICHUN
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
radiocarbondate of 1560-1290 B.P. (see Fig. 5.15). Given their sedimentary and stratigraphiccontext, these dates suggest that maximum marine transgressionended around 1500 B.P. In both cores 93-11 and 93-09, the upper part of the swamp unit is composed of greenish gray mud (5BG 5/1) with some muddy sand and sandy mud laminations. It is overlainby a top floodplain alluvium.Toward the south the swamp unit crops out and extends to the edge of Rodia Lagoon. Top alluvium, 4.0-5.5 m thick, is found only in cores 93-11 and 9309 on either side of the Louros River.It thins seawardand merges into the swamp in the south. The upper part of the alluvial unit is olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) and light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4) silt and silty clay with a very weakly developed soil profile on the top. The lower part consists of olive (5Y 5/6) and olive yellow (5Y 6/6 and 2.5Y 6/6) silt, sandy silt, and silty clay with gleying mottles increasing downward (5GY 4/1 and 5Y 6/1). The alluvialunit started forming after the end of maximum marine transgression, probably around 1500 B.P. The top part of the unit likely formed from overbank sedimentation of the Louros River that started flowing along the northern edge of the embayment after the 10th century A.c. Other streams emerging from mountain valleys to the north and northwest might also have contributed a significant amount of sediment to the formation of the lower part of the alluvial unit. Core 93-16 was taken on the lagoon side of the Salaora barrier.The barrierprojectslandward.At the east end it is connected to SalaoraIsland; at the west end it is attached to the Preveza peninsula. The top deposit in the core is composed of 2.2 m of shelly sand, sand, and silty sand containing abundant shells. The next 2.1 m is dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) silty mud and mud with common shells and some decayed plant remains. At a depth of 4.3-5.0 m is a back barrier swamp deposit consisting of dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) peat layers interbedded with dark greenish gray (5GY 4/1) muddy sand and sandy mud. The back barrierswamp unit is superimposed on an estuarine or lagoonal unit composed of dark greenish gray (5G 4/1) interbedded sandy mud and muddy sand with common thin sand laminations. Marine and brackishfauna are common in the estuarine or lagoonal unit, including ostracoda (Basslerites,Loxoconcha,Xestoleberis, Cyprideis)and foraminifera (Trochammina,Ammonia,Elphidium). A radiocarbondate of 2760-2350 B.P. was determined on a peat sample in the back barrierswamp unit at a depth of 4.5-4.7 m, suggesting that the overlying barrierunit started forming after 2500 B.P. Alongshore deposition rather than offshore deposition is most likely responsible for the barrier'sformation.Thus the barrierstarted developing from either or both ends by alongshore transportof the sand and gravel sediments eroded from the Preveza peninsula and SalaoraIsland, probablyaround 4500 B.P. when maximum marine transgressionwas reached. The barriermigrated laterally as the sea level gradually rose. The radiocarbon date from the back barrierswamp unit in core 93-16 suggests that the barriermight not have migrated to the location of core 93-16 until 2500 B.P.36
36. Core 93-16 was drilledin the middle of the centralbarrierisland.A Turkishmilitarymap publishedin 1900 shows that at that date therewas still a large opening in the western part of the barrier.We believe that the previous lagoon or estuarywas open to the AmbracianGulf.
COASTAL
37. Strab.7.7.5 (C 324), trans. H. L. Jones, Cambridge,Mass. [1924] 1954. 38. Hammond 1967, pp. 61-63; Dakaris 1971, pp. 57, 178, 180. 39. Hammond 1967. 40. Dakaris 1971. 41. Dakaris 1971, p. 6: "PseudoScylax(Periplous32) wrote in 380-360 BC that the shorebetween the mouths of Louros and Arachthoswas 40 stadia wide (approximately8 km)."See also Dakaris 1971, fig. 9.
EVOLUTION
OF THE
AMBRACIAN
EMBAYMENT
189
With all available subsurfacedata from the coastal plain-lagoon area north of the Ambracian Gulf, we can reconstructthe paleogeographic setting of both Kastro Rogon and Strongyli. Strabo describes Kastro Rogon (Bouchetion) as follows: "NearCichyrus is Buchetium, a small town of the Cassopaeans, which is only a short distance above the sea; also Elatria, Pandosia, and Batiae, which are in the interior."37It is easy to understand that Elatria (Palaiorophoros),Pandosia (Kastri), and Batiae (Kastro Rizovouni) are "in the interior":Palaiorophoros and Kastro Rizovouni are situated in mountainous highlands and Kastri is a hilltop site located well inside the Acheron valley (see Fig. 5.1). But it is harder to reconcile the description of Bouchetion as lying "only a short distance above the sea."The hilltop site of Kastro Rogon is currentlylocated well inland. The direct distance between Kastro Rogon and Salaorais ca. 13 km, and the distance along the Louros River is more than 20 km. Historically, Kastro Rogon was believed to be a port serving two urban settlements-Batiae and Elatria-during the Classical and Hellenistic periods.38Neither Hammond39 nor Dakaris40suggests that the port was located on the sea coast. Instead, both scholars believe that the port was linked to the Ambracian Gulf by the Louros River, and that the lower portion of the river was navigable.This belief is based on the assumption that currentgeomorphic elements existed in antiquity as well, an assumption we have shown to be incorrect. Figure 5.19 shows the evolution of the paleogeographic setting near Kastro Rogon and Strongyli based on the subsurface stratigraphic data discussed above.During maximum marine transgression,ca. 4500 B.P. (Fig. 5.19:b), the shoreline was at the foot of Mts. Stavros and Rokia, at the northern edge of the Ambracian embayment, thus making islands of previously inland hills. Mt. Mavrovouniwas the biggest of these islands.Kastro Rogon also became an island during this period, but it was very close to the mountainous mainland. The town of Bouchetion was situated on the top of the island, 65-75 masl, during the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods.This geographic setting fits well with Strabo'sstatement that "Buchetium... is only a short distance above the sea."Thus, Kastro Rogon was a logical site for a seaport and it held a strategic position within the embayment. Our analysis also revealed evidence for the changing course of the Louros River.During maximum marine transgression,the marine embayment probably extended inland along the river channel after it emerged from the deeply incised valley in the north (Fig 5.19:b). During the historical periods, however, the position of the channel was in some dispute. In an attempt to reconcile ancient sources about the Louros River,including an account by Pseudo-Scylax, Dakaris proposed that the river flowed to the east of Mt. Mavrovouni for the Classical through Roman periods.41 This placement may be appropriatefor the period around 1500 B.P. and later but not for the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. According to our paleogeographic reconstruction, the shoreline was well north of
I90o
ZHICHUN
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
a
0
4500 B.P. 2 1
3 km
b Figure 5.19. Paleogeographic reconstructions of Kastro Rogon and vicinity showing the changing coastlines and environments from 7000/6500 B.P. through 1000/500 B.P.: a) 7000/6500 B.P.; b) 4500 B.P.; c) 1500 B.P.; d) 1000/500 B.P.
COASTAL
EVOLUTION
C
d
OF THE
AMBRACIAN
EMBAYMENT
191
ZHICHUN
I92
JING AND GEORGE (RIP)
RAPP
Mavrovouni during these periods and Pseudo-Scylax's measurement of the distance between the mouths of the Louros and Arachthos Rivers (40 stadia or 8 km) was likely correct.After the end of maximum marine transgression around 1500 B.P.,the deltaic floodplain began to develop toward the south and southwest as more and more sediments entered the estuary (Fig. 5.19:c).The Louros River flowed in a relativelystable channel at this time. Based on the trend of the contour lines in the deltaic floodplain, the river likely flowed south or southwest directly into the lagoon or the Ambracian Gulf during the early phase of estuarine infilling. The river was not diverted into the current channel until sometime between the 10th and 15th centuries A.C. (Fig. 5.19:d). This channel diversionwas cultural rather than natural.
COASTAL LANDSCAPE CHANGE AMBRACIAN EMBAYMENT
OF THE
Major environmentalchanges have occurredin the Ambracianembayment. On the basis of subsurfacestratigraphyand its implied sedimentary environments in archaeologicallyand geologically important locations, we can reconstruct the changing coastal landscape of the Ambracian embayment during the Holocene epoch (10,000 B.P.to present). RELATIVE
SEA
LEVEL
AND
LOCAL
TECTONISM
Change in relativesea level during the Holocene and the precedingWiirm glaciation was the single most important element in shaping the morphology of the coastal landscape. Many studies have shown that there was a rapidrise in eustatic sea level from the end of the Wiirm glaciation (15,00020,000 B.P.) to 6000-7000
B.p.42 However, the change in eustatic sea level
over the past 6,000-7,000 yearshas remained in dispute. It has been shown that relative sea level is more useful and appropriatethan eustatic sea level for paleogeographicreconstructionwith archaeologicalimplications.43The change in relative sea level is controlled mostly by eustatic level, tectonic movement, sedimentation, and compaction of the preexisting sediment column. Local tectonic subsidence or uplift has been widely considered more critical than eustatic effects to the development of the coastal landscape in Greece over the past 6,000-7,000 years.44During the evolution of the Ambracian coast, both tectonic uplift and subsidence have played a significant role in shaping the configuration of the embayment. The Preveza peninsula has been subjected to continuous tectonic uplift, as clearly indicated by the subsurfacestratigraphicsequence.Thus the small embayments projecting into the Preveza peninsula, such as Ormos Vathy, have witnessed shoreline progradationfor 6,000-7,000 years. As a result, much of the previouslydeposited marine or estuarinestratahave been elevated above sea level. The Ambracian embayment itself has a different history of marine transgression and regression due to tectonic subsidence. Here the maxi-
42. E.g., Fairbanks1989. 43. Kraft,Aschenbrenner,and Rapp 1977; Kraft,Rapp,and Aschenbrenner 1980; Kraft,Kayan,and Aschenbrenner 1985; Rapp and Kraft1994. 44. Flemming 1968,1972; Flemming andWebb 1986; Kraft, Aschenbrenner,and Rapp 1977.
EVOLUTION
COASTAL
OF THE
EMBAYMENT
AMBRACIAN
I93
0
-2
A
o - -4
004------------400300
7 5
00
1oo
maximum transgression
-6 [/-'. -
dated peat samples from swamp deposits north of the Ambracian
Gulf
--
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Calibrated Radiocarbon Age (B.P.) mum marine transgression lasted from 4500 to 1500 B.P., with a subse-
from the of sediment infill over the regression dominance resulting quent rise in relative sea level tectonic Radiocarbon or subsidence. dates on peat from the coastal deposits in the northernpartof the Ambrasamples swamp cian embayment indicate a gentle rise in relative sea level over the past theyears (Fig. theAmbracian fact that 7,000 5.20). Recalling embayment is a tectonic graben that has been subsiding since the Plioceneand Early rise this in relative sea level is most likely attributed to conPleistocene, the tinuous tectonic subsi dence of embaymen itself tMarin t e ransgression andregression are dictatedby thechangein relative sea level. Thus, relative sea level change should be used in the interpretation of subsurface in the Ambracian strat igraphy embayment. Obviously such a generalized relativesea-leveltonic thatrend cannotbe applied tosubject an area totectonic graben use relative of a curve uplift, such asthe Nikopolis isthmus. Any sea-level for paleogeographic reconstruction must be made in an appropriatetectonic and sediment ary context. It is important to know that the rise in relative sea level is with refera ence to geodetic datum. A does not mean the change in relative sea level in same change insea level, whichis eustatic measured reference to the center of the earth. Based on observations of submergedremains,Hammond states: e T hereareindications in thecoast ofEpirus that the level of th sea e was atleast three orfour feet lower in th fourth century thanit is in tod ay...s The lower sea-level antiquity affected, for instance, the entry to the Gulf of Arta, and it may have reduced the area of swamps which are found today near the mouths of the Louros....
ZHICHUN
I94
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
The fertile plain on the north shore of the Gulf of Arta may have been more extensive in antiquity.45 This is an example of how a misunderstandingof relative sea level can lead to an inappropriate interpretation of paleogeographic change. It is true that relative sea level was more than three or four feet below current sea level due to tectonic movement, but this does not imply that absolute sea level was necessarilylower in the 4th century than today.Furthermore,the extent of transgressionwas not determined solely by the absolute sea level. Instead, as mentioned previously,it was a result of the combination of sea level, tectonics, sediment supply, and compaction of the preexisting sediment column. Contra Hammond, the embayment saw its maximum sea transgressionduring the 4th century,with the sea reaching the foothills of the mountains in the north.
