Villages and Valleys Connectivity and Land Use in Northern Messenia During the Middle and Late Helladic Periods

Home , Filiatra, Kalo Nero, Kopanaki, Minthi, Minthi (mountain), Neda (river)

Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia Villages and Valleys Connectivity and Land Use in Northern Messenia during the Middle and Late Helladic periods

Vasiliki Tsoumari

Master’s thesis 45 ECT’s in Archaeology Spring term 2019 Supervisors: Michael Lindblom & Anton Bonnier Campus Uppsala

Abstract

Tsoumari, V. 2019. Villages and Valleys: Connectivity and Land Use in Northern Messenia during Middle Helladic and Late Helladic periods. Tsoumari, V. 2019. Byar och dalgångar: Interaktion och markanvändning i norra Messenien under den mellan- och senhelladiska perioden.

The use of past archaeological survey data for examination of landscape dynamics became very popular during the last decades of the 20th century, when Geographical Information Systems analysis were introduced in archaeology. In the present thesis, past survey data from Northern Messenia’s Middle and Late Helladic periods are combined to the topography and the environment of the region. These data are examined under the GIS prism, which attempts to update our knowledge on this geographical area. The main scope of this thesis is to examine potential settlement patterns and land use, connectivity between sites and sites’ hierarchies. In the first query, the Kernel Density analysis has been used for estimating settlements’ patterns, and to consequently estimate preference of specific topographical features for land use, such as slope. Based on the patterns formed as a result of the analysis conducted in the first query, connectivity and hierarchy between sites is being tested with the use of cost connectivity and visibility tools. The outcome of this analysis shows that the inhabitants of the past were significantly interacting with the landscape, since they preferred to nest around the protective slopes of the Soulima and the Kyparissian valleys. The area around their settlements reveals that these inhabitants opted to cultivate in flat or marginal land, while visibility from the sites seems to be an important factor for monitoring the region. However, it has been proved that a good number of collaborating sites were required to supervise the entire territory, which disproves any hierarchical ranking between them. On the other hand, connectivity depicts potential movement over Northern Messenia’s terrain and indicates that a few sites in the heart of the study area were to be considered as panoptic meeting grounds of the eastern and the western side. In conclusion, the overall analysis reveals a potential spatial bond between sites rather than a relationship based on rivalry.

Keywords: Bronze Age; Middle Helladic; Late Helladic; GIS; spatial analysis; viewshed; visibility kernel density estimation; least cost path; connectivity; Messenia; Greece

Master’s Thesis in Archaeology, 45 ECT’s. Supervisors: Michael Lindblom & Anton Bonnier. Submitted and approved 2019-06-12. © Vasiliki Tsoumari Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Box 626, 75126, Uppsala Sweden.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Michael Lindblom and Anton Bonnier for their constructive feedback and advices. Thank you for all your dedication and your precious guidance. Great thanks to Anneli Ekblom for her constant support throughout the master course and to Susanne Carlsson for always being available for discussing my concerns. I also want to give special thanks to my teachers, Karl Johan Lindholm and Daniel Löwenborg for introducing me to the GIS world and for encouraging me to participate to the annual conference ‘Computer Applications in Archaeology’ (Tubingen, March 2018). My gratitude also goes to the Institution of Ancient History and Archaeology that provided me with financial assistance, allowing me to attend the conference. I am thankful to Michael Lindblom for suggesting me to participate and discuss my topic in the workshop ‘Malthi Revisited’, that took place in the Swedish Institute at Athens (May 23, 2018). I would also like to thank John Worley and Ludmila Werkström of the Gustavianum Museum collections, for having me there for my internship and for trusting me and other interns to present our problematics about legacy data in the annual conference of ‘European Association of Archaeologists’ (EAA, Barcelona, September 2018). I am thankful to Kunglig Humanistiska Vetenskaps Samfundet and Gunnel Ekroth who introduced my application for the receiving the travel grant for the EAA conference. My sincerest thanks to my teachers Paul Lane, Kjel Knutsson, Ann-Louise Sahlin for all that they have taught me and to my classmate Yunyun Yang for her kind support and our distressful chats. Finally, I would like to thank Filippo Daniel for his endless, sincere and unconditional support throughout the years.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1. Aims and research questions...... 5 1.2. Previous archaeological research in Messenia and Ilia...... 6 1.3 Data ...... 6 1.3.1 Legacy Data ...... 6 1.3.2 Literature...... 7 1.3.3 Creating new dataset from past catalogues ...... 8 1.3.4 Dataset...... 8 1.3.5 Distribution maps ...... 9 1.4 Theory...... 10 1.4.1 Space and landscape ...... 10 1.4.2 Connectivity ...... 11 1.5 Methods and Tools ...... 12 1.5.1 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology ...... 12 1.5.2 Tools ...... 12 1.6 Source criticism ...... 13 1.6.1 Survey gaps...... 13 1.6.2 Sites and off- sites ...... 14 2 Study Area ...... 15 2.1 The Middle and Late Helladic Periods in Messenia ...... 15 2.2 Habitation and Cemetery ...... 15 2.3 Settlements ...... 16 2.4 Tombs ...... 18 3. Settlement patterns and Land Use...... 20 3.1. Topography ...... 20 3.2. Environment ...... 20 3.3. Geology and Hydrology...... 21 3.4 Spatial distribution ...... 22 3.5 Land Use… ...... 25 4. Hierarchy and Connectivity ...... 27 4.1. Visibility ...... 27 4.2. Cost Connectivity network and Least Cost paths ...... 30 5. Discussion ...... 34 5.1. The landscape’s contribution to the evolution of the settlements ...... 34 5.2. Movement, meeting grounds and monitoring...... 36 5.3. Further Research ...... 37 5.4. Summary...... 39 Litterature ...... 40 Absolute Chronology for the Bronze Age Greek Mainland… ...... 45 List of abbreviations in texts and catalogues ...... 46 List of Figures and Tables ...... 47 Appendix 1: Sites Catalague with short descrpition ...... 69 Appendix 2: Sites Catalogue modifed for GIS ...... 81 Appendix 3: Datasets 1 & 2 ...... 83 1. Introduction

The socioeconomic and spatial development of Bronze Age settlements on the Peloponnese peninsula in Greece has been subject to repeated examination. Over the last century, Messenia, which lies in south western Peloponnese, has been investigated by numerous archaeologists (Chapter 1.2) that attempted to uncover region’s complex, prehistoric social-economic structure. In the selected study area of this thesis (Fig .1), the researchers have recorded traces of human activity in 51 sites (Fig.2, Appendix 1).