PALEOGEOGRAPHIC
DEVELOPMENT
The Ambracian embayment is a shallow backarcbasin, initially shaped by Oligocene-Miocene compressional folding and faulting followed by Pliocene-Quaternary extensional faulting. At the end of the Wiirm glaciation, ca. 15,000 B.P., sea level was 100-120 m below its present level.46 The shoreline of the Ionian Sea lay about 5 km west of the Preveza peninsula. Isolated from the Ionian Sea, the Ambracian embayment was mostly exposed subaerially;only a small portion might have been under water, forming small isolated lakes, particularlyin the southern part of the basin.47 As a large volume of glacial ice melted, the sea level started rising very rapidlyaround13,000 B.P. By 10,000 B.P., sea level had risento approximately 45 m below current sea level and the Ionian Sea began to intrude into the Ambracian embayment through the narrowchannel at the south end of the Preveza peninsula.48Sea level continued to rise, and the water body in the embayment graduallyexpanded. Previously inland hills, such as Mt. Mavrovouni and Salaora,were left in the embayment as islands. Apparently, eustatic sea level played a dominant role in the development of coastline change and geomorphic configurations from 13,000 to 6500 B.P. After 6500 B.P. or the beginning of the Neolithic period, the rise in eustatic sea level diminished greatly or ceased. As a result, the shoreline migrated at a much slower rate, creating a favorablecondition for the formation of coastal fringe swamp (Fig. 5.21:a). From 6500 B.P. onward,local tectonic movement became the primary element in the further evolution of the embayment. Relative sea level continued to rise because of tectonic subsidence, and the embayment migrated landward as transgression proceeded. By 4500 B.P. or the beginning of the Bronze Age, the embayment had gained maximum marine transgression, and the sea had extended to the northern edge of the embayment leaving no or a very narrowpassage along the foothills of Mts. Rokia and Stavros (Fig. 5.21:b). As tectonic subsidence was still proceeding at a rate greater than sediment infill from the rivers and streams in the north and northwest, relative sea level continued to rise until 1500 B.P., about the end of the Roman period.
45. Hammond 1967, pp. 42-43.
46. ChappellandShackleton1986; NakadaandLambeck1988;Fairbanks 1989.
47.The analysisof 3.5-kHzseismic reflectionprofilessuggeststhatsmall water bodies existed in the south of the AmbracianGulf, particularlywithin the easternpart,duringthe late Wurm glaciation;see Poulos, Lykousis,and Collins 1995;Tziavos 1997. 48. Tziavos 1997, p. 428.
COASTAL
49. Dakaris 1971, p. 5; Hammond
1967,p. 19.
EVOLUTION
OF THE
AMBRACIAN
EMBAYMENT
I95
During the period of maximummarinetransgression,the entire embayment was flooded by the sea. The Louros River flowed directly into the embayment and formed a subaqueous delta near the mouth of the deeply incised valley of the Louros River.The Salaorabarrierstarted developing as relative sea level rose, but the full barrierdid not form until the postmedieval period. In other words, the entire embayment was basically open water.KastroRogon hill, previouslyinland,was an island in the embayment, but it was separatedfrom the mainland by a very narrow stretch of water. Structures could have been built to connect the hill to the mainland. In addition, the hill was very close to the mouth of the Louros River.This environmentally advantageous location gave Kastro Rogon strategic significance during the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. During Classical and Hellenistic times, Bouchetion, one of four important walled towns of the Elean colonists, was located on an island hill. A seaport could have been associated with the settlement that served other towns-including Batiae (Kastro Rizovouni) and Elatria (Palaiorophoros)-in the mountainous hinterland. Because of its strategic position, Bouchetion remained an important urban site during the Roman period when other Elean settlements were destroyed and abandoned. Owing to a different tectonic context, the areasurroundingNikopolis has witnessed marine regressioninstead of marine transgressionsince 6000 B.P. The Preveza peninsula has been subjected to tectonic uplift since the Pleistocene. From 13,000 to 6000 B.P. the rapid rise of eustatic sea level was greater than the tectonic uplift of the peninsula. As a result, the tectonic lowlands projecting into the uplifting peninsula were graduallysubmerged as the sea level rose. By 7000-6500 B.P. these lowland areas, including the Nikopolis isthmus and Ormos Vathy,had witnessed maximum transgression.The west arm of Ormos Vathy extended 750 m inland of the currentshore and the Nikopolis isthmus may have been an open channel between the Ambracian embayment and the Ionian Sea. After 6000 B.P., eustatic sea level rise ceased or greatly slowed, and tectonic uplift became the primary factor controlling shoreline change. With continued uplift, the shorelines in the small embayments migrated seaward. Continuous tectonic uplift also led to increased slope erosion. Deposition of slope-wash sediments affiliated with increased slope erosion accelerated marine regression. Sometime after 6000 B.P. the Nikopolis isthmus had been elevated to a level so that no possibility of a channel remained. By 3000 B.P. the shoreline of the Mazoma embayment had migrated seaward to within ca. 1 km of the current shore. During the Roman period, however, both the Mazoma embayment and Ormos Vathy were still wellsheltered harbors serving the city of Nikopolis and other towns on the Preveza peninsula. From late antiquity onward, beginning ca. 1500 B.P., the rate of sediment supply from the riversexceeded the rate of relative sea-level rise and the estuarine embayment began to fill in, moving the shoreline seaward. The increased rate of sediment supply is likely related to human-induced erosion since the Roman period.49The Louros River continued to enter directly into the estuarine embayment with a delta developing at its front.
I96
c
d
Figure 5.21. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the Ambracian embayment showing the shoreline changes from 7000/6500 a) 7000/6500 B.P.; b) 4500 B.P.; c) 1500 B.P.; d) 1000/500 B.P.
I98
ZHICHUN
JING
AND
GEORGE
(RIP)
RAPP
As the delta advanced,the alluvialplain aggradedand the riverflowed acrossthe plain(Fig. 5.21:c).In additionto the LourosRiver,the streams flowingout fromthe mountainsin the northand northeastalso contributedsedimentsforestuarineinfilling.By 1000 B.P. the shorelinehadmoved to the vicinityof Mt. Mavrovouni.Becausethe sedimentsupplyfromthe riverswas not enoughto developan extensivefloodplain,muchof the area northof the embaymentwas left as swamp(Fig. 5.21:d). Sometimebetween 1000 and 500 B.P., duringthe medievalperiod, the Louros Riverwas divertednear KastroRogon and startedflowing west along the foothills and then south along the west flank of the embayment(Fig. 5.21:d).Estuarineinfill and sea regressionhad left the seaportfar inland,separatedby a wide swampyzone from the lagoon or embaymentto the south.The channeldiversioncould have servedtwo use, and (2) establishinga purposes:(1) drainingswampsfor agricultural connectionbetweenKastroRogonandtheAmbracianGulf. transportation The areaalongthe northernandwesternflanksof the embaymentwas a logical route to dredgea channelas it was coveredprimarilyby alluvial sediments.No doubtatleastin parta resultof this diversion,KastroRogon remainedan importanttown during the medievaland post-medieval periods.
CONCLUSION andpaleogeographic reconstruction haveprovided Subsurfacestratigraphy a pictureof the changinglandscapecontextof archaeologicalsites of the coastalzone of the Ambracianembayment.Around10,000 B.P., the sea level had risento about45 m below currentsea level and the Ionian Sea hadintrudedinto the graben-likeAmbracianembayment.After6000 B.P., the rateof eustaticsea-levelrisegreatlyslowedor ceased,but relativesea level continuedto rise.By 4500 B.P.maximummarinetransgressionhad occurredand the shorelinestood more than 12 km north of its current position.The entireembaymentwas floodedby the sea.This geomorphic configurationdid not change significantlyuntil the end of the Roman periodwhenhuman-inducederosionincreasedsedimentsupplyforestuarineinfilling.By 1500 B.P. much of the fringeareain the embaymentwas exposedbut remainedswampy.The changinggeomorphicconfiguration of the Ambracianembaymentwas criticalto humanexploitationof this region.
CHAPTER
6
THE
LOWER
VALLEY: AND
THE
ACHERON
ANCIENT
RIVER
ACCOUNTS
CHANGING
LANDSCAPE
byMarkR. Besonen,George(Rip)Rapp,and ZhichunJing
INTRODUCTION Recognizing that the earth's coastal systems have undergone profound change since the end of the Pleistocene (about 10,000 years ago), the Nikopolis Project set as one of its objectives the interpretation and understanding of the changing geomorphology, topography,and paleoenvironments in the lower Acheron Rivervalleyfrom the middle Holocene through the present (Fig. 6.1).1 Archaeological remains in the valley are abundant, and literary and historical references go back at least to the 8th century B.C.,when Homer and his contemporaries considered the Acheron to be an infernal river and held that the valley was an entrance to the Under-
world(Od.10.508-515). Various other ancient literary and historical sources also make reference to the valley, and provide details of a landscape configuration that is inconsistent with the current physiography.The inconsistencies pose a problem for archaeologists trying to equate ruins in the valley with particular settlements mentioned in ancient accounts. Are these ancient authors mistaken in their descriptions of the valley,or can a naturalsequence of landscape evolution account for these discrepancies?There are three conspicuous inconsistencies whose explanation and resolution have provided a focus for this component of the Nikopolis Project: 1) the size of the Glykys Limen (modern Phanari Bay); 2) the nature, geometry, and evolution of the Acherousian lake; and 3) the course of the Acheron River with respect to Kastri during the classical period. 1. This chapteris summarizedand updatedfrom Besonen 1997, a Masters thesis completedby the senior authorat the Universityof Minnesota, Duluth. An electronicversion of Besonen 1997 in Adobe AcrobatPDF formatis freely availableover the Internet at http:// or by www.paleoenvironment.org, requestinga copy from the authorvia e-mail (
[email protected]).
THE
SIZE
OF THE
GLYKYS
LIMEN
(MODERN
PHANARI
BAY)
The smallmarineharborlocatedat the mouthof the AcheronRiveris knowntodayasPhanariBay(Fig.6.2).Wellprotected bya seriesof high limestonecliffs,andcontinuously flushedoutbythehighdischarge of the AcheronRiveranditstributaries, thebayhascharacteristics thatmakefor anidealmarineharbor. it isverysmall,measuring Unfortunately, only700 x 350m,witha depthof lessthan10 m.In ancienttimes,theembayment
200
M.
R. BESONEN,
0
G. RAPP,
30
AND
Z. JING
60
I.....
was known as the Glykys Limen ("SweetHarbor").According to the Greek geographer and historian Strabo (7.7.5 [C 324]), who lived through A.D. 21, this was because the influx of fresh water from the Acheron and its tributariescaused a dilution of the marine water filling the bay. Strabo'saccount is not singular;many other ancient authors also mention the Glykys Limen, indicating that it was a well-known feature along the Epirote coastline. Three of these authors provide evidence for a discrepancy between the ancient and modern landscape: while the modern harbor is quite small, the ancient harbor was apparently quite large. The late-5th-century B.C. Greek historian Thucydides (1.46.1-5) wrote in his
90km I
Figure6.1. Areamapof Epirus
ACHERON
LOWER
1
0
RIVER
VALLEY
201
I
. .
Area Map of the Lower Acheron Valley Kicisoura 2
__1
(I
3 kim
I -
;
.- , ......
^
,'
9
IF,,^igure 6.3 Observation Point J
"/
} .
l
!.,'
GI/.}ALSIIiJJA*.\ '>r.A " nl \W'l//.t.
. c...
Xi^^A1nioudia
D'N
\
; -\^?^^
/i v
,,
^
(I I....iTsotknida 1' . . . --
,Bie
..; .
Cd.s'Ksc'i.s.t
.
/
iVel'
.
Figure6.2. Areamapof the lower Acheronvalley
I)rontos
Kanallakion
\ Skalaiatos
, Pountas
r
,,
}
i/
l,-/ V
..
.....
_ ^
3. Dakaris1971,p. 5. 4. Dakaris1971,p. 5.
-
. ,Narkissos
NDOSIA Kastri
i 'I
v.
200
c o
al,? lu ,100 C)
E
_n
c;
!
\' ^ ." - .
sW
0
i
. Cit:::
>,
R
?
CCo
00 0 C) 0 oc vC
SJOa9LUHUU3LUl[AOl B1S 3AOqb UOl}3A31j
?C
Northeast 1200 -
cfl
I-.
C) C)
P. C) C)
P.
C)
1100
-
1000
-
C
900 800 700 600 500 400 -
NC-
-0
C)
.-
200 100 -
0
...
NC-92-16
I..
.....
-cNC.'-93-19v_ . . .............. - ----'-.--. . ..
--
0 -100
accretionar beach
NC-93-17
300 -
el I erial'J -. g__,~~,~~
-
floodplain -
-200-
floodplain
_~
.
-300-
I-
-400- -:
shallow marineembayment (Glykys Limen)
0
'
''
300
_
600
.
900m
500x verticalexaggeration
Figure 6.11. Northeast-southwest cross section through the valley bottom (area of former marine emba
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
22I
~ Figure6.12. Paleogeographic reconstructionsof the lowerAcheron
(
?
. \?
< ^
V\
i \
valley for 2100 B.C.and the 8th
centuryB.C. Smallblacksquares markcorelocations;see Figure6.7 for labels. Appendix), ca. 3.5 km from modern Phanari Bay, is composed from the base upward of shallow marine deposits of the Glykys Limen which are overlain by delta front sediments. The delta front sediments grade upward into deposits of a distributary mouth bar, and then an interdistributary bay. The sequence is capped by subaerial fluvial sediments. A marsh reed retrieved from the distributary mouth bar deposit was radiocarbondated and returns a calibrated la range of ages from 850 +80/ -60 B.P. (A.D. 1100 -80/+60). The vertical sequence in this core indicates that it is not directly in front of the prograding delta, but on its flank.
222
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
Figure6.13. Paleogeographic reconstructionsof the lowerAcheron valley for 433 B.C.and 1 B.C.The
dashedline in the 433 B.C. panel indicatesa possiblealternativecourse for the VouvosRiver.Smallblack squaresmarkcorelocations;see Figure6.7 for labels. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use this as an indicator of the actual delta front position, which would have been somewhat seaward of this location. A hypothetical delta front position for this time is illustrated in Figure 6.14. Several historical documents, in particularearly maps of the region, provide information that helps to reconstruct the evolution of the Glykys Limen since A.D. 1100.39The maps are clearly not geographically accurate, but they do indicate that the Glykys Limen was still of significant size through the 15th and 16th centuries A.C. Leake's description of the valley as he passed through the region in 1809 provides important infor-
39. Besonen 1997 shows 16 maps; see note 1 regardingthe availabilityof Besonen 1997.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
223
Figure 6.14. Paleogeographic
reconstructionsof the lowerAcheron valleyfor A.D.1100 andA.D.1500. Smallblacksquaresmarkcore locations;see Figure6.7 for labels.
\ K>j
( '
>
v AcherousianSwamp
mation about the landscape configuration east of the Mesopotamon/ Tsouknida constriction, but there are few details about the coastline and actual delta front.40The modern village of Ammoudia, which surrounds present day Phanari Bay, did not come into existence until after Leake's time, in the early part of the 20th century.Therefore, the position of the shoreline in 1809 must have been a bit further to the east (Fig. 6.15). There is one radiocarbondate from the areaof the Glykys Limen that seems anomalously old, given its location and the type of deposit from which it was obtained. Core 92-20 (Figs. 6.7, 6.11; Appendix) is situated 40. Leake 1835.
in the middle of the area of the Glykys Limen, ca. 1.6 km from Phanari
M.
224
R. BESONEN,
* ..1 ^"/. * ,~ ^X, jf-Ai)^ ' 7 f/ C "^/^^ xS^L^ d~~ c "
G. RAPP,
M
-f, '
I
AND
Z. JING
~y^^
\
\
f,.
y _
->
Bay. It consists of inferred floodplain and natural levee deposits that directly overlie either bedrock or gravel. A radiocarbondate on organic material retrieved 50 cm above the base of the core returns a calibrated la range of ages from 2650 +70/-290 B.P., or 700 +70/-290 B.C. Such a date would suggest that the delta top was located here as early as 700 B.C., forcing the delta front position even further basinward.This is problematic since it is in gross contrast with the coherent sequence of coastal evolution documented by the rest of this study. The anomalously old radiocarbon date from core 92-20 is likely due to reworking of older deposits. The stratigraphyin the core is ratherpecu-
Figure6.15. Paleogeographic reconstructionof the lowerAcheron valleyforA.D. 1809 anda mapof the modernlandscape.Smallblack squaresmarkcorelocations;see Figure6.7 for labels.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
225
liar, and is only similar to that seen in core 92-16, less than 600 m away. Though the deposits in these cores are apparentlysubaerial(according to their color), they occur up to 5 m below sea level. Bedrock in the area is very shallow, as indicated by limestone knobs that stick up through the alluviumjust 500 m to the south, and 700 m to the west (Fig. 6.8). These bedrock knobs are covered with red sediment and vegetation at present, and would have been small islands before the infilling of the Glykys Limen. Consequently,it seems probablethat the deposits aroundthe bedrockknobs, such as retrieved in core 92-20, may represent reworked older sediment and material shed off of the islands.
CONTROLS ON SHORELINE IN THE ACHERON VALLEY
41. Waters 1994, p. 197. 42. Tziavos 1977. 43. Besonen 1997.
PROGRADATION
Our data indicate that the rate of shoreline progradation in the lower Acheron valley varied significantly through time; it was slow earlier on, but then much more rapid over the last millennium. In the 3,200 years from 2100 B.C. to A.D. 1100, the shoreline position progradedjust 2 km (Figs. 6.12-6.14). In the 850 years from A.D. 1100 to the present, however, almost 3.5 km of shoreline progradation has occurred (Figs. 6.14, 6.15). Rapid recent progradation is also supported by a detailed consideration of the 3-km wide system of beach ridges noted east of modern Phanari Bay (Fig. 6.3). As Waters has shown, the valley bottom is subsiding;41 if these ridgeswere accretingslowly over time during subsidence,one would expect to find them at progressivelylower elevations moving inland. This is not the case, however. Careful examination of surveyed point elevations on the 1:5,000 topographic maps shows that all the ridges are no higher than 1 masl, and no particularprogression of ridge elevations can be noted moving inland. This suggests that the beach ridges have accreted rapidly. What were the controls on the rates of shoreline progradation?The simple dynamics of basin infilling were probably important factors. Following stabilization of sea level in the middle to late Holocene, sediment deposition would have been directed toward filling the deeper parts of the Glykys Limen. As the basin grew continuously shallower,an increasingly largerproportion of the sediment load could be dedicated to the shoreline, leading to the increasedrateof progradationwe have documented.A similar phenomenon has been noted for the Spercheios delta on the eastern coast of Greece, where delta growth seems to be occurring at a continuously increasing rate.42 One significant local geomorphic control that moderated sediment delivery to the coastline was the formation of the Acherousian lake. As will be discussed below, the lake probably did not come into existence until sometime between the 8th century B.C.and 433 B.C. (Figs. 6.12, 6.13). It then served as an efficient sediment trap,capturing materialtransported by the Acheron River that would otherwise have been carriedto the coast. The lake'sability to trap sediment was further enhanced by a spillway that was built increasingly higher, and subsidence of the lake floor.43These
226
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
factorsallowedthe lake to accommodatenearly9 m of sedimentinfill before being breached, probably after A.D. 1100 but before Turkish times
(Fig. 6.14). Once this occurred,the AcheronRiverwas againableto deliverits sedimentload directlyto the shoreline. Severallarger-scale controls,operatingovermorethanjusttheAcheron valley,may also havehad the abilityto significantlyalterthe quantityof sediment deliveredto the coast, therebymoderatingrates of shoreline In particular,anthropogenicinfluencehas been implicated progradation. as responsiblefor a profoundchangein landscapestabilityandassociated eventsoverGreeceas a whole beginningaround4500 erosion/alluviation B.P.44 In Epirus,pollen studiesfrom two sites located ca. 80 km to the northof the Acheronvalleyalso recognizedseveralerosiveeventsduring the middleto late Holocene.Using pollendatafromGramoustilakeand Rezinamarsh(Fig. 6.1), KatherineWillis recognizederosiveeventsfrom ca. 6300-5000 B.P., 4300-3500 B.P., and finally at 2500 and 2000 B.P.45
Though both climaticshifts and anthropogenicinfluencewere cited as possiblecausesfor these periodsof increasederosion,anthropogenicinfluencewas the morefavoredexplanation,especiallyfor the event dating to 4300-3500 B.P.We do not recognizeanyof theseerosionaleventsin the geomorphic evolution of the Acheron valley,despite its proximityto Willis'sstudyarea,but evenadjacentregionsmayhavedifferenterosional histories.46
A secondlarge-scalecontrolthat mayhavemoderatedsedimentdea changein moisture liveryto the coastis a changein climate,in particular, balance.Though the systemof responsesandfeedbacksmaybe complex, changesin moisturebalanceaffectvegetationcover,andthus couldeasily alterthe effectivityof erosion.Unfortunately,thereis little paleoclimatic informationavailablefor Greece,and that which does exist is predominantlypollenwork.47Someeffort,however,hasbeenfocusedon interpretA lowing changesin moisturebalancebasedon lake-levelfluctuations.48 record of lake-level fluctuationsexists for Lake resolution interpreted Ioannina,just 55 km to the northeastof the Acheronvalley(Fig. 6.1),49 but the datafromthe last 5,000 yearsaretoo sparseto relateto geomorphic changesin ourarea.A new recordof lake-levelfluctuationsexistsfor Lake Xinias,50just 160 km to the east of the Acheron valley,but the lake is
44. Davidson 1980;van Andel, located on the other side of the Pindos Mountains,a majororographic Runnels,and Pope 1986;van Andel, Further- Zangger,and Demitrack 1990. boundary,and thus a comparisonto our areais not appropriate. more,the datafromLakeXinias-like thatfromLakeIoannina-are very 45. Willis 1992. 46. In particular,see the comparison sparsefor the middleandlate Holocene. While middle and late Holocene paleoclimaticinformationfrom of the SouthernArgolid and Argive Greecemaynot be the most impressive,theredoes appearto be increas- Plain regionsexaminedin van Andel, Zangger,and Demitrack 1990. ingly robustevidencefor a significant,abruptaridificationevent around 47. See reviewsin Robertsand andWestAsia.51Pre- Wright 1993, and Willis 1994. 4200 B.P. overthe easternhalfof the Mediterranean 48. Harrisonand Digerfeldt 1993; sumablythis eventwouldhaveaffectedGreeceas well, and mayhaveled to a reductionin vegetationcover,thusincreasingthe effectivityof erosion Digerfeldt, Olsson, and Sandgren2000. 49. Harrisonand Digerfeldt 1993. and resultingin a higher flux of sedimentbeing deliveredto the coast. 50. Digerfeldt, Olsson, and However,this issuecannotbe adequatelyaddressedwith the presentbody Sandgren2000. of Greek paleoclimaticinformation(e.g., mostly pollen analyses).Fur51. Weiss et al. 1993; Dalfes, Kukla, thermore,this eventmaybe impossibleto recognizewith a proxylikepoland Weiss 1997; Cullen et al. 2000; len becauseof the strongoverprintof anthropogenicinfluencethatbegins Weiss 2000.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
227
at this time.52To resolvethe issue,developmentof proxyrecordsfor moisturebalancethat areunaffectedby humanactivity(e.g., an oxygenstable isotoperecord)wouldbe moresuitable. In summary,localfactorssuch as the dynamicsof basininfillingand the formationof the Acherousianlakecertainlyplayeda rolein moderating the progradationof the shorelinein the Acheronvalley.Larger-scale factorssuchas anthropogenicinfluenceand climatechangewerecapable of affectingthe amountof sedimentdeliveredto the coast,but the data currentlyavailablearenot yet sufficientto link eitherfactorto the changing rateof shorelineprogradation.
MIDDLE AND LATE HOLOCENE EVOLUTION OF THE ACHEROUSIAN LAKE
52. See note 44 above. 53. Dakaris 1971; Hammond 1967.
We havedocumentedthe developmentandevolutionof the Acherousian lake(Fig.6.4),whichuntilnowwasmostthoroughlyconsideredbyDakaris The absolutechronologyfor our studyis based followedby Hammond.53 partlyon radiocarbondates,andpartlyon an analysisof literaryand historical references.Unfortunately,the reconstructionsof Dakaris and Hammondwerebasedprimarilyon indirectevidence,the modernlandscapeconfigurationin the valley,andthe assumptionthatthe lakefilledin becomingshallowerand areallyless expansiveovertime. Howgradually, ever,the mechanismresponsiblefor the impoundmentof the lake was dynamic,andthus it did not experiencea typicallacustrineinfillsequence andevolution.Instead,the lakemaintaineda shallowprofilebutgrewcontinuouslylarger,spreadingupvalleythroughtime. As a result,Dakaris, Hammond,and othersoverestimatedthe size of the lake, at least as an open bodyof water. The developmentand evolutionof the lake is best recordedby the aroundand to the east of the Mesopotamon/Tsouknida valstratigraphy constriction Sediment cores 94-23 and 94-17 6.2). ley (Fig. (Fig. 6.7; Appendix)documentthe overallregressivenatureof the middleand late Holocene stratigraphyin the valley,and the entirehistoryof the Acherousianlake.As describedabove,the coresconsistfromthe baseupward of depositsfromthe followingenvironments: 1) deltatop to front,2) brackish waterdeltatop marshgradingupwardinto freshwatermarsh,3) shallow freshwaterlake, and 4) floodplain.The shallowfreshwaterlake deposit is fromthe Acherousianlake.A radiocarbondate on peat fromthe bottom of the freshto brackishwaterdelta top marshof core 94-23 returnsa calibratedla rangeof agesfrom4030 ? 100 B.P., or 2080 + 100 B.C. We thereforeconcludethat the Acherousianlake came into existenceat some point afterca. 2100 B.C. The stratigraphy in cores94-23 and 94-17 indicatesthat the marsh was essentiallydrownedas the lakecameinto existencedirectlyon top of it. Some mechanismto the west of these coreswas thereforeresponsible for the impoundmentof the lake. Analysisof the stratigraphyin cores 94-20, 94-12, and 93-21 (Fig. 6.7; Appendix),locatedca. 600 m to the west in the Mesopotamon/Tsouknida valleyconstriction,showswhatthis mechanismmight havebeen.