1.1. Aims and research questions The aim of this study is to examine connectivity, land use shifts and sites hierarchy in northern Messenia and southern Ilia from the MH to LH IIIB periods. To achieve the above purpose, a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) based analysis, (Chapter 1.5) supported by literature on Messenia and Ilia is conducted. The topography and environment in combination with the position of sites is used as starting points for drawing any potential interaction. To understand the inhabitants’ perception of the landscape and their preference to settle down in certain places, the visibility factor is used. Additionally, shifts of sites’ location and sizes may have affected the site distribution and density and in this case, kernel density estimation (KDE) is applied. The KDE combined with local elevation and slope relief may give us a better understanding of land use preference and contact zones. Eventually, and in an attempt to model connectivity between sites, least cost path analysis is generated. The following research questions are thus asked in this thesis: • How does the known settlement distribution over time inform us about past land use? What was the settlement pattern and land use in Northern Messenia during the Middle Helladic and Late Helladic periods? • How can connectivity between various sites be assessed through three complementary methods of spatial analysis (kernel density estimation, least cost paths and view sheds)? • Which variables are suitable to use in order to define settlement hierarchies in the region? What makes this analysis challenging is that although the study area has been extensively surveyed in the past, only few of the recorded sites have been excavated. Indeed, most of the sites have been overlooked for decades, since they were last surveyed by William McDonald and Hope Simpson through the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition project and three preliminary expeditions (UMME 1972, AJA 1961, 1964,1969). On the other hand, Jack Davis and John Bennet started an intensive survey program in southern Messenia from 1991 to 1995, aiming to re-survey sites that were discovered in earlier projects and to set the light on problematic or poorly examined sites (Davis et al. 1997, Davis & Bennet 2017). This research program, called The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project (PRAP) combined existing knowledge with GIS, a relatively new tool among archaeologists of the 90’s. Taking inspiration from the PRAP’s goals and results, this thesis is important, as it wishes to draw attention to northern Messenia and south Ilia and set a background for a new, intensive regional project.

1.2. Previous archaeological research in Messenia and Ilia Already in the 19th century travellers like Walter Leake (1830), François Pouqueville (1806), Edward Dodwell (1819) recorded significant archaeological sites in the Peloponnese. The Expedition Scientifique de Moree (Saint-Vincent et al. 1836, 32-34) continued the recording of sites and at the end of 19th century the Athenian Archaeological Society (Εν Αθήναι Αρχαιολογική Εταιρία) started excavation projects. In the beginning of the 20th century exploration in Messenia were multiplied from both Greek and foreign scholars. Important nodes in the archaeological research of the area was Wilhem Dörpfeld’s excavation in Kakovatos in 1907-8, the excavation of the acropolis in Malthi and the exploration of the wider region by Natan Valmin in 1926-1935 (Valmin 1926-1927, 1927-28, 1938), the Ano Englianos palace discovery by Carl Blegen in 1939 (Blegen 1973), and the inventory and excavation work of Spyridon Marinatos in 1952- 1966 (Marinatos & Iakovides 2014) in different areas of Messenia and in particular on the Peristeria hill (Marinatos 1960 -1963, 1965-1966). During the 1960’s the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME) started an interdisciplinary exploration in south-western Peloponnese, launching a pioneering work, for that period (McDonald & Rapp 1972:13). For the implementation of this holistic research, scientists coming from different fields contributed to a broader knowledge of the region from the southern end of Messenia to the modern prefecture of Ilia. McDonald and his team conducted an extensive regional survey, mapping 799 known and new sites of archaeological interest, covering a time span from Neolithic to Medieval times. The PRAP’s purpose was to examine the historical evolution of the sites in the area around the Ano Englianos palace and to re-survey past researched sites (Davis et al. 1997: 391–494). In 2000 Michael Cosmopoulos initiated the Iklaina Archaeological Project (IKAP) aiming to examine the various variables that led to the formation of the Mycenaean states (Cosmopoulos 2016: 1). The Greek Archaeological Service has conducted several rescue excavations unveiling sites in the northern part of Messenia, namely the Psari tholos tombs (Chatzi 1982:137-138) and the Lakathela site on the Ramovouni ridge (Karagiorga 1972: 258-262), adding more sites to the archaeological map of northern Messenia. The latest projects in the area have been conducted at Kakovatos by Birgitta Eder in 2009-2011 and in the Acropolis of Malthi by Michael Lindblom and Rebecca Worsham in 2015-2017 (Worsham, Lindblom & Zikidi 2018). From now on, the study area will be named simply as northern Messenia, since most of the sites are in this area (46 sites) and it will include the few sites that were recorded in southern Ilia (5 sites) (Fig. 1).

1.3 Data

1.3.1 Legacy Data Before I introduce the sources of this study the technical term legacy data should be briefly described. The term describes “survey data coming from obsolete, old fashioned information systems, dating back to 19th and 20th centuries records, when for example digital data or georeferenced sites of archaeological interest were not commonplace” (Alisson 2008). Over the last few decades, GIS applications have been used to record, store, manage, analyse, and present field surveys’ results with accuracy (Witcher 2008). Nowadays, the import of legacy data in a GIS environment is possible and quite widespread among the researchers (Alisson 2008), thus is problematic as modern survey techniques differs from those of the 19th and 20th centuries. Though, intensification of land use, erosions, sedimentation, and urbanization destroyed and concealed ancient surfaces, introducing remarkable gaps in the already surveyed areas (Terrenato 2004). This is making the legacy data the only surviving record of past activity,

6 valuable and significant for those who wish to re-examine a region or a concept. Eventually, even if these sources are not precise, they remain the only ones at disposal and that is why existing legacy data have been incorporated in a digital environment for the current project, trying to provide a fresh impetus. The desirable outcome of the digitalization and re- examination is to set the ground for further field research in northern Messenia, as well as to reinvestigate overlooked or problematic documented areas and perhaps to discover new ones.

1.3.2 Literature The point of departure was the Register A (McDonald & Rapp 1972: 264-309) of the UMME publication, where all the sites in western Messenia dated from Neolithic to Medieval times were recorded. Previously, McDonald and Simpson had released three preliminary reports based on surveys conducted in South Western Peloponnese from 1959 to 1969 (1961: 221-260, 1964: 229-245, 1969: 123-177, abbreviated in the text as AJA 1961, 1964, 1969 respectively). A few years later in the Gazetteer of Aegean Civilization in the Bronze Age (abbreviated in the text as GAC) (Simpson & Dickinson 1979) were gathered all the known prehistoric sites across the Greek territory in one book including northwest Messenia. In 1994-1995, Konstantinos Syriopoulos added epigrammatically information about new discoveries, and he catalogued all the sites found across Greece spanning from the Neolithic to the Middle Ages. In Simpsons’ latest publication (2014) site catalogues are updated, based on the existing UMME, GAC, AJA 1961, 1964, 1969 registers, enriched with current data coming from rescue excavations or recently conducted projects like PRAP and IKAP. Important source were also the annual reports of Greek Antiquity Services, specifically Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, Πρακτικά της Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίδα, Έργον and Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών. My intention when going through this large body of literature was to collect any kind of data regarding my study area. In the end it helped me to enrich my knowledge about human activity in northern Messenia and southern Ilia during Bronze Age and particularly to add or verify information about sites within the study area. The creation of a new catalogue (Appendix 1) for this thesis, consisting of old and new discoveries was necessary. As the backbone for the formation of it, the UMME and Simpsons’ registers were used after they were reviewed, compared, and enriched with information taken from the rest of the sources (see Appendix 1, literature column). Since the thesis include computer analysis, the new textual catalogue was encoded so that it can be accessible through GIS software (Appendix 2). While the date and the context of the clay tablets that were found during the excavations at the palace of Ano Eglianos were not directly relevant to the type of data that were need, it is worthwhile to mention this very first written evidence. The 1,200 tablets with inscribed texts written in Linear B were deciphered by Michael Ventris (1956: xvii–xxx) and revealed lists of place names with logistic data concerning their annual contribution to the palatial economy. This archive of administrative records shows a well-organized and well- established society around a political powerful centre dating to the LH IIIC period. Except from the name pu-ro identified as the Ano Englianos palace, only assumptions can be done for the rest of the site names. Linear B texts can therefore not be considered a sufficient ‘textual’ source for the late Mycenaean period but certainly set the ground for some facts on Messenia at this period. The political power of Ano Englianos was established in a significant part of Messenia during LH IIIC (and perhaps earlier?), people use to cultivate various agricultural staple products and to bread livestock, and most important there was a ‘connection pattern’ among these sites.