228
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
The A-A' crosssectionbasedon these cores(Fig. 6.9) showsa massiveplug of fluvialsedimentsfillingthe valleyat this point.The stratigraphyin thesecoresconsistsof deltatop andfrontsedimentsthatareimmediatelyoverlainby fluvialchannel,subaerialnaturallevee,and floodplain sediments.In contrast,core94-23 consistsof the samedeltatop andfront sedimentsoverlainby 7.5 m of sedimentfromthe Acherousianlake.From this relationship,it is clearthat the lakewas impoundedto the eastof the Mesopotamon/Tsouknida valleyconstrictionbecauseof fluvialsediments that essentiallypluggedthe constriction. This fluvialplug recordsthe migrationof the channelandlevee system of the AcheronRiverand/orone of its tributaries.As the channel/ leveesystembuiltsouth-southwestward fromthe easternsideof the Mesopotamonridge,it eventuallyimpingedonto the bedrockpromontorynear Tsouknida(Figs.6.12, 6.13). As a result,a shallow,closeddepressionwas pinchedoff to the eastbehindthis channel/levee/proximal floodplainsystem and water ponded up, drowningthe delta top marshto form the Acherousianlake (Fig. 6.13). The stabilityand longevityof this fluvialplug systemareimportant pointsto emphasize.Followingthe initialimpoundmentof the lake,fluvial sedimentationhas dominatedin the areaof the valley constriction untilthe presentday,as illustratedby crosssectionA-A' (Fig. 6.9).Thus, as the channel/levee/proximal floodplainsystemslowlyaggradedthrough time, it causeda progressiverise in the surfaceelevationof the lake.Becausethe lakewas alsoreceivingsedimentinput,this processallowedit to accommodate9 m of sedimentinfillwhile simultaneouslymaintaininga shallowprofile.54 Moreinformationregardingthe progressively risingsurface elevationof the lakeand its arealexpansionwill be discussedbelow. This mechanismof riverchannelandlevee migrationis an extremely importantagentof geomorphicevolutionin the valley,andits effectscan be seen in the topographyat otherpointsin the valleytoday.Three excellent examplesincludethe topographicdepressionto the west of Koroni, the depressionbetweenKastriand Kanallakion,andthe smalldepression to the east-southeastof Ephyra(Fig. 6.8). In these cases,the migrating courseof the KokytosandAcheronRiversimpingedonto a bedrockhighland and pinchedoff a shallow,closedbasinupvalleyof the constriction. RichardRussellnoteda similarprocessin his studyof the MeanderRiver in westernAnatolia.55 In this case,a rapidlyprogradingdeltafront/coastal plainbuilt acrossthe entranceto a marineembayment,essentiallytrapping a standingpool of waterwithin the embayment.He alsorecognized shallowlakes("levee-flankdepressions") thathadformedon the deltatop in the areabehind/betweenthe intersectionof two streamchannel/levee systems.56
Though the radiocarbondatefromcore94-23 indicatesthat the impoundmentof the Acherousianlake must have occurredafter ca. 2100 B.C., a more tightly constrainedchronologycould be determinedby another14Cdate at the top of the freshwatermarshdeposit.Unfortunately, limitedresourcesdid not providethis option.Consequently,a closerdating of the lake'sinceptionwill be basedon an analysisof literaryandhistoricalreferencesby ancientauthors.Differingopinionsaboutthe accu-
54. Besonen 1997. 55. Russell 1954. 56. Russell 1967, p. 17.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
229
racy and validity of topographic references made by ancient authors are certain. However, if such references,taken in chronological order,present a coherent and logical sequence of events, they may be useful. On the contrary,if they present a sequence of events that is clearly impossible, or if various references contradict one another, one may be inclined to question their validity.This, however, is not the case in the Acheron valley. A detailed analysis of ancient literary and historical references in chronological order presents a logical and coherent picture of the probable evolution and development of the Acherousian lake. That these references fit nicely within the story developed by geological and sedimentological evidence lends them some credence. The earliest reference to the valley comes from the Odysseyof Homer. Current thought suggests that the Odysseymay have been written in the 8th century, but describes some events and settings that go back to the 12th century B.C. in the Late Bronze Age. Homer writes: And when in your ship you have traversedOceanos, Where the scrubby strand and groves of Persephone are, Both tall poplars and willows that lose their fruit, Beach your ship there by deep-whirling Oceanos; But go on yourself to the moldy hall of Hades. There into Acheron flow Puriphlegethon And Cocytus, which is a branch of the Styx'swater, And a rock and a concourse of the two resounding rivers.57 Homer makes no mention of the lake; in fact, he strictly describes a scene in which several tributariesfeed into the Acheron River.The adage "lack of evidence doesn't constitute evidence for a lack"is applicable here, but it may be suggested that Homer does not mention the lake because it did not exist at the time a contemporarywitnessed the topography in the valley. The lake then probably formed at some point between the writing of the Odyssey(in the 8th century B.C.)and the time of Thucydides' account of the valley (about 400 years later), when the lake is mentioned for the first time. Thucydides, who wrote contemporaryhistory,gives a description of a recently nascent Acherousian lake in his account of the Battle of Sybota in 433 B.C.
It is a harbour,and above it lies a city away from the sea in the Eleatic district of Thesprotia, Ephyra by name. Near it is the outlet into the sea of the Acherusian lake; and the river Acheron runs through Thesprotia and empties into the lake, to which it gives its name.58
Of interest here is the fact that Thucydides strictly states "nearit is the outlet into the sea of the Acherousian lake,"as if the lake empties directly into the sea. This seems to imply that the Acherousian lake and the sea 57. Od 10.508-515, trans. A.
Cook, ' NewYork,1967. 58.Thuc.1.46.4,trans.C. F. Smith, Mass.,[1928]1956. Cambridge,
(actually the Glykys Limen) are very close-the two are split by only a very narrow barrier of land on which is situated the lake spillway (Fig. 6.13). This narrow barrier of land is the channel and levee system of the Acheron (or one of its tributaries) that caused the impoundment of
230
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
the lake, as explainedabove.Thucydidesclearlyidentifiesthe Acheron Riveras flowing into the lake,but says nothing about its exit from the lake. His accountis distinctfromall laterreferencesin that it suggeststhe extremeproximityof the Acherousianlake and the sea. Later accounts suggestthatmorethanjust a lakespillwayis present,andthatthe channel carryingwaterfromthe laketo the sea is long enoughto be identifiedas that of the AcheronRiver.Forexample,Strabowrites: Then comesCape Cheimerium,and also GlycysLimen,into which the RiverAcheronempties.The Acheronflowsfromthe AcherusianLakeandreceivesseveralriversas tributaries,so that it sweetensthe watersof the gulf.59 It appearsthatthe stripof landseparatingthe lakefromthe seahadgrown sufficientlywide in the 400 yearsbetweenthe accountsof Thucydidesand Strabothatthe channeldrainingthe Acherousianlakecouldbe identified severaltributariesfed into the as that of the AcheronRiver.Furthermore, Acheronafterit exitedfromthe lake. datefromcore94-23, the Acherousianlake Basedon the radiocarbon must have formed after2100 B.c. And, since Homer,Thucydides,and Straboall presenta chronologicallycoherentpictureof the development of the lakein the valley,it is probablethatthe lakeformedsometimeafter the 8th centuryB.C.butbefore433 B.c.An additionalbit of circumstantial evidencesupportsthe notion that the lake did not come into existence recordfromthe valuntilthis time.Dakarisnotedthatthe archaeological ley indicateda decreasein populationduringthe Archaicperiod(ca.700500 B.c.),60and the data from the diachronicsurveyof the Nikopolis Project
tend to supportthis conclusion.Dakarissuggestedthat the population declinemighthavebeenrelatedto malaria,whichhas alwaysbeen a problem in the low-lying coastalareasof Epirus.Why malariawould have flaredup at this particulartime was unknown,sinceDakarisprobablyassumedthe lake had been presentin the valleyfollowingthe post-glacial rise of sea level. Our analysisseems to indicate,however,that the Acherousianlake came into existenceat the same time as the Archaic-period populationdecline.While the timingof theseeventsmaybe coincidental, the birthof the lake and associatedswampyareasmayhavegiven rise to the malarialepidemicpostulatedby Dakaris. BecauseDakarisandothersdid not recognizethe mechanismresponsiblefor the lake'simpoundment,they assumedthat it followeda typical lacustrineinfill sequenceand becameincreasinglyshallowerand areally less expansivethroughtime.In contrast,PhilippsonandKirstensuggested that the lake had become largersince ancienttimes,61but they did not explainwhy they consideredthis to be the case nor did they provideevidenceto supporttheirconclusion.They alsoplacedthe laketoo farupvalley 59. Strab.7.7.5 [C 324], trans.H. L. (Fig. 6.4, upper right). The results from our study suggest that their Jones, Cambridge,Mass., 1960. assertionregardingthe size of the lakeis correct,butwe furthermore docu60. Dakaris 1971, p. 12. ment the mechanismand detailsof the lake'sevolutionas well as its true 61. Philippson and Kirsten1956, II, location. p. 105.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
231
Soon afterits formation,the lake existedas a shallowbody of open watersurroundedby a fringeof marshyground(Fig. 6.13). Sedimentcarried by the Acheronwould have quicklyfilled it in were it not for the slowlyaggradingspillwaymechanismdiscussedabove.This allowedthe laketo accommodatean increasinglylargervolumeof sedimentvertically and areally,as the lake expandedupvalleybecauseof its slowlyincreasing surface elevation.62
62. Besonen 1997. 63. Dakaris1971; Hammond 1967; Leake 1835; Philippson and Kirsten 1956.
Evidencefor the initialsmallsize of the lake,andfor the subsequent expansionof marshy,swampygroundupvalley,canbe seen by comparing the stratigraphy in cores94-23 and 94-17 with that of core 93-22 (Fig. 6.10;Appendix).Cores94-23 and94-17 arelocatedjust to the eastof the fluvialplug in the valleyconstrictionand contain7.5 and 5.9 m, respectively,of lacustrinemud and clayfromthe Acherousianlake.These lake depositsbegin at 3.1 and 1.7 m below sea level, and run to 4.4 and 4.2 Core 93-22 is locatedca. 1 km east of cores94-23 and masl,respectively. 94-17, in the areaconsideredby Dakarisandothersto be the ancientlake. At this locality,however,a muchthinnersequence(3.5 m) of mixedlacustrine and marshdepositsoccursbetween1.2 and 4.7 masl.The lake deposits in the core are underlainby a very stiff floodplainalluviumwith somepedogenicdevelopment.Thus,thispackageof lacustrineandmarshy depositsshows stratigraphiconlap upvalley,and its transgressivenature confirmsthe gradualincreaseof the lake'ssurfacelevelandits arealexpansionthroughtime.The lakeprobablyneverextendedmuchfurtherupvalley than the locationof core 93-22 becausethe mixedlacustrineand marsh depositin this coreis indicativeof the lakeedge and shore. This informationalsohelpsconstrainthe size andlocationof the lake, at leastas an open bodyof water.Mixedlacustrineandmarshsedimentation at the locationof core93-22 could not havebegununtil the surface level of the lake had reachedat least 1.2 masl (i.e., the base of the lacustrine materialin that core).When did the lake surfacelevel reachthis elevation?By ignoringfactorssuch as subsidenceand changesin the rate of sedimentationor spillwayaggradation,we can looselybase it on the chronologyfromcore94-23. Elevationally,1.2 maslcorrespondsapproximatelywith the middleof the lacustrinesedimentationsequenceof core 94-23. Fromourprecedinganalysisof core94-23, we concludedthat the lake probablycame into existenceafterthe 8th centuryB.C., but before 433 B.C.Continuous,uninterrupteddepositionoccurredthereuntil after the FirstWorldWar,at whichtime the finalremnantsof the swampwere backfilled.Assumingthat the surfacelevel of the lake rose at a constant rate,it would have reached1.2 masl in the middle of this time span,or roughlyA.D. 850. Thus, we estimatethat the expandinglake and marsh groundreachedthe localityof core93-22 aroundthe 9th centuryA.C. This evidencesuggeststhat Dakaris,Hammond,and othersgreatly overestimatedthe size of the lake (Fig. 6.4), especiallyconsideringthat theirreconstructionsare supposedto show the extentof the lake during the classicalperiod.63 In some of the reconstructions, the shapeandlocation of the lake contradictthe moderntopography.Forexample,Dakaris andHammondsuggestthat the lakehad a northeast/southwest-trending
232
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
shorebetweenMesopotamonand Kastri.However,the topographiclines thatwouldhavedefinedthe lakeshorein this areahavea northwest/southeast trend,exclusiveof the elevatedsubaerialnaturalleveeswhich flank the AcheronRiver(Fig. 6.8). Dakaris'sreconstructionalso suggeststhat a branchof the lake extendedto the eastbetweenPountasridgeandthe villagesof Kastri,Kanallakion,andAcherousia,butthis is not correct.This areais a closeddepression (Fig. 6.8) that came into existenceby the same mechanismwhich causedthe impoundmentof theAcherousianlake.In thiscase,theAcheron riverchannelandlevee systempinchedoff the depressionagainstthe tip of the Pountasridge,which projectsup fromthe south.This depression, therefore,would not have come into existenceuntil the course of the Acheron shifted to the south of Kastri.As we discussbelow,this shift probablyoccurredveryrecently,perhapsaroundthe end of the 16th century A.C.