1.3.3 Creating new dataset from past catalogues Creating a catalogue based on the knowledge gained by the literature was the first step of this thesis. Previous publications have incorporated information about site number, modern name of the area, site name, size in hectares, type of archaeological remains (surface sherds, settlement remains, tombs, fortification) bibliography and dates (cf. Lukerman 1972:148- 170, 151; Simpson 2014:20-29). In the new catalogue the above information is maintained and all the sites that were recorded in the past study area are included. The system followed for the sites’ numeration in the past registers uses both numbers and letters. For simplicity, a new system was preferred ascribing unique numbers from 1 to 51 for each of the sites and, where possible, two distinct numbers are provided for tomb and settlement remains that has been previously considered and recorded as one (Appendix 1). Though, in the new catalogue the old site numbers will be preserved and displayed beside the new ones. Names are hard to change from the initial definition since this would create discontinuities and become misleading. Even if the same name exists for two sites, this is maintained and distinguished with a letter beside the name, or the modern name is preferred. Common elements in past catalogues were brief archaeological descriptions of the finds and sites, classification of them as habitation or cemetery (abbreviated as HAB and CEM) and finally, dating. Photographic documentation of finds and sites are sparingly presented in the publications, therefore we can only use surveyors’ assessments about sites categorization and chronological classification. About chronology, a division has been adapted, in both the past sites’ registers and the distribution maps (see Appendix 1, column Date). Since UMME set the grounds for specific chronological frames, following studies did not manage to overcome what was previously established by this project. For example, we rarely find chronological subdivisions such as MH I or MH II, LH IIIA1 or LH IIIA2, which is understandable but restrictive. Based on the latter observation and while not being able to study finds retained and still preserved from the UMME survey, I followed the given division established by the UMME and the later publications and MH-LHII, LH IIIA-B are therefore the two study periods. Regarding the size of the sites which are measured in hectares (ha), is highly approximate as it is based on scattered pottery and differentiation of the soil colour on the surface (McDonald & Simpson 1972: 125f). The UMME project team conducted only a few test pits during the surveys and the number of rescue or systematic excavations thereafter were scanty, prohibiting new interpretations about the geographical extent and the function of the sites. As there is no new evidence or current geophysical research in place, the new catalogue will follow UMME’s suggestions (Appendix 1, ha). Maybe the most challenging issue of processing the data is the dating of individual sites. There are sites dated simply as LH, with no further specification (I, II or III), sites that the surveyors found in older literature, but they never managed to re-discover them, as well as finds that could not be easily dated. All the above issues were denoted in the past catalogues and maps, with question marks or parenthesis indicating their disputed or uncertain dates and these problematic data were also encoded in Appendix 2. Moreover, the division of periods is defined already from the UMME researchers and is hard to escape from it and define another one as we are missing access to any archaeological evidence recovered during the surveys. In chapter 3, where land-use analysis is conducted the sites have been divided in two different datasets for each researched period (Appendix 3), one that include all the sites, even those with doubts about their date or even existence (dataset 1) and one that includes only sites with reliable dating and artefact evidence (dataset 2).

1.3.4 Dataset Computer analysis programs cannot recognize and access all kind of textual data, so fields that are important for analysis had to be encoded. At this stage, the above-mentioned information had to be transformed in a format friendly to the digital environment of a GIS 8 software, ArcMap 10.5. The dataset in Appendix 2 incorporates information found in the catalogues, Appendix 1, though only size, chronology, and type of evidence for each period separately were encoded. These two categories are important, since the purpose is to analyse sites distribution over time, but also to investigate potential hierarchical patterns based on the sites’ functions. The function or nature of finds has been ascribed in four types: surface sherds (SS), settlement remains (SR), tombs (TB) and fortification (F), all related to human activity. Equally significant is the period to which each type belongs to or started to be in use. The time span on which human activity features are MH, LH, LH I, LH II, LH IIIA and LH IIIB. Eventually, from the combination of finds type and chronology, 24 columns were created containing both information (Appendix 2). For example, MH surface sherds are recorded as MH SS or LH IIIA settlement remains are registered as LH IIIA SR. Text data had to be adjusted to a form readable and accessible through the digital environment. For that reason, four digits were used to describe what kind of finds and in which period they belong on a scale from 0 to 3. Sites with no traces of human activity in one of the above periods are marked with number 0, those with certain remains are marked with number 1, for sites with doubts regarding their date with number 2 (mostly used for the LH III period and its subdivision in A or B) and with the number 3 for uncertain- unconfirmed, archaeological evidence (mostly LH column and sites with few evidence). Reading the encoded dataset and taking Kakovatos settlement (#3) and tholos (#4) as an example, we could say that this site estimated to occupy an area of 1.8 ha and was already inhabited from MH period as surface sherds (MH SS: 1) and settlement remains (MH SR:1) were found there and continued to LH II. Indications of activity in the area are also recorded in LH IIIB (SS: 1) but it is uncertain if the site was inhabited at that period because of the lack of settlement remains (SR: 0). Moreover, we see that the tholos tombs of this site have been in use from LH I to LH IIIA. Finally, fortification remains have also been recorded but their date is controversial spanning from MH to LH II (Appendix 2, Fig.2). It should be mentioned that the system adopted for the attribution of function of sites and chronology was not chosen arbitrarily but, based on an effort to decipher complicated textual catalogues in a form that would be compatible with GIS analysis. In the past records there is an approach of defining uncertainties in their database, simply with the use of parenthesis or question marks beside a site’s date or archaeological function (cf. McDonald & Rapp 1972: 264-309, Simpson 2014:20-29). At this point, the first step for preparing and managing legacy data has been done, by creating this dataset. What came next was to convert the analogical site locations of the distribution maps in a digital form with proper coordinate system, a so-called digital map connecting all the point to the information provided by the encoded dataset.

1.3.5 Distribution maps The sites’ position was already available through the distribution maps, created by the UMME (McDonald & Rapp 1972), Simpson (2014) and a few sketches from AJA 1961, 1964, 1964, were digitized and georeferenced in ArcMap 10.5. Specifically, the pocket maps 8-13 and 8- 14, coming from the UMME project included MH and LH I-IIIB settlements and cemeteries locations, Simpson had located a few sites more accurate (2014: map 1, 3-6) and big sites were identified and digitised directly from the Google maps web page. The preliminary report sketches (AJA 1961, 1964, 1969) also helped to clarify the position of a few sites, like Agios Dimitrios in Lepreon (#2). However, a problematic issue arose regarding the validity of the site coordinates on the maps, which occasionally conflicts with the bibliographical references. For example, Simpson (2014: 26) places the tholos in Psari (#37) quite further up from its actual location. According to the Archaiologiko Deltion (1982: 137-138) the site of Sintilithi (#38) is located east of the road from Kato Psari to Dorio, and close to the suburb Agios Nikolaos, while

Simpson (2014: map 4) instead places it west of the road. Sites like Peristeria (#10), Psari (#37), Malthi (#29), Kakovatos (#3) can be easily identified from a satellite map but for the remaining ones we must rely to the literature since there are no visible archaeological remains. In the UMME project the team tried to give compass bearings from the site to some landmarks, but this created complications when communicating the information to people outside the project team, and so eventually the project ended by opting for detection of sites through aerial photos. The project team then calculated the distance and direction from an identifiable and supposing known point (McDonald & Simpson 1972:125). Furthermore, it should be noticed that even if the catalogued sites are assigned with an estimated size in hectares, on the maps they have been depicted with single, one-dimension points, without any other properties that would maybe define the sites’ total geographical extent. Eventually, the digital elevation model (DEM) used has a resolution of one arc-second, with an approximation of 5 meters in Greece, having as geographical coordinate system WGS84, in both the original and clipped data. The DEM data also contained part of the sea (the Kyparissian Gulf) which is rendered with negative elevation value. Since the studied area is inland the sea was excluded by clipping the DEM with the use of a mask, the shape of which follows the outline of the study area.