There is additional geologic evidence to suggest that the main body of the Acherousian lake to the west of Pountas ridge was not confluent with
the waterbodyto the eastof the ridge.Laminatedlacustrinesiltsandclays do indeed occur in this small basin, but they form a relatively thin layer and are too high topographicallyto have been deposited by the Acherousian lake. Core 94-03 (Fig. 6.7; Appendix), taken from the center of this small depression, is composed of a backswamp deposit overlain by a freshwater marsh deposit, which is in turn succeeded by floodplain deposits. Core 94-21 (Fig. 6.7; Appendix), located just 450 m to the west, exhibits identical stratigraphybut bottoms out with a floodplain deposit as well. Though core 94-03 did not penetrate these lower floodplain sediments, its proximity to core 94-21 and the fact that it is shorter support the inference that further penetration of core 94-03 would have encountered the same floodplain deposit. The Acherousian lake would have necessarily had a surface elevation at or below the elevation of the fluvial plug sediments that impounded it. This fluvial plug was continuously aggrading,but never reached more than 5.0 masl, the present elevation at the Mesopotamon/Tsouknida valley constriction.Thus, sediments from the Acherousian lake could only have been deposited up to this height. But the backswamp and freshwater marsh deposits in cores 94-03 and 94-21 occur between 5.1 and 7.7 masl. Therefore, the body of standing water in which these sediments were deposited could not possibly have been confluent with the Acherousian lake as the standing water had a significantly higher surface elevation. This conclusively proves that the body of ponded water that once existed here was not a branch of the larger lake as Dakaris indicated. By Turkish times, the Acherousian lake had become a swamp with a few isolated pools of water (Fig. 6.14).64 Continued growth of the Acheron riverchannel and levee system split the remains of this swamp.This interpretation is supported by the broad topographic high of the river channel and levee system to the east of Mesopotamon, and by the closed depression directly to the east of Ephyra, created when the channel and levee system impinged against the bedrock ridge (Fig. 6.8). Leake provided an
64. Hammond 1967, p. 39.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
233
excellentdescriptionof the marshyvalleybottomfromhis travelsthrough the regionin the springof 1809, and he noted that severalpools of open waterstillexisted(Fig.6.15).65Afterthe FirstWorldWar,the finalmarshy remnantsof the formerAcherousianlakewerefilledin for agriculture.66
THE CHANGING COURSE OF THE ACHERON WITH RESPECT TO KASTRI
65. Leake 1835, I1,p. 232; IV, pp. 51-54. 66. Hammond 1967, p. 68. 67. Dakaris 1971, pp. 136-137.
In order to reconcile the archaeological remains in the valley with the accounts of ancient authors, Dakaris suggested that the Acheron River had shifted its course to the south of Kastri since classical times.67Unfortunately, he could not provide geologic evidence with chronological control to supporthis theory.Cores 94-02 and 94-04 providethe evidence to document this shift. Core 94-02 (Fig. 6.7; Appendix) was retrieved north of Kastri, between it and the larger of the two hillocks named Xirolophos (Fig. 6.2). The core consists from the base upward of deposits from the following environments: 1) floodplain, 2) backswamp,3) floodplain, 4) fluvial channel, and 5) floodplain. At the interface between the lowest floodplain unit and the backswamp, a small reddish pottery fragment was encountered. The fragment is abraded and lacks diagnostic features, but ceramic specialists on the project have suggested that the texture of the sherd should place it some time in the classical period. Since this pottery fragment occurs below the deposits of a fluvial channel, it provides a terminuspost quem for the existence of the river channel at that location. Therefore, at some point past the beginning of the classical period, a fluvial channel existed north of Kastri. Core 94-04 (Fig. 6.7; Appendix) was also retrieved north of Kastri, between the hillock of Koronopoulos and the largerof the two Xirolophos hillocks (Fig. 6.2). From the base upward, deposits from the following environments occur in succession: 1) floodplain, 2) backswamp, 3) fluvial channel, 4) backswamp,and 5) floodplain. The fluvial channel sediment is over 1.5 m thick, and contains gravel clasts up to 1 cm in diameter.This deposit is from a significant river channel, like that of the Acheron, and not from a smaller stream.A radiocarbondate on a piece of wood from the base of the fluvial channel deposit returns a calibrated la range of ages from 380 +90/-70 B.P., or A.D. 1570 +70/-90. For radiocarbon dates this young, however, the calibration curve is relatively irregularand the specimen could date to almost any time during the last 500 years.Nevertheless, the radiocarbon date shows that a river channel, probably that of the Acheron River, was operating to the north of Kastri within the last 500 years. When Leake passed through the region in 1809, he recorded that the Acheron River followed a course to the south of Kastri, as it does today.Therefore, if the fluvial channel sediments in core 94-04 are indeed from the Acheron River, it would suggest that the course of the Acheron shifted from the north of Kastri to its south sometime between ca. 1500 and 1809.
234
M.
R. BESONEN,
G. RAPP,
AND
Z. JING
CONCLUSIONS Numerous ancient authors,beginning with Homer in the 8th century B.C., make reference to the lower Acheron valley and indicate a landscape configuration that is significantly different from at present.Three notable discrepanciesbetween the ancient and modern landscapeexist.The first problem concerns the size of the Glykys Limen (modern Phanari Bay), which at present is very small, but was much larger in ancient times. The second significant discrepancyconcerns the evolution of the extinct Acherousian lake, which ancient sources indicate was a conspicuous feature in the valley.The final discrepancyconcerns the course of the Acheron River,which today flows to the south of Kastribut was once located to the north of that site. Geologic evidence based on twenty-eight gouge auger sediment cores taken at various locations in the valley indicates that significant geomorphic change has occurred in the valley during the last 4,000 years. The shoreline of the Glykys Limen has prograded nearly 6 km in that time, doing so at varying rates. The Acherousian lake developed relatively late in the Holocene probablybetween the 8th century B.C.and 433 B.C. Since that time it has been filled in by natural alluvial processes, modified by a constantly aggrading spillway.Finally, the Acheron River appearsto have occupied a channel to the north of Kastri, and has only shifted to the south of that hillock in the last 500 years. It appears that the discrepancies between the ancient accounts and the modern landscape are not due to errorsin the ancient sources, but are instead the result of a naturalsequence of landscape evolution in the valley. Furthermore, careful examination of the ancient accounts may in some cases provide details and information for paleogeographic and paleoenvironmentalreconstructionsthat arenot recoverablefrom the geologic record. The disciplines of geology and archaeology find a natural interface here, both contributing to, and benefiting from, one another. Indeed, the dynamic geomorphic evolution seen in the Acheron valley during the last 4,000 years reaffirmsthe need for multidisciplinaryarchaeologicalinvestigations that strive for a broad understanding of the dynamics of environmental change.
LOWER
ACHERON
RIVER
VALLEY
235
APPENDIX: CORE STRATIGRAPHY AND LITHOLOGY This appendixcontainsthe sedimentcore stratigraphyfrom all twentyeight corestakenin the Acheronvalley.Width of the core,lithologicpatterns,anda "SedimentType"descriptionreflectthe grainsize andtype of observations. sedimentbasedon fieldandlaboratory Organicmatterpresent is indicatedby one of the symbolsin the legendbelow. in the stratigraphy Locationsof calibrated14CAMS dates areindicatedby arrows."Color" (accordingto the Munsell Soil Color Chart),weight percentof organic matterdeterminedby loss on ignition analysis("%OrganicContent"), are also included and resultsof the microfossilanalyses("Microfossils") of Deposition"field representsour (see legendbelow).The "Environment basedon all availabledata.All primary interpretationof the stratigraphy data,includingresultsfrommagneticanalyses,pipettegrain-sizeanalysis, microfossilplatesandcounts,andanydatanot includedhere,canbe found in Besonen1997,which is freelyavailablein AdobeAcrobatPDF format (see note 1 for details). Symbol w\il
(1J_) _~ (_i) C-100 44BP qty.615: 1.3%F, 91.4%B, 7.3%R
Explanation commoncoarse-grained organicmatter abundant organicmatter coarse-grained few to tracecoarse-grained organicmatter commonfine-grained organicmatter abundant fine-grainedorganicmatter few to tracefine-grainedorganicmatter calibratedC-14AMSdatein yearsB.P. brackishto marine qty. XXX = quantity/totalnumber of freshwater, water,andreworkedmicrofossilsin the sample 1.3%F = percentageof freshwaterformsin quantityXXX = 91.4%B percentageof brackishto marinewaterformsin quantityXXX in quantityXXX 7.3%R = percentageof reworkedmicrofauna
Sediment Type
o
0 I
slightly sandy silt
100 / 90
(KJL/)
150 /40
('JJ)-
not recorded 5Y5/2
mud 5Y4/2
- - - - -
200 /-10 0-
2501/-60
slightly silty clay
5Y5/2
300 /-110 Cr
350 /-160
0a)
400 /-210
0
4501/-260
fine sand 5Y5/1
500 / 310 0z 01
% Organic Content
a- -L C- a- CD 190
50 /140
cr,
Color
5501/-360 clay
600 / -410
2.5Y; N5/
650 /-460 700 /-510
7.5YR;_N-4f-
7501/-560 Zs
a
a-=a-L a a 0
NC-92-16
I
I
0j I
Microfo
Sediment Type
Color
I
0 /100
50 /50 100 /0 150/ -O
mixed beach sand
not recorded
200 /-100 250 /-150 a) a)-
300 / 200
a)
350 /-250
% Organic Content
cj -
~0 C C.) a1)
C) 0
C)
NC-92-1 7
I
I
I
Microfo
0/100
Sediment Type
Color
mud
not recorded
mixed beach sand
2.5Y5/2
% Organic Content
I
_ _ _
150/ -50 200 /-100
-
0
''-
^'
i
()
,
-
mud -
CD
C)
~0 110
0 0
0
NC-92-18
2.5Y4/4
I
I
I
Microfo
Sediment Type
Color
% Organic Content
CD Ct
C )
-100 /40
-
-50 /-10
-
1n
0-
-
100 /-160
-
150 /-210
-
200 / -260
-
tf
250 /-310 0) 300 /-360
-
0
350 /-410
-
400 /-460
-
0
4501/-510
-
500 /-560
-
5501/-610
-
600 / -660
-
0D
C.
-
sea level - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 / -60 50 /-110
0)
fine sandy mud
..... . .... .
~ ~
(\ lL/
muddy fine sand fine sand with clay interlayers
-
not recorded-5Y3/1 7.5YR5/0 with 2.5Y5/6 mottles
5Y4/1
- F:
3~~~~~C CD/
clay grading upwardto slightly clayey silt
2.5Y3/0
5Y3/1
NC-92-19
4E-25Y6/6with 5Y3/2 mottles 2.5Y4/4 with 41-2.5Y4/0 mottles
t-i
0)
w
0
Microfo
Sediment Type
o 90
a,-~3
n-7 not recorded -
Ji 4 - -
- -
(\JL/)
150 /-60
clay
200 /-110 CA
250 /-160
0-
300 /-210
a) 04-
350 /-260
0
400 /-310
2.5Y6/5 with IOYR5/6 mottles E-5Y5/ Iwith -- 5Y6/6 mottles 2,5Y4/4 mottles
fine sand to muddy fine sand
2.5Y3/0
interbeddedclay, mud, silt, and muddy fine sand
2.5YR3/0
\jIL
0~
450 /-360 500 /-410
0) Q
550 /-460
0--
600 /-510
01 0)
% Organic Content C)C)
50 /40 100 /-10
Color
\IIC-14: 2650 = +70/ 290 BP
2 0 P := a l0a a C,C
BEDROCK OR GRAVEL
0
NC-92-20
tj
wJ
0
Microfo
241
a o
JS
OS-
30 20 10 V
20-
p e- 0
pebble
c. sand -c-
m. sand -
- m. sand
f. sand-
,- f. sand - silt
1
silt clay -
I
o
o ?