1.4 Theory

1.4.1 Space and landscape As early as in the 19th century, archaeologists were concerned about spatial distribution which gradually led to a strong bond with geography and the consolidation of the first comparative analysis of artefacts distribution maps already from the beginning of 20th century (Clarke 1977: 2). Since then, archaeologists’ interpretations on scattered artefacts have evolved, while new approaches on settlements’ patterns and distribution within space were introduced. In favour of this primal quantitative, comparative, and computational analysis, space has been seen ‘as an abstract dimension or container in which human activities and events took place’ (Tilley 1994:9). However, this interpretation of space has been criticized since human activities, events and physical features appeared detached from each other, like objects with no substantial interaction. The ‘neutral’ nature of space as it was defined, could mistakenly serve as a ‘passe-partout’ for both the prehistoric societies but also the modern urban capitalistic centres. Today, the content of space is loaded with symbols and social dynamics, organized in relation to social form and settlements established upon it, developing a practical and functional aspect and ceasing not to be just ‘a ragbag of behavioural responses’ (Hodder 1982:193f). Under this viewpoint Tilley (1994:10), re-stated the notion of space ‘as a medium rather than a container for action, something that is involved in action and cannot be divorced from it’. Space is not passive, non-interactive factor, as it was considered in the past, it is ruled by human agency and it has potentials to change by daily practical activities and perceptions. After space obtained a different meaning, defined by experience and human activities, another related term came up: landscape. In my point of view, space and landscape are two concepts interwoven, difficult to be distinguished since both have the common denominator of human activity and interaction. For this case study, northern Messenia denotes the space, a medium for actions such as settlement establishment and development, while the preferences of the inhabitants to place their houses or tombs in specific locations is related to the

10 landscape. In archaeology, landscape was initially interpreted and linked to the natural environment (cf. Ingold 1993: 156) and it served in different purposes. The landscape concept has been tested in terms of demography, social interaction, economic resources which is why the centre of landscape studies are based on topography, resources, and land-use (Ashmore & Knapp 1999: 7). UNESCO has recognised three categories of cultural landscapes: ‘clearly defined’, ‘organically evolved’ and ‘associative cultural’ (cf. UNESCO 1992), while researchers prefer the terms ‘constructed’, ‘conceptualised’ and ‘ideational’ (cf. Ashmore & Knapp: 1999:10ff). Landscape is experienced in practice, in life activities. Indeed, landscape seems to be the result of an eternal cycle of acts performed by humans, while at the same time landscape on its own determines and guide human acts. According to Terrenato (2004), the landscape can be better conceptualized as a palimpsest of windows dating to different periods, and the sites will only be found by chance, in a window that happens to be contemporaneous or earlier than them. Ingold (1993:154ff) on the other hand, discusses how the past inhabitants saw the landscape as a qualitative, homogenous, as a plenum with no holes in it, waiting to be filled and he stresses boundaries and links that binds it with the environment notion. More precisely he stated, “the landscape is the world as it is known to those who dwell therein, who inhabit its place and journey the paths connecting them” (lngold 1993:154ff). In my point of view people are part of the landscape, they act on it, they are being shaped by it and reciprocally they shape it with their actions as Ingold states. I also agree with Terrenato’s opinion when he states that what we see today on the landscape is maybe a distorted reflection of the past, but I do also believe that partial reconstruction of past landscape is possible. Moreover, when we employ factors such as topography, natural environment and past vegetation, the use of GIS in landscape analysis can contribute for mapping settlement patterns, examining the larger relationship between the archaeological and natural landscape and for plotting the exploitation of natural resources (Gaffney et al. 1995). Furthermore, we have to approach the landscape through GIS into two ways: ‘managerial’ and ‘analytical’, with the first one including the data management and the distribution analysis while the second the predictive modelling like viewshed analysis (Constantinidis 2001). In this thesis, the ‘managerial’ and ‘analytical’ components of GIS analysis over the landscape are applicable, since the first part was the management of the legacy data and the second the analysis of them through three different variables: estimation of land use shifts, reconstruction of visibility, and connectivity routes.

1.4.2 Connectivity Space, landscape and then what? How are these concepts connected and how can they be analysed? While archaeologists were struggling to define space and landscape, the advent of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) contributed significantly to the development of spatial and landscape analysis facilitating at the same time the examination of various theories. In my point of view, connectivity among societies defines the character of a micro- region which is subject to examination within my thesis. For the term of connectivity, I will use Horden’s and Purchell’s notion of ‘connectivity of micro-regions’, which is used for a wider region, but it can also be applied for smaller societies. According to that notion, connectivity represents “the various ways in which micro-regions cohere, both internally and with each other- forming aggregates that may range in size from small clusters to something approaching the entire Mediterranean” (Horden & Purchell 2000:123). Years later, Knappett (2013:3) specified in his introduction of ‘Network Analysis in Archaeology’ that connectivity is a handy metaphor for network, which is consisted by nodes and links. Network is a term that has been widely used in archaeology, trying to define exchange, trade

11 or communication activities among sites. The multiple ways in which people within micro- regions cohere and interact can be identified as the links of a network. In the present thesis, the researched links are communication paths between sites, visibility, and land uses patterns. Nodes are the sites from where the links of communication and other human activities derive, places where position plays a significant role. Nodes eventually are these sites that hold strategic position either because of their perception of the surroundings or due to the communication that they could develop in several ways. The connectivity concept will be used as a backdrop in order to identify potential nodal sites and settlement hierarchical systems in the micro-region of Northern Messenia.

1.5 Methods and Tools

1.5.1 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology To tackle archaeological questions, GIS has been widely used during the last decades. The variety of potentials that provides for spatial analysis makes it a powerful tool, but queries remain on whether it is a method or a scientific field (Conolly & Lake 2006: 3). However, when research questions are formulated within a study, GIS can test and underpin a theory without intervening and defining the nature the study (Farinetti 2011: 14). There are three categories of analysis where GIS found its application in archaeology: management of cultural heritage, prediction models and landscape- spatial models, with the third one being based mostly on the results of regional archaeological surveys (Conolly & Lake 2006:23). The latter category was the reason that I chose to process the acquired data in a GIS environment, since it provides with the possibility to project the collected finds, to access the number of discovered sites and to reconstruct the regional landscape.

1.5.2 Tools For carrying out the spatial and landscape analysis the following tools form the ArcMap toolbox were used: Kernel Density, Least Cost Path, Cost Connectivity, Visibility and Viewshed. To make these tools work, a raster data model is needed. In the GIS world, a raster is a canvas divided into small square cells, where each one has a value that corresponds to specific attributes. The Digital Elevation Model (DEM), is a raster model, the cells of which involve elevation attributes in meters above the sea level (m.a.s.l) and it has been used for building other raster models that were used in the GIS analysis (slope, hill shade). Using the Kernel Density Estimation (KDE) we may predict site distribution, nucleation or dispersion, land use and shifts overtime, connection among habitants and environment, but also potential rivalling ‘clusters’ of settlements. From a point or line, which could reflect an artefact or a settlement, similar features are being calculated in a neighbourhood around it, extracting by this way a smooth approximation of its distribution from the centre of the point or line outwards (Conolly & Lake 2006: 175–177). This method allows us to illustrate concentration or dispersion of settlements from simple points and if we intersect them with different variables, like slope or elevation raster, we may also conduct quantitative analysis that depicts land use patterns or sites’ placement preference in the landscape (Bonnier et al. 2019). An important parameter for examining the sites’ catchment radius is to define the bandwidth around the points, which derives from sites location. Different theories have been adapted from researchers of the Mediterranean landscape for the radius of land use area, with 2.5 km and 5 km being the ones most commonly used (Vita-Finzi et al. 1970: 1–37; Bintliff 2012: 271). The defined radius helps by this way to calculate the land use zone around each settlement and extract results about settlements concentration in an area. Though, ascribing

12 specified radius of 2.5 or 5 km around sites do not necessarily mean that every single site had owned this catchment area for cultivation or other activities (Bonnier et al. 2019). With the Viewshed (VS) tool we can identify the cells in an input raster that can be seen from one or more observation locations. In other words, it is useful when you wish to understand how large an area is visible from a certain point of view. For the calculation we need elevation data and single points or lines and ideally vegetation or structure layers. In the analysis we can also specify the height of the observation point as well as the height of the observed object, for example the height of a fortified acropolis and the height of a horseback man who is crossing the valley below the acropolis. The final calculation gives us the visible and not visible areas marked with 1 and 0 respectively (ArcGIS desktop 2018). Another tool like the viewshed but with additional functions, regarding the observer and the observed is the Visibility (V) tool. Visibility determines the raster surface locations visible to a set of observers features or identifies which observer points are visible from each raster surface location (ArcGIS desktop help 2018). Visibility analysis also calculates the frequency of the observed raster surface and that is depicted with gradient colour and a value from high to low. Discussing ancient sites, we should keep in mind that visibility in the landscape constituted one of the main safeguarding methods at that time. In the end, this is an easy way to understand the ancient perception of landscape and the reason for placement of monuments or sites in it and, to eventually evaluate connectivity of sites in a region (Wheatley & Gillings 2002: 53; Conolly & Lake 2006: 255-228; Farinetti 2011: 13) The cost distance tool determines the Least Cost Path (LCP) from a destination point to a source. It requires a specific destination, but it could start from multiple points (ArcGIS desktop help 2018). The term cost is related to ‘the movement and the frictions or forces that facilitate or impede movement through space’ (Farinetti 2011: 13). Archaeologists generate LCP for calculating old or unknown routes or for replicating existing ones and compare them with site distribution maps (Conolly & Lake 2006: 255). In this study the least-cost path calculates the least energy cost walking route according to the defined input layer which is the slope raster, modelling possible routes among minor or medium sites towards Malthi (#29). The LCP results is used as a secondary and comparative method to the Cost Connectivity results (CC). The CC reconstructs a connectivity network for more than two sites and in this case, study is preferable, as predefining the source and the destination the results are limited. This tool produces the least-cost connectivity network between two or more input regions (ArcGIS 2018 Desktop help) and therefore all the sites can be used as source and destination points.

1.6 Source criticism

1.6.1 Survey gaps Critique has been exercised on extensive surveys by which the coverage of a region is achieved not by field walking but by predictions of site location, having as results biases toward major sites (Sbonias 2016). The UMME received critique (Davis 1988:284) for being selective and prioritizing specific research areas, as they admit that during the extensive survey, they detected sites of potential archaeological interest from aerial photos which afterwards they visited and surveyed (Simpson 2014: 9). Simpson explains that the focus was on areas that were not researched before, particularly around Pylos and the Soulima valley, while whenever a new site was discovered a thorough research and estimation of its size was the priority (Simpson 2014: 11f). However, UMME did not manage to cover Messenia in its whole extent, leaving some gaps of approximately 30% of regions that fills the requirements for being inhabited sites, while the 70% of coverage as mentioned before was selective and mainly focused around.

Soulima valley and Pylos (Simpson 2014: 11f). Additionally, only a small amount was subject to further survey and excavation and considering this thesis’ study area, from the 51 sites only 16 were excavated. Eventually, the data that we have now for the Messenia, including the study area, are considered uneven in quality and quantity, lacking coherence, and making the sites’ analysis outcome vulnerable. However, the data provided from UMME have been used for this thesis always acknowledging that future discoveries of new sites may probably overturn the results from this analysis.

1.6.2 Sites and off- sites Beyond the above problematic, what made me even more sceptic has been the definition of what a ‘site’ is, a persisting question that constantly re-emerges during the progress of this thesis. In the case of UMME, but also in other surveys, sites are places where surface pottery sherds were scattered around. But eventually what kind of sherds’ density, quality and quantity leads to the recognition of a site and consequently to the identification of past settlement patterns? Hole and Heizer (1973: 86) provide a definition for a site: “Site is any place, large or small, where there are to be found traces of ancient occupation or activity. The usual clue is the presence of artefact”. Sbonias introduces one basic criterion for identifying sites during intensive regional surveys through quantification of sherds depending on the regional variability (Sbonias 1999). As the methods of survey are evolving, quantitative and qualitative criteria are not enough for recognizing a site, so we should consider more about the pottery preservation, the rate of artefacts deposition and the representation of various chronological periods (Sbonias 1999). Discussing human and social activities and the level of representation on a site we should also consider the term ‘non-site’ or ‘off-site’, referring to areas with quantitative and density differences regarding scattered pottery. The existence of ‘off-sites’, could be a result of less intensively used areas, natural transport of sherds and post depositional disturbance and even modern ploughing and erosions (Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988). Additionally, based on differentiated geomorphological processes that has been carried out in different regions of the ancient world, a variation in the density of scattered pottery but also the required quantity of sherds that allows the recognition of sites has been noticed. For example, in Western Europe, the Mediterranean and Middle East different densities of spread artefacts can mark a site or an off-site (Sbonias 1999). Eventually, legacy data is what we have for defining sites. Sometimes the questions that were set back then are different to modern approaches, making these past surveys old fashioned and their results inadequate. However, the presence artefacts scatter on the surface should, and they do indicate, a sort of human activity in an area and as this, will be seen in this thesis. In addition, to re-examine a sites or off-sites existence, requires statistical information regarding density and quota of pottery collected during the UMME survey and consequently re- examination of the site in situ, which are both not possible for the time being, though they delimit this thesis. In practice, the GIS analysis could handle differently minor activity foci regardless if these where to be part of post-disposals or places that MH and LH population used to occupy seasonally and occasionally. For example, reading through the preliminary reports (AJA 1961, 1964, 1969), there are a few areas where only a handful of sherds were found, thus the researchers considered these places as sites and they have included them in the catalogues (e.g., #50). In this thesis, all the sites will be taken into consideration as is most of interest to identify any potential spatial or connectivity patterns even in sites with few evidences.