)
a
o ?
o m
o
Cl o) m
(sl3mj3
o
oC
o
t
t
^
oC
o O o e
oC n
C> _
luo33) JlA3l 3oS OAOqt UOlthA3jp /
JlOOUl
qldaI
_
_
Sediment Type
0/300 50/250 100/200
-
--C~~~~~~~~C ~~~~~~~~~.._
,
-
~~
-
e
level
slightly silty clay
200 /100 -
_/3
(_I/
_
-
450 /-150 500/-200
0
-
_:::::/:_ : '.
_..:
600 /-300 0
- __ _- _ _
'.." _'fl .'. v.(_ _
_) B..".: - J
_'.'.n '.m 4 :
5G5/1
slightly sandy silt fining upwardto mud
5G5/1 to 5G4/1 with 20-50% 2.5Y5/6 mottles
clay
5G4/1
interbeddedgravelly sands to fine sands
N5/0 to N4/0
7
. . _ .. _ .. /::'.o _ .. _io. ......--':?*'rf'.' 650 /-350 - :::...'-':':. -
cn
700/-400
o
750 /-450 -
~.' ".: ' :' '-/:
Q2
800 /-500 850 / -550 -
. -se
levelo
i'a'|Xt; ?.
1100 / -800 1150 / -850 1200 / -900 -
X'Xa
(\JI)
~~~~~(iJ/ ^lll?~~(1~
950 /-650 -
1050/ -750 -
.
...
900 /-600 -
1000 / -700 -
-
'
.-: .' _
?_,.-_--L ...
-
*-
clay
550 /-250 -
0
.-
2.5Y5/4
5BG5/1
400 / -100
r(
I
2.5Y6/6
N3/0 and N5/0
level ---sea ~.-. _::_-.._...k,
350 /-50 -
-?
o
I
mud
250/50
fine sandy mud grading upwardto fine sand
N3/0
.:' ':g-------
*;: -:*.:*-; ,;* *
;
- .
-
-
laminatedclays, muds, and silts with several cm-thick muddy fine sand layers
5GY4/1
5G4/1
1250/ -950
NC-93-14
4-
_
o0
mud
150/ 150 -
300/0
silt
% Organic Content
Color
5Y5/2
N?
(-
0o
0
I
I
Microfo
Sediment Type
Color
% Organic Content o0
0/50 sea level
50/0 100/ -50
.. . .,.,
.-. :
gravelly sand fining upward to sandy mud
5G4/1
150 /-100 0
.-
200 / -150 250 / -200
..
-
. .:._: ... -_..
:.-'
'
N4/0
'
.i._.
interbeddedfine sands and muddy sands with some mud layers
300/ -250 350 / -300
13
0 ra (D -
0 o0 {D 0D
0
-1a-YR33:: 5Y5/6 5Y6/6
400/ -350
N4/0 interbedded with 5Y4/1
5BG4/1
450/ -400 500/ -450
-.'.--.'' '.-_.-".
-.
'~..
550/ -500 600 / -550 650/ -600 700/ -650
0
' :' ',':',.,
'. .
._.?1
-_c.
mud
5G4/1
fine sand
5GY4/1
v i
:
0
CL
NC-93-15
s _I
o
0o
0I
Microfo
Sediment Type
Color
slightly clayey silt grading upwardto fine sandy silt
10OYR4/4 and 5Y6/4
a a-Q. a0/50 50/0100 / -50
sea level
.............. .. _. _ . . .. ... -.
.. . ..
.
..
200 / -150-
a)
250 /-200-
muddy fine sand
gravelly sand ?
300 / -250
... -
5Y6/6
mud
150 / -100-a
xl/
.
:_
.. -..
muddy fine sand
5G4/1 5Y5/1 5G5/1
a , a Da)
*-4
o
c~ c)
0
NC-93-17
% Organic Content o0
o
0o
0
I
I
I
I
Microf
Sediment Type ..
- 0CL sr
_
_
Ii 1
0/50
.*-*
-..
50/0
- .**-**
..- ....
1
1
- ---
\jL/
i
---
---I
z ---r~ 100 /-50 , * | ?/ * - :.C' " .'-, '.- '..e. B'~.";f.:.: ri 150 /-100 - '*;g ~?.'i-: D;.Jl .@;-.''.'- ,,.-
200 / -150
t- r. _.****
-.i****^'
-
.n
;-i-i-I li
^
Cr
g +90/-30BP
-
slightly clayey silt mud and peaty mud
interbeddedclay, mud, and gravelly sand
300 /-250
500 /-450 _0
0
C
mud coarsening upwardto fine sand
-
550 /-500 600 /-550 650 /-600 700 /-650 750 / -700 -
0
iinteri6edded-N2/70 -andlQOYRl5/6--. 5Y4/2 and 5Y7/3
interbedded 5Y8/3 and 5G4/1
5GY4/1
350 /-300 400 /-350 450 /-400 -
0
10Y3/2
5Y8/2
250 /-200
+-,
***
3
5BG5/1 5BG5/1 with some 10YR5/3 laminae
2
0
o--__((i-i _ _
_
_ _ _ _
laminatedclays, muds, and silts
0
5G4/1
800 /-750 850/ -800
p.g.... -
?.
2
% Organic Content % Organic Content I
1
sea level --
= _==
Color Color
-~
NC-93-18
I
I
I
Microfo Microfo
0
c
.-
r
Pz 0
0-
C.c
0
Sediment Type
Color
CD --
0/90 5Y6/4
50/40 _ _ _ _ _
100 / -10 sH
4--4
150/ -60
fine to coarse sand with some muddy layers
250 /-160
a)
300 /-210 5BG4/1 to 5GY4/1
350 / -260 co 0 0u
5GY4/1 5B4/1
200 / -110
0
400 / -310
laminatedmuds, silts and fine sands
450/ -360 500 / -410
i0
550 / -460
5GY4/1
0
0
W-
600 / -510 650/ -560
g
700 / -610
slightly clayey silt ..
...
2.5Y5/3 2.5Y4/3
.........
mud
5Y8/3
...........
350 /250
slightly clayey silt
400 / 200
5Y4.5/2
450/ 150 m
o
500/100
>
550 / 50
'*3
600/0
O '
650/ -50 700/-100
...... ..-.... :. .?':..'.... . ..... K._. . _. .. _ . .
2.5Y5/4
slightly clayey silt
2.5Y4/4
interbeddedmuds and silts with some fine to medium sandy layers
5BG5/1
very poorly sorted, slightly muddy, fine to gravelly sand
5B4/1
?
, .
750 /-150 800/ -200
O
fine sandy silt sea level
-
_ . . . .:_z.:. _ . .
,
850/-250
. .....
... _ ..
900 /-300 950/ -350
, ;
1000 /-400
% Organic Content
I . _.._. ... .
50/550
2
Color
1050/-450
NC-94-11
I
I
I
I
Microf
Sediment Type
o
500
50/450-
..
Color
% Organic Content (= "
. 0.
~- Cl~ 00
Microfo
0>
..... ... . .. ..............n
2.5Y5/4
100/40000-1
a)
200 300-
a)
250/250-
0D a)
350 150-
a)
400/100-
00
0U 0D
500 /0550 / -o
650 -150-
a)
..level. sea.
slightly clayey silt
2.5Y5/4
450 /50-
600/-100-
0
2.5Y4.5/4
300/200-
15
a)-
5Y4/3
150/350-
$a)
700/-200-
... . . ..
. ..
0
... . . ... . .. ... .
qty. 48: 43.8% F, 0.
slightly silty clay ..-
._
_ sea level _
mud with silty laminae towardbottom
-
-
(
)
450 /-60 m
500 /-110 -
>
550 /-160 600 /-210 -
=
650/-260
'
-14: 850 ',c -+80/-60 BP
fine sandy mud grading upwardto mud
2.5Y4/3
qty. 11: 90.9% F, 0.
transitional
qty. 0: 0.0% F, 0.0
5GY4.5/1
qty. 10: 0.0% F, 0.0
5BG5/1
qty. 423: 4.0% F, 13
5GY3/1
mud with interbedded clay laminae
-
700 / -310 ,
-
750 / -360
800/-410 850 /-460 900/-510
interbeddedmuds, silts, and muddy sands
-
-
*_.:_::=::
3 CD
.'.-._.._. ..,. . , .
U x,C-4
5GY4/1 5
qty. 119: 0.0% F, 10
laminatedclays, muds, and silts
950/ -560 1000 /-610 1 1050 /-660 -
qty. 101: 0.0% F, 10 i
_? ~
_-I
NC-94-13
Sediment Type
Color
% Organic Content 'I
0/ 480
I
--4
50 /430 -
a)
-
100/380
-
150/330
-
200/280
-
250/230
-
(_/)
*
450/30
-
500 /-20 550 / -70 -
I
A
I
- sea level _ _
_
_
_ _
_
_
clay
5BG4/1
peat and peaty mud
5GY4/1
________
_~
~~~~C
_~
~~~~C
600 /-120 'IL,
. Pg
650 / -170
5~
700 /-220 750 /-270 -
0
2.5Y5/2
I I
( )
0
-0
mud
I
350 / 130 400 / 80 -
o
2.5Y4/2
I
I
/
300 / 180 (D
slightly clayey silt
I
Microfos
800 /-320 850 /-370 900 / -420
qty. 292: 0.0% F, 60.6 I
I I
I
I
I
poorly sorted sand
,. C--~._ _
NC-94-17
Sediment Type Cn
oC
Color
% Organic Content o
0/ 470
I . _. .. _. .. . ..
50 /420 -
au ca
.. .
....- ... ... ...
100/370
-
150/320
-
200/270
- _.... ... . _.._. .
250/220
-
(
)
0
550 /-80 600 /-130 -
a)
650 /-180 -
oC
oo0
I
I
I
2.5Y4/3 a silty fine sand gradingupwardto sandy silt
2.5Y5/4
qty. 54: 0.0% F, 0.0
-mud
400 / 70 -
r0
.
I
slightly clayey silt
350/ 120 -
- _ ._-._ .500 /-30 -
Ki
2.5Y5/3
300/ 170 -
450/20
Microfo
C)D
sea level - -
coarse, gravelly sand gradingupwardto silty fine sand
5BG5/1
C-14. 1670 40 /-120 BP
qty. 2: 0.0% F, 100
BEDROCK
(D
-ao0
NC-94-20
Sediment Type
2.5Y5/4 .._.
._._
.
.. ...
100 / 900 ._.
._ .. ._.
..
slightly clayey silt
.
150/850
2.5Y5/3
200 / 800 CA
transitional
250 / 750
peat and peaty mud
300 / 700
slightly silty clay
400 / 600
5BG5/1
450 / 550 01 0
5B5/1 5G5/1
350 / 650
r4I
500 / 500
slightly clayey silt
5Y6/4
550/450 600 / 400
% Organic Content oI I
0 / 1000 50 / 950
Color
400 cm above sesea leve level i0cm ibv _ __ _ , , , , _
_ _
_ _
_CL . . .
0
NC-94-21
o I
I I
I
Microfo
Sediment Type Type
Color
Content % % Organic Organic Content
Microfo
U) CD I.0>
C) I
0/520 slightly clayey silt
(\iI/)
50/470-
I
wJ
0 I
i
2.5Y4/2
qty. 16: 6.3% F, 0.
100/420-
mud
150/370-
5Y4/3
qty. 229: 10.50 F, 0
a) 0
200/320
-
250/270
-
300 220
-
15 a)
350/170-
a)
400/120-
slightly silty clay
5Y5/2
qty.
24: 12.50 F, 0.
qty. 53. 3.8% F, 0.0
qty. 11: 36.4% F, 0.
450 /70-
5Y4/3
500 /20-
sea level
qty. 6: 100.000 F, 0
- - - - - - - -
550 /-30-
qty. 7: 14.300 F, 0.0
clay
600 /-80a1)
qty.21: 71.4% F, 0.
ra
650 /-130-
0)
700 /-180
qty. 122: 100.000 F,
0
5BG65/1
750 -230la
0
800/-280-
850 -330-
\LI
950
peat and peaty mud
-430(-ML.
l000/-480 1050 -530
-
1100 -580
-
100.000
F, 0
qty. 33: 100.000
F, 0
qty. 96:
C-1: 03 +10 10 B
900/-380
qty.5: 100.000F, 0
5G5/1 for sediment; and 2.5YR2.5/1 for peat
qty. 68: 95.600F, 4
qty.879: 010I%F,88
laminatedclays, silts, and fine sands
1150/-630-
0
5G5/1
qty. 615: 1.30oF, 9
0 qty. 579:
1200 -680 .-O CD0
NC-94-23
1.4%
F, 92
CHAPTER
7
SUMMARY
OBSERVATIONS
byJames Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos
1. Including all the questionslisted in Chapter 1, pp. 8-9.
This first volume of the results of the Nikopolis Project provides the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the research and describes the changes in the landscape of southern Epirus from the time of the earliesthuman inhabitants(more than 250,000 yearsago) up to the present. These reports constitute the frameworkinto which will be set the remaining results of the project (to be presented in volume 2), including discussions of the changing patterns of settlement and land use revealed by the diachronic survey.At the same time, the reports in this volume provide in themselves contributions both in substantive results and in the severalcritiques of methodologies. The authors have endeavored in all cases to be explicit about the aims of the research,how the investigations were carried out (what worked and what did not), the constraints on the fieldwork and analyses (however imposed), and the significance of the results. A final assessment of the significance of the project'sresults, however, must await the publication of volume 2. The broad aim of the Nikopolis Project-to explain the changing relationships between humans and the landscape they inhabited in southern Epirus-required an intensely interdisciplinaryapproach.In orderto study humans in their landscape, it was essential to determine early in the investigation just what that landscape was, and to develop parameters of as many other environmental factors as possible. The collaboration of archaeologists and geologists was vital not only to the general aim of the project, but also to many of the research questions concerned with problems or issues belonging to specific time periods.1It is important to stress this close collaborationbecause it affected almost all aspects of the project, from conception to publication. Geologic and geographic/political considerations, for example, played a greater role in determining the boundaries and size of the zone to be investigated than the likely areathat could be walked by archaeological survey teams. We were well aware from the beginning that 1,200 km2constituted too large an areafor intensive survey over even most of it, much less all of it, and such a survey was never intended. It was our aim instead to test by survey all the different kinds of environmental zones, and eventually to focus the diachronic survey on a few regions of particularinterest, as determined both by culturaland envi-
266
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
ronmentalfactors.As discussedin Chapter2, two of those regionswere the AyiosThomaspeninsulaand the lowerAcheronvalley.Still, the diachronicsurveywas a component of the project,not the definitionof the In itself. the size of the projectareawas no impediterms, geologic project ment;the boundariesencloseda reasonablycoherentareabased on the lower coursesof the two principalrivers,the Acheronand the Louros, while still providingdiverseenvironmentalzones (a desideratumof the researchdesign),rangingfrom coastlinesand marshesto inlandvalleys, uplandplains,and ruggedmountains.2The surveyzone, essentiallythe modernnomos of Preveza,includesmost, perhapsall, of the territorium controlleddirectlyby Nikopolisin Romantimes,3a usefulunit of analysis for a time periodof particularinterestto the project.A minorconsiderationwas thatwe werealsoableto test the applicabilityof remote-sensing imageryto a largeregionalstudy. The papersin this volumeprovidesubstantialevidenceof the utility of this combinedgeologic-archaeological approach.Tartaron'sreporton details several of the waysthat the operationof methodology(Chapter2) the surveybenefitedfromthe geologiccomponents,rangingfrom selection of areasfor surveyto the interpretationof certainphenomenaobservedin the field.The theoreticalandmethodologicaldiscussionsin that samechapterplacethe conductof the surveyin its historicalcontext,and providesufficientdetail,we hope,for readersto assessthe significanceof the surveyboth in its relationshipsto othercomponentsof the projectand (ultimately)in understandingthe culturaland environmentalfactorsaffectingthe distributionof artifactsacrossthe landscape. The discoveryearlyin the 1991fieldseasonby RunnelsandvanAndel of the first Lower Palaeolithictool-an Acheuleanhandaxe-found in southeastEuropein a securegeologiccontextwas the precursorto a series of discoveriesand analysesthat madepossibletheirpresentationof a coherentevolutionof earlyhumanhabitationin Epirus(Chapter3). Their explanationof the creationand evolutionof poljesand loutsesin the dynamickarstlandscapeof Epirusis both an importantcontributionto geomorphologyand a basis for understandingthe attractionsof the region were throughtime. Smallbandsof LowerPalaeolithichunter-gatherers drawnto the lakesand pondsthat accumulatedin the karstdepressions, not only as a sourceof waterbut alsofor the birdsandotheranimalsthat gatheredthere.Erosionof the surroundinglimestoneand alongthe associated streamsalso made availableconcentrationsof flint. The Middle Palaeolithicinhabitants,more numerousthan theirpredecessorsmillennia before,wereequallyattractedto the lakes,marshes,and swampsscatteredacrossthe landscapefromthe Lourosgorgeto the ridgesthat (now) overlookthe Ionian Sea.The specializednatureof manyof the Middle Palaeolithicsites,whichwereseasonallyrevisited,suggeststhatthe foraging groups-Neanderthalsor archaicHomosapiens-were followinglogisticalpatterns. The EarlyUpperPalaeolithic(EUP), the periodduringwhich modern HomosapiensreplacedNeanderthals,is representedmore sparsely. RunnelsandvanAndel point out that the smallscattersof EUP artifacts atpoljeandloutsasitesindicatea patternof landuse differentfromthatof
2. See the discussionin Chapter 1, pp. 2-3, and in Chapter2.
3. The principalquestionconcerns the easternboundary. On the northeast it terminated at the territoryof Photike;the ancient town has been identified as the archaeologicalsite some 3 km south of the town of Paramythiain the plain of Chrysauge, but its territoriallimits areuncertain (see Samsaris1988). The territoryof Nikopolis may have includedpart of the deltaicplain of the ArachthosRiver west of Ambracia,the ancient Corinthiancolony,which was evidently in ruins at the time of the founding of Nikopolis; see Doukellis 1990.
SUMMARY
OBSERVATIONS
267
earlierperiods. Anomalous for this time period is the site of Spilaion near the (present)mouth of the Acheron, perhapsthe largestlithic site in Greece. It is an open-air Aurignacian site, rare in Greece, and extraordinarilyrich in lithic artifacts,which are estimated to total some 150,000. In Chapter 4, Runnels, Karimali, and Cullen report on their spatial analysis of the material,which demonstratesthe existenceof specificareasof activitywithin the site. The success of the spatial analysis is testimony to its utility in the study of artifact-rich sites. No new sites of the Late Upper Palaeolithic, which was of short duration in Epirus, were discovered by the project,but six Mesolithic sites were added to the small number previously known in Greece. All these new sites, discussed by Runnels and van Andel, were along the new Holocene coast of the Ionian Sea. Chapter 5 is a detailed account by Jing and Rapp of the geomorphologic changes over the past 10,000 yearsof the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf and the Nikopolis peninsula. Their extensive program of geologic cores, laboratoryanalyses, and repeated examinations of the landscape has resulted in an understanding of the dramatic changes over time in these regions, which are displayed in a series of maps showing paleogeographic reconstructions of the Nikopolis peninsula and the northern coast of the Ambracian Gulf from ca. 6500 to 500 B.P. They have also determined the principalgeologic and environmentalforcesthat brought about the changes, as well as some of the cultural influences that were also at work. They demonstrated that eustatic sea-level rise from the melting of glaciers was the dominant force in determining coastal change from ca. 13,000 to ca. 6500 B.P., after which tectonic subsidence caused the sea level to continue to rise, but more slowly, until ca. 4500 B.P. when maximum marine transgression was reached; at that time, the Ambracian embayment extended north to Mts. Rokia and Stavros,leaving at most a narrowpassage at their base. Relative sea level continued to rise for the next 3,000 years, until about A.D. 500, because tectonic subsidence proceeded at a rate greater than the accumulation of sediment from rivers entering from the north. At that time, the amount of sediment from rivers and streams, and from erosion, exceeded the relative sea-level rise, and the northern shoreline moved graduallyinto the gulf, incorporating islands and creating lagoons and swamps. Jing and Rapp correlatethese dramatic changes with some of the notable archaeologicalsites in the region, especially Nikopolis and its harbor on the peninsulaand KastroRogon, the ancientBouchetion, nearthe mouth of the Louros River gorge. They show, for example, that the latter was originally a town on a small island near the coast (the gap was bridgeable), and so could have served as a regional port town itself. In late antiquity it became an inland town, and was only reconnected to the sea when the Louros River was diverted by human means in the medieval period; as a result of this diversion, the river flowed beneath the town walls in a new channel that led along the mountains and the Grammeno plain to enter the gulf near Nikopolis. Besonen, Rapp, and Jing in Chapter 6 document the equally dramatic changes during the Holocene in the lower Acheron River valley and in Phanari Bay,the ancient Glykys Limen (or "Sweet Harbor")at the present
268
JAMES
WISEMAN
AND
KONSTANTINOS
ZACHOS
mouthof the river.Geologiccores,again,provedindispensableto the paof factorsinvolved andto the understanding reconstructions, leogeographic in coastalchangeandthe evolutionboth of the bayandthe lowerAcheron valley.The muchlargerbaythatexistedduringthe BronzeAge andclassical antiquity,with two entrancesfromthe IonianSea,now makesunderstandablethe accountsin ancientliteratureof the greatfleetsthatcouldbe accommodatedthere.The size of the earlierbay enhancedthe strategic locationof the BronzeAge site identifiedas Ephyra,on the hill of Xylokastro,whichclosesthe easternsideof the earliermainportionof the bay. Other resultsincludethe resolutionof the long-standingproblemof the locationof the Acherousianlake, mentionedby ancientwriters,and its overtimewiththeAcheronRiverandthe fortifiedurbansettlerelationship ment upstream,known locally as Kastriand which may be the ancient Pandosia. We close this chapterwith a modest disclaimer:as editors,we have herepresentedsummaryobservationson the reportsin volume1, not a set of finalconclusions,whichwill followin volume2. That volumewill also containreportson the studyof the culturalremains,alongwith the integrationof the resultsof the diachronicsurveywith the geomorphologic investigationsthat havebeen presentedhere.
REFERENCES
and Adam, E. 1989. A Technological of Upper TypologicalAnalysis PalaeolithicStoneIndustriesofEpirus, NorthwesternGreece(BAR-IS 512), Oxford. Alcock, S. E. 1991. "UrbanSurveyand the Polisof Phlius,"Hesperia60, pp. 421-463. .1993. GraeciaCapta:TheLandscapesof RomanGreece,Cambridge. Alcock, S. E.,J. F. Cherry,andJ. L. Davis. 1994. "IntensiveSurvey, AgriculturalPractice,and the ClassicalLandscapeof Greece,"in ClassicalGreece: AncientHistoriesand ModernArchaeologies, ed. I. Morris, Cambridge,pp. 137-170. Allsworth-Jones,P. 1986. TheSzeletian and theTransition from Middleto UpperPaleolithicin CentralEurope, Oxford. Ammerman,A.J. 1981. "Surveysand ArchaeologicalResearch,"Annual Review ofAnthropology10, pp. 6388. . 1985. "Plow-Zone Experiments in Calabria,Italy,"JFA12, pp. 33-40. . 1993. Rev.of Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani1991, inJFA 20, pp.367-372. a Arsebiik,G. 1993. "Yarimburgaz, Lower PaleolithicCave Site near Istanbul,"in BetweentheRiversand OvertheMountains:Archaeologica anatolicaet mesopotamica Alba Palmieridedicata,ed. M. Frangipane, H. Hauptmann,M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink, Rome, pp. 23-36.
. 1996. "The Cave of Yarimburgaz(the Oldest Stratified Site Yet Known in Turkey),"in VomHalyszum Euphrat(Altertumskundedes vorderenOrients 7), ed. T. Beran,Miinster,pp. 113. Ascoli, P. 1964. "PreliminaryEcological Study on Ostracodafrom Bottom Cores of the Adriatic Sea,"PubblicazionidellaStazione Zoologicadi Napoli 33 (suppl.), pp.213-246. Ashmore,W., and A. B. Knapp,eds. 1999. Archaeologies ofLandscape: Malden, Contemporary Perspectives, Mass. Aubouin,J. 1959. "Contributiona l'etude geologique de la Grece septentrionale:Les confins de l'Epireet de la Thessalie,"Annales geologiquesdespays helleniques10, pp. 1-525. . 1965. Geosynclines, Amsterdam. Bailey,G. 1992. "The Paleolithicof Klithi in Its Wider Context,"BSA 87, pp. 1-28. , ed. 1997. Klithi:Palaeolithic Settlementand QuaternaryLandscapesin NorthwestGreece,2 vols., Cambridge. Bailey,G. N., E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perles,and K. Zachos, eds. 1999. ThePalaeolithicArchaeology of Greeceand AdjacentAreas: Proceedings of the ICOPAGConference, Ioannina, 1994 (BSA Studies 3), September London.