2 Study Area

2.1 The Middle and Late Helladic Periods in Messenia During the MH period, Messenia noted a gradual increase in the number of settlements, with the Pylos district having the strongest settlement core where the Ano Englianos palace became the centre of it during the LH period (Jawza & Jawza 2017). In the Soulima and Pamisos valleys less remains have been recorded, though among them there are some monumental tholos tombs (#10, 51 and 37) unveiled during rescue or systematic excavations. In contrast to the EH sites, the newly established MH settlements are not limited to lowland, coastal areas but also occupy the wild, hilly and yet fertile hinterland of Messenia (GAC 1979: 126; Simpson 2014: 38f). The occupation of the inland marks the beginning of landscape change in Messenia, as land use results in deforestations. Later in LH I-IIIA1 the political power and struggle for prevalence in the region may have generate a disproportionate number of tholos tombs compared with settlements numbers respectively (Cavanagh 1998: 61-88). Tholos tombs were a mark of prosperity and political power, with theories suggesting their use to demarcate the area possessed by a settlement, though for many of them nearby settlement traces are missing. At the same period, LH I-IIIA1, sites around Pylos (Romanou, Baylerbey, Chora, Koryphasion), seem to be dependent of the palace, the policy of which followed an expansive path (Simpson 2014: 38f). On the other hand, the discovery of rich tombs in nearby settlements like Myrsinochori and Koukounara indicates another powerful centre which probably was not under Pylos control (Cavanagh 1998: 61-88). The latest excavations in Iklaina and the discovery of LH II-IIIA1 remains, shows that this site had an independent status (Cosmopoulos 2016:10). Other significant centres were Peristeria on the north, Malthi on the northeast and Nichoria on the southeast of the region. The sites of the early LH period survived and flourished during LH IIIA2 and LH IIIB, with some exceptions, including Peristeria (#10) and Malthi (#29) which were superseded by Mouriatadha (#7) and Gouves (#30) respectively (Simpson 2014: 38f). To summarize, Messenias’ transition from MH to early LH brought a reasonable expansion of sites, which strived over a territorial game. However, Ano Englianos palace became the privileged centre of power of the region, adopting an expansive policy which at some point within LH II to IIIA-B resulted to a nearly overall domination of the area. Though, we are not aware of the exact limits of Pylos expanded territory. In the transitional phase from LH IIIB2 to early LH IIIC most of the sites were destroyed or abandoned, with only a few of them surviving and being reoccupied during late LH IIIC (Blegen & Rawnson 1966; 421; GAC 1979:127; Simpson 2014: 38-41).

2.2 Habitation and Cemetery As it has been stated already, most of the sites were identified through sherd distribution (#1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12-16, 19- 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31-36, 38, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48-50) and ideally due to archaeological remains such as terrace or fortification walls, house remains and tombs (#3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 17, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47,51). Moreover, only 16 sites in the study area have been excavated, which means that UMME’s suggestions have not been verified. The question is if the quality and quantity of the collected sherds were enough to characterize a place as a habitation or burial site. An example of the habitation (HAB) and cemetery (CEM) function of sites is given below. Krebeni, a site close to modern Kato Melpeia (#23), has been characterized as a big

15 habitation site. In the preliminary report (AJA 1961:234f) Krebeni was described as an important village in the Late Bronze Age with a significant position over the upper Messenian plain. It holds a strategic position, stretching its substantial extent on a terraced and fertile region. Though, neither the preliminary report (AJA1961) nor the UMME publication (UMME 1972) reveals the number of sherds found there, they instead report a plentiful number of sherds, among them some LH IIIB and probably LH IIIA. Similar description has been given for most of the sites that have been surveyed during the 1960’s, accompanied by poor qualitative and quantitative statistics regarding the pottery and the chronological period where it belongs. Additionally, scattered sherds, of which the amount is sometimes extremely small, define the extent of a site measured in hectares and even darker soil colour in surveyed areas could be related past inhabitation (McDonald and Simpson 1972:126). However, a few of the recorded sites could be more easily related to habitation or cemetery places because of adequate finds, like the acropolis of Malthi (#29) or the hill of Peristeria (#10) with the house remains and a tholos tomb at Kakovatos (#3) and the LH IIIB Elliniko site on the Mouriatadha hill (#7) with cyclopean walls and a mortar floor. For the remaining sites the few indications of human activity based on the surface pottery and other habitation traces (McDonald & Simpson 1972:126) are the only facts that for the time being are available. Even if the off sites seem scanty to use in this thesis’ analysis, yet it reflects some kind of human presence and only further research could unfold bigger parts of this history.

2.3 Settlements Habitation sites are the most common identified function ascribed to places found in surveyed areas. Differences among settlements, such as geographical extent and population size can separate them into villages, hamlets, or farms. From the previous surveys we already have information regarding sites’ provisional size extent in hectares (ha), creating a rough hierarchical classification of sites either in big villages or minor rural sites (Fig.3). Simpson (2014:19), classifies sites over 1.0 ha as villages and those smaller than 1.0 ha as hamlets. Settlements consist of a precondition for human activity and interaction within the landscape (Bonnier 2010:15). Based on the archaeological record, each site will be discussed according to its function, position, and size, to create an initial general frame of the features that made some of them to be considered as more important than others and high in the region's hierarchy. Most of the sites showed a preference to occupy fertile land, with most prominent being ‘the great triangle’ as described by Lukermann (1972: 148-170), formed by the lower land that surrounds the mountain terrain between western and eastern Messenia. The frame of this triangle could also have been used as a communication route around the whole region. Beginning from the most northern part of the study area we meet the sites of Kakovatos (#3), Lepreon (#2), Tholo (#1), Kaimena Alonia (#5) and Aspra Litharia (#16) (for references see Appendix 11 ). In the beginning of 20th century, W. Döperfeld excavated Kakovatos, which extends in an area of 1.8 ha and it was once believed to be Nestor’s palace. The low hill was fortified, preserving house remains on its top and three tholos tombs on its north end dated from MH to LH IIIB. A current research program, conducted in Kakovatos by the German Institute of Archaeology (Eder 2011) re-examined the site, trying to clarify chronological matters concerning Dörpfeld’s initial publication and to re-state Kakovato’s role in the region. This fortified long survived hill was probably occupying a strategic position, with direct access to Kyparissian Gulf. The surrounding sites (#1, 2, 5, 16), did not get the same attention as Kakovatos, although Lepreon (#2) is placed on an

1 The description of the sites in chapter 2.3 and 2.4 reflects the literature referenced Appendix 1, in column Literature. Therefore, all the narrative for the sites function and position in these two chapters do not reflect the author’s opinion but it is absolutely related to the past researchers’ interpretations.