270
Bailey,G. N., P. L. Carter,C. S. Gamble, and H. P. Higgs. 1983a. "Epirus Revisited:Seasonalityand Inter-Site Variationin the Upper Palaeolithic of North-West Greece,"in HunterA GathererEconomyin Prehistory: ed. G. Bailey, EuropeanPerspective, Cambridge,pp. 64-78. . 1983b. "Asprochalikoand Kastritsa:FurtherInvestigations of PalaeolithicSettlement and Economy in Epirus (North-West Greece),"PPS 49, pp. 14-42. Bailey,G., G. King, and D. Sturdy. 1993. "ActiveTectonics and LandUse Strategies:A Palaeolithic Examplefrom Northwest Greece," Antiquity67, pp. 292-312. Bailey,G. N.,J. Lewin, M. G. Macklin, andJ. C. Woodward.1990. "The 'Older Fill' of the Voidomatis Valley,Northwest Greece, and Its Relationshipto the Palaeolithic Archaeologyand Glacial History of the Region,"JAS17, pp. 145150. Bailey,G., V. Papaconstantinou,and D. Sturdy.1992. "Asprochaliko and Kokkinopilos:TL Dating and Reinterpretationof Middle PalaeolithicSites in Epirus, Northwest Greece,"CAJ2, pp. 136144. Barbaroux,L., and B. Bousquet.1976. "Contributiona l'etude des sols mediterraneens:Les sols rouges du domaine helleniquede Grece occidentale,"Geologiemdditerraneenne 3, pp.237-250. Bard,E., M. Arnold, R. G. Fairbanks, and B. Hamelin. 1993. "23?Th-234U and 14CAges Obtained by Mass Spectrometryon Corals,"Radiocarbon35, pp. 191-199. Bard,E., B. Hamelin, and R. G. Fairbanks. 1990. "U-Th Ages Obtained by Mass Spectrometryin Corals from Barbados:Sea Level during the Past 130,000 Years,"Nature346, pp. 456-459. Bard,E., and B. Kromer.1995. "The YoungerDryas:Absolute and RadiocarbonChronology,"in TheYoungerDryas:Proceedings of a Workshop at theRoyalNetherlands AcademyofArts and Scienceson 11-13 April 1994 (Verhandelingen der KoninklijkeNederlandse
REFERENCES
Akademievan Wetenschappen, Afdeling Natuurkunde,Eerste Reeks 44), ed. S. R. Troelstra, J. E. van Hinte, and G. M. Ganssen, Amsterdam,pp. 161-166. Barker,G. 1991. "Approachesto ArchaeologicalSurvey,"in Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Surveyin theMediterraneanRegion,ed. G. BarkerandJ. Lloyd, London, pp. 1-9. Barker,G., and D. Mattingly.1999. "GeneralEditors'Introduction: The POPULUS Project,"in PastPopulation Reconstructing Trendsin MediterraneanEurope (3000 B.C-A.D. 1800) (The Archaeology of MediterraneanLandscapes 1), ed. J. Bintliff and K. Sbonias, Oxford,pp. iii-ix. Bar-Yosef,0. 1998. "EarlyColonizations and CulturalContinuities in the Lower Palaeolithicof WesternAsia,"in EarlyHuman Behaviourin GlobalContext:The Rise and Diversityof theLower PaleolithicRecord,ed. M. D. Petragliaand R. Korisettar, London, pp. 221-279. Bennett, K., P. C. Tzedakis,and K. Willis. 1991. "Quaternary Refugiaof North EuropeanTrees," Journalof Biogeography 18, pp. 103115. Besonen, M. 1997. "The Middle and Late Holocene Geology and LandscapeEvolution of the Lower Acheron RiverValley,Epirus, Greece"(M.S. thesis, Universityof Minnesota). Bhatia, S. B. 1968. "PleistoceneOstracodes from the Upper Karewasof Kashmir,India,"Micropaleontology 14, pp. 465-483. Binford,L. R. 1964. "AConsideration of ArchaeologicalResearchDesign," AmerAnt29, pp. 425-441. Bintliff,J. 1985. "The Boeotia Survey," in Archaeological Field Surveyin BritainandAbroad,ed. S. Macready and F. H. Thompson, London, pp.196-216. . 1997. "RegionalSurvey, Demography,and the Rise of Complex Societies in the Ancient Aegean: Core-Periphery,NeoMalthusian,and Other Interpretive Models,"JFA24, pp. 1-38.
REFERENCES
Bintliff,J., and A. Snodgrass.1985. "The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition:The First FourYears,"JFA 12, pp.123-161. . 1988a. "Off-Site Pottery Distributions:A Regional and InterregionalPerspective," CurrAnthr29, pp. 506-513. . 1988b. "MediterraneanSurvey and the City,"Antiquity62, pp. 57-71. Birkeland,P.W. 1984. Soilsand New York. Geomorphology, . 1999. Soilsand Geomorphology, 3rd ed., New York. Bockheim,J. G., J. G. Marshall,and H. M. Kelsey.1996. "Soil-Forming Processesand Rates on Uplifted MarineTerracesin Southwestern Oregon,USA," Geoderma72, pp.39-62. Boero, V., and U. Schwertmann.1987. "OccurrenceandTransformation of Iron and Manganesein a ColluvialTerraRossaToposequence of NorthernItaly,"Catena14, pp.519-531. . 1989. "Iron-OxideMineralogy of TerraRossa and Its Genetic Implications,"Geoderma 44, pp. 319-327. Bommelj6,S., and P. K. Doom. 1987. Aetoliaand theAetolians:Towards theInterdisciplinary Studyof a Greek Region,Utrecht. Bordes,F. 1992. Lefonssurle Paleolithen Europe, ique2: Le Pal6olithique Paris. Bottema, S. 1974. "LateQuaternary VegetationHistory of Northwestern Greece"(diss. Universityof Groningen). . 1978. "The Late Glacial in the EasternMediterraneanand the Near East,"in TheEnvironmentalHistoryof theNear and MiddleEast sincetheLastIceAge, ed. W. C. Brice,New York, pp. 15-28. . 1994. "The Prehistoric Environmentof Greece:A Review of the PalynologicalRecord,"in Kardulias1994b, pp. 45-68. .1995. "The YoungerDryas in the EasternMediterranean," QuaternaryScienceReviews14, pp. 883-892.
Bradley,R., T. Durden, and N. Spencer. 1994. "The CreativeUse of Bias in Field Survey,"Antiquity68, pp. 343-346. Buidel,J. 1973. "Reliefgenerationen der Poljebildungim Dinarischen Raum,"Geographische Zeitschrift32, pp.134-142. Bull, W. B. 1972. "Recognitionof Alluvial Fan Deposits in the StratigraphicRecord,"in Recognitionof AncientSedimentary Environments (Society of Economic Paleontologists and MineralogistsSpecial Publication16), ed. J. K. Rigby and W. K. Hamblin,Tulsa,pp. 68-83. . 1977. "The Alluvial Fan Environment,"Progressin Physical 1, pp. 223-270. Geography Cavanagh,W., R. Jones, and A. Sarris. 1996. "The Phosphate and GeophysicalSurveys,"in TheLaconia Survey:Continuityand Changein a GreekRuralLandscape2: ArchaeologicalData (BSASuppl.27), ed. W. Cavanaghet al., London, pp.235-261. Chappell,J., A. Omura,T. Esat, M. McCulloch,J. Pandolfi,Y. Ota, and B. Pillans. 1996. "Reconciliationof Late QuaternarySea Levels Derived from CoralTerracesat Huon Peninsula with Deep-Sea Oxygen Isotope Records,"Earthand PlanetaryScience Letters141, pp. 227-236. Chappell,J., and N.J. Shackleton.1986. "OxygenIsotopes and Sea Level," Nature324, pp. 137-140. Cheddadi, R., and M. RossignolStrick. 1995. "EasternMediterranean QuaternaryPaleoclimates from Pollen and Isotope Records of Marine Cores in the Nile Cone Area,"Paleoceanography 10, pp. 291306. Chen, J. H., H. A. Curran,B. White, and G. J. Wasserburg.1991. "Precise Chronology of the Last Interglacial Period:234U/230ThData from Fossil Coral Reefs in the Bahamas," GeologicalSocietyofAmericaBulletin 103, pp. 82-97. Cherry,J. F. 1982. "APreliminary Definition of Site Distribution on Melos,"in An IslandPolity:The Archaeology of Exploitationin Melos, ed. C. Renfrewand M. Wagstaff, Cambridge,pp. 10-23.
271 .1983. "FrogsRound the Pond: Perspectiveson CurrentArchaeological SurveyProjectsin the MediterraneanRegion,"in Keller and Rupp 1983, pp. 375-415. . 1984. "Common Sense in MediterraneanSurvey?"JFA11, pp.117-120. . 1994. "RegionalSurveyin the Aegean:The 'New Wave'(and After),"in Kardulias1994b, pp. 91112. Cherry,J. F.,J. L. Davis, A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani,T. F. Strasser,and L. E. Talalay.1988. "Archaeological Surveyin an Artifact-Rich Landscape:A Middle Neolithic Example from Nemea, Greece,"AJA92, pp.159-176. Cherry,J. F.,J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani.1991. Landscape Archaeology as Long-TermHistory:NorthernKeos in the CycladicIslandsfromEarliest Settlementuntil ModernTimes (Monumentaarchaeologica16), Los Angeles. Cherry,J. F.,J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, andT. M. Whitelaw. 1991. "The SurveyMethods,"in Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani1991, pp. 13-35. Chrysos,E., ed. 1987. NicopolisI: Proceedings of theFirstInternational SymposiumonNicopolis(23-29 1984), Preveza. September Clark,G. A. 1994. "Migrationsas an ExplanatoryConcept in Paleolithic Archaeology,"Journal ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory1, pp. 305343. Clews,J. 1989. "StructuralControls on Basin Evolution:Neogene to Quaternaryof the Ionian Zone, Western Greece,"Journalof the Geological SocietyofLondon146, pp. 447-457. Coussot, P., and M. Meunier.1996. "Recognition,Classification,and MechanicalDescription of Debris Flows,"Earth ScienceReviews37, pp.225-252. Culiberg,M., and A. Sercelj.1996. Events "Slovenia,"in Palaeoecological duringtheLast 15,000 Years: RegionalSynthesesof Palaeoecological StudiesofLakesand Miresin Europe, ed. B. E. Berglund,H.J. B. Birks, M. Ralska-Jasiewicowa,and H. E. Wright, London, pp. 687-700.
272
Cullen, H. M., P. B. deMenocal, S. Hemming, G. Hemming, F. H. Brown,T. Guilderson,and F. Sirocko. 2000. "ClimateChange and the Collapse of the Akkadian Empire:Evidence from the Deep Sea,"Geology28, pp. 379-382. Dakaris,S. I. 1958. "AvocoxapLtxal
REFERENCES
Dalfes, H. N., G. Kukla,and H. Weiss, eds., 1997. ThirdMillennium B.C.Climate Change and Old WorldCollapse(NATO ASI Series 1, Global Environmental Change 49), Berlin. Darlas,A. 1989. "HOptv6xotaa6otoo EXLtoxoptooAxxociat," T?rXvca TYv 128, pp. 137-159. ArchEph ?p?ovoa ?tL; OuYqp(LXqV E(p6pav xao TON?xooyaovT?sovrq{ Apxocaa; . 1995. "The EarliestOccupation of Europe:The Balkans,"in OerpwOrxToc;,"Prakt, pp. 107-113. . 1960. "Avacxawpy Too N?XOoTheEarliestOccupation ofEurope: acvT?-roToo Ax?povTO;xac OoXtoProceedings of theEuropeanScience TO6TacDpoo FoundationWorkshop at Tautavel 7tXfOLOv Tj; IIapyao," Prakt,pp. 114-127. (France),1993, ed. W. Roebroeks . 1961. "AvaoxacpYi andT. van Kolfschoten,Leiden, ect;TO Nexoo[avrTsLOvTOOAx?povTO;," pp. 51-59. Prakt,pp. 108-119. Davidson, D. A. 1980. "Erosionin . 1962. "The Dark Palaceof Greece duringthe First and Second Hades,"Archaeology Millennia B.C.,"in Timescalesin 15:2, pp. 85-93. . 1963. "Avaaoxaqocp ed. R. A. Cullingetg TO Geomorphology, Too AxpoVTO;," N?XuoOiaVT?lOV ford, D. A. Davidson, andJ. Lewin, Prakt,pp. 89-92. Chichester,N.Y., pp. 143-158. . 1964. "Avaoxacpy?L