16 impressive hill, overlooking a fertile valley and references mention the existence of MH tholos tombs on it. In Tholo (#1), LH sherds were found on a hill which has the advantage of being closely situated to the coast road, while Kaimena Alonia (#5) is among the few settlements (along with Elliniko, #7) that seems to be occupied only in the LH IIIB. Moving to the south of the study area, Kastro (#6) lies close to the modern city of Kyparissia and its vicinity to the sea and to a potential harbour could have made it a key node settlement. However, only a few sherds of MH and LH date were found around the medieval castle of Kyparissia. Close to it and to the east, there are two more sites recorded (#7, 8), one of which on the hill Elliniko (#7), preserving remains of a small megaron with mortar floor, fortified by cyclopean walls. Though, this impressive discovery, made by Marinatos in the 1960’s, gave traces only from the LH IIIB and maybe IIIC period and it was not related to earlier occupation. Between Kastro (#6) and Elliniko (#7), the site Palaiophrygas (#8), in proximity to Vryses village, a common name for places with abundant water resources. The southernmost site is Nekrotapheion (#9), from its position, it commands the valley and an interior passage via Triphilia to the south and from the Kyparissia river valley through the Kyparissia Mountains to the south-eastern Messenia. Further up from Elliniko, Marinatos discovered a fortified settlement on the hill Peristeria (#10). Georgios Korres, continuing the excavation after Marinato’s death, unveiled additional habitation remains. Peristeria had a continuous occupation from MH to LH IIIB with the uncommon characteristic of settlement and tombs combination within a fortification. Marinatos described it as an important administrative centre, while Dickinson and Simpson suggest that it was superseded as a local capital by the site of Elliniko. On the northern hilltops, opposite of Peristeria and across the Kyparissian river valley a few sites were recorded with scattered surface sherds (#12, 13, 14) and one more site with slightly elevated surface (#15). In Hagios Ilias (#12), Sphakoulia (#14) and Tsoukheda (#13), scattered sherds were dispersed in an extent of 1.1 and 2.5 ha, classifying them among the big sized settlements of this area. Among the two valleys, Kyparissian Rivers and Soulima, an interesting number of sites with habitation function was recorded, spanning from MH to LH IIIB and mainly identified because of surface scattered sherds (#41, 42, 45, 46, 47, and 48). Moving to the east and entering the natural basin of Soulima valley the number of sites increases, stretching both on the hilltops and the flat land of the valley. Malthi’s acropolis (#29), located south of the Soulima valley and on the passage among it and the Steniklarian valley, is still the first and the only one fully excavated prehistoric settlement in the study area. In 1933, Valmin started excavating around and on the top of Ramovouni ridge, close to Vasiliko village. On this prominent and strategic hilltop, he unveiled a fortified acropolis, which he called Malthi, having an occupation history that goes back to MH period and reaching until early LHIII A. In the foothills of Ramovouni ridge, in a 60 m distance from the Gouves tombs (#51), a settlement named Gouves was found, dated in LH IIIA-B period (#30). Gouves (#30) occupied an area of 3.0 ha and Valmin (1953) discovered LH IIIB and maybe IIIA remains of a settlement or a single large building. Decades later, during rescue excavations conducted by the Ephorate of Antiquities in Messenia, remains were found at the south east side of the Ramovouni ridge. The site named Lakathela (#27) and its use is dated back to EH, MH with presence also of LH III (A? - C) traces and with a gap in LH I-II. A fortified acropolis of Malthi’s size, hanging on a hill and gazing the passage among two fertile valleys is a good candidate for a central administration site. West of the acropolis, minor settlements with few remains are Rachi-Chani (#31) and Morlou (#32) where surface sherds of MH and LHIII (A- B, C?) were found, while south of Malthi the sites Kastro tou Mila (#25), Profitis Ilias (#26) and Veizi (#28) are considered habitation places dated with uncertainty to the MH and LH periods. Further to the west of the ridge on hilly terraces were registered cyclopean walls in Hagios Dimitrios A (#33) and scattered sherds in Hagios Dimitrios B (#34). The settlements Palaiokastro (#35) and Rachi-Gortsia (#49) dated with some uncertainties to MH and LH periods and their extent does not exceed 0.8 ha. Impressive are also the number of sites found north of the Soulima valley, one of them

17 on the Kondra hill (#36) dated in MH and LH III (A-B). Between Psari and Kondra and slightly to the west, one more site was identified (#38) due to scattered sherds on its surface. The most northern sites of this cliffy region that surrounds Soulima valley was Panayia (#39), where LH sherds were found. The Pamisos valley, due to its hilly surroundings, forms a triangle at its northern end, known as Steniklarian valley, which could provide ideal ground for the emersion of protected sites. Before entering the Steniklarian valley, on the passage from Soulima, the site Agios Taxiarchis (#50) holds a strategical position. Beyond this point, in Steiniklarian valley scattered sherds were found in Loutses (#17) and the same pattern was recorded in Chazna (#21), while a small settlement was found at the eastern point of the study area (#19) and two more settlements with the remarkable size of 4.5 ha were recorded in Hagios Nikolaos (#20) and Krebeni (#23). Many of the sites are placed on hills or on elevated areas, seem to have good view over the region, for example Lepreon (#2), Panayia (#39), Chazna (#21), Sintilithi (#38), Palaikastro (#35), Palaiophrygas (#8) or the site on the hill Kondra (#36) close to Dorion village. On another category of sites belong these that showed a preference to fertile land rather that the isolated, hilly areas, like Paradami (#46), Loutses (#17), Gouva (#45) or Chalikia (#48).

2.4 Tombs Construction of monumental tombs started already in MH period, though it is always hard to ascribe the exact date of construction or use of a tomb. The finds and the type are a big advantage in order to date a tomb, but absence of finds can rise questions regarding the date and consequently the correlation among a tomb and a nearby settlement. Tombs, as well as settlements, during the LH period were usually built-in prominent places like hilltops or lower cliffs, visible and predominant over the landscape, a landmark of authority over the surrounding area. Within the boundaries of the study area, were recorded twenty tholoi, (#4, 7, 10, 22, 24, 37, 40, 43, 44, 51) three tumuli (#10, 11) and two cist chambers (#10,18), while there are assumptions for more constructions attributed in all the above categories (eight tholoi tombs # 2, 11, 15, 41, 47, one tumulus #38 and 10 cist chambers #2, 10, 15, 37) (Fig. 4). Two tholoi excavated in Peristeria (#10) by Marinatos and some years later one more by Korres, indicating the existence of a powerful administration centre. They have been in use already from the MH period until LH II and they are unique since they were constructed within the acropolis walls, not a customary practice for tholos tombs. On the hill Kokorakou, around 500 m west of Peristeria hill, Marinatos and later Korres mentioned the existence of a MH tumulus but we are missing the exact geographical location (Zavadil 2014: 499f). Other burial places that started being in use from MH are Kastri (#15), where a possible cist grave was mentioned, but it was not excavated or identified during later research and Chazna (#22), where a ruined tholos of a great diameter (13m) was found, close to the later settlement of Chazna (#21). Diversity of burial constructions in the early Mycenaean period (LH I- LH II) reveals changes in social structure rather than expressions of territorialism (Cavanagh & Mee 1998:41- 60). The LH I and II tombs were impressive, indicative of social power of local chiefs, planned for hosting more than one person, differentiating them by the single use MH tomb types (Cavanagh & Mee 1998: 41, Bintliff 2012: 181). In this period two tholoi in Metsiki (#37), were constructed close to the modern village Ano Psari and they remained in use at least until the early LH III. Both had rich grave gifts and prominent position on the hill above Soulima Valley, though no related settlement was found at the surroundings, but a few ruined cist graves at the Varelakou site, some 300 m away and the settlement in Sintilithi (#38). At Kakovatos (#3), the three tholoi tombs (#4) are approximately 100 m distance from the settlement and among the finds were pottery sherds and a golden ring, dated around

1500/1400 BC (Iakovidis 1970: 291). In the same period are dated two tholoi tombs from Vasiliko (#24), excavated by Valmin. During rescue excavations, Chatzi (1991:134-135), notice a tumulus shaped elevation, that possibly covered a tholos tomb in Pyrgaki (#11). This site lies on the passage from the Kyparissian river valley to the Soulima valley, it has a magnificent view to the Kyparissian gulf but also on the surrounding valleys and hills. The tombs in Peristeria (#10) Kakovatos (#3) and Psari (#37) and some more around the area demand a significant labour input, and that may be indicative of the political structure of the Early Mycenaean Messenia. The tombs that are possibly connected with Malthi, Peristeria, and Kakovatos settlements are seemingly privileged, and Dickinson and Simpson suggest some competition among these settlements and perhaps tholoi have been used as symbol of prestige and status (Dickinson & Simpson 1977: 91-93). In LH IIIA-B the architecture of tombs was more standardized and consolidated. This is the period when the most architecturally impressive Mycenaean tombs were built. Many tombs barely survive, if at all, beyond LH IIIA1 (Kakovatos, Peristeria). This could be a sign of power centralization within Mycenaean polities, while at the same time newly built medium sized tombs, like Gouves (#51), could signal the rise to prominence of rulers at the secondary centres: either towns subsidiary to the major palaces or smaller independent or buffer states in the interstices between the major powers of LH III Greece. In this period belong three tholoi tombs found in Ailias (#40), close to the modern village Chalkias, constructed on a hilly area, isolated and far from the valley, while one more was mentioned to exist on the adjoining hill of Kroikanou (we are missing any further information). Close to the villages Ano and Kato Kopanaki, 4 tholoi were found, Valmin excavated two of these tholoi at the site Akourthi (#43) while the fourth one in Gouva (#44) was already ruined by the time it was discovered by Simpson and McDonald. These tholoi had been used starting from LH II and possibly until LH IIIB. In LH III A-B belong a cist grave in Loutses (#18) close to Diavolitsi and a tholos tomb close to Elliniko (#7). In general, LH IIIA and B is perceived as a period of uniformity. Tholos and chamber tombs emerge as the standard tomb types, but cist and pit graves were still common. Tumuli and built graves were no longer popular, and they were slightly restricted. The types of tombs differ in every region, with treatment of the dead remaining the same.

3. Settlement patterns and Land Use

3.1. Topography Landscape is considered to be ‘the skin of Earth’s surface’ (Llobera 1996) which changes by its inhabitants while at the same time shapes their way of living. Though, like the skin alternates through the years so does the landscape, while the “bones” - in this case, geology and topography - remain unaltered, allowing us to trace an imaginary form of the landscape based on today’s given facts. Environment is often regarded as a synonym of landscape, climate and fauna (Ingold 1993), raising queries when trying to define it. Hypothetically, there are many forms of landscape as well as different kinds of environments, depending on the nature of the research and the aims of a study. In this chapter the factors of topography, environment, geology and water resources are discussed. Additionally, aspects of modern land use and approaches on the past-natural environment are presented. Most of the information regarding environment and geology derive from studies focusing on Peloponnese and the area of Messenia, and not specifically focused on northern Messenia. The southwestern Peloponnese is composed by various geomorphological features, constituting an ideal environment for the development of micro-regions. Focusing on northern Messenia, we may notice a few of these micro-regions, framed and defined by ridges, hills, mountains which are succeeded by valleys. Notable acreage of fertile flat land is shared among the Soulima, Messenian and Kyparissian River valleys. In the northern border of the study area, we meet the Minthi Mountain, extended north- eastern of Kakovatos (#3, 4). The Tetrazi Mountain, divided by the Neda River and extended above Psari (#37) and Chalkias (#40), is the northern-eastern border. The mountain Psychro, in the south west and the Ramovouni ridge (#29, 27), to the south east are defining the south end of the study area. The seacoast of the Kyparissian Gulf serves as the natural western boundary stretching through the entire length of the region. At the east side, the ridges that surround the upper Messenian Plain- also known as Steniklarian plateau- are the eastern border of the study area. Most of the sites are concentrated within Soulima, Kyparissian and Steniklarian plains, while a restricted number of these sites are located sporadically on the elevated relief that reaches from 3 to 1200 metres above sea level (m.a.s.l). The remarkable diversity of the region’s topography had attracted inhabitants in the past, providing a chance for settlements to emerge as early as the Neolithic period. Various fluctuations in terms of site size and numbers were noticed but the area was never totally deserted. With the above rich geographical features, the early inhabitants attempted to control the available local resources and gradually developed agricultural activity (Loy & Wright, 1972:36).

3.2. Environment Natural vegetation zones can be seen in Europe from its far south to its far north, consisting of evergreen trees, followed by mixed evergreen-deciduous trees and shrubs, gradually replaced by coniferous trees, which on their turn decrease and eclipse on the highest and rockiest regions were low plants dominate (Bintliff 2012:17). However, invasive human activities, related to farming-herding economy, have dramatically changed Europe’s natural vegetation zones during the Holocene, with Greece not being an exception (Wright

1972:188, Bintliff 2012:17). Based on the diverse climate and topography, each region developed different model of land use, creating by this way a patchwork of diversified landscape across Greece. Assumptions regarding past-vegetation in northern Messenia are hard to be make, though the Linear B texts (1200 BC) provide information about timber exploitation and other agricultural products such as olives, figs, flax, vines, which seemed to be prominent in the LH III landscape of Messenia (Wright 1972:189). Pollen analysis was conducted in central Messenia, in the Gialova Lagoon - also referred as Osmanaga lagoon - on behalf of the UMME (Wright 1972: 188-199). This analysis showed a decrease of pine forests that were a prominent feature in the area before the EH period, while some centuries later, presumably in late MH or early LH III, this feature seems to be totally absent from the environment. Indeed, later pollen researches conducted by John Kraft (Kraft et.al.1980: 187- 210) and Eberhard Zangger (Zangger et al. 1997) in the Gialova lagoon had similar results with a higher accuracy. The pine forests were dominant in the wider area around 7.000 calculated years before present (c. 5000 BC) but gradually decreased (c. 7000-4000 cal. yrs. BP/ 5000 – 2000 BC) and oak trees prevailed. Eventually, in approximately 3950 cal. yrs BP (1950BC) pines were reduced even more in front of the demand for more agricultural land and they were almost extinguished (3600 cal. - 3400 cal. yrs BP/1600-1400 BC) (Kraft et al. 1980; Zangger et. al 1997). New cultivations appeared in the area (3200 cal. yrs. BP/ 1200BC), like cereals and walnuts, while an olive peak occurred between 2500-2100 cal. yrs BP (1500-1100 BC) (Zangger et al., 1997). In 2017, Erika Modig analysed core samples from Gialova lagoon for her thesis. The results illustrate with accuracy, the great human impact on the vegetation of Messenia during the Bronze Age. Specifically, during 3486 – 3658 cal. yrs BP (1708 – 1536 BC) pollen from olive trees and wheat were introduced, while Chenopodiaceae/Ericaceae were in their peaks. In 3055 – 3486 cal. yrs BP (1536 – 1105 BC) oak trees decreased due to the expansion of agriculture area by the inhabitants of the region. In 2771 – 3055 cal. yrs BP (1105 – 821 BC) olive pollen reached the maximum amount of total cultivation in the area and oaks/ macchia decreased (Modig 2017: 21-23). The intensification of cultivation of the late 19th early 20th centuries has left much of the landscape treeless (Bintllif 2012: 18), which gradually changed as the agriculture-involved activities decreased. Statistics from 20th century’s land use in Peloponnese (1961) show a preference on grains cultivation (27,1%), olive groves (25%), vineyards (14,5%), vegetables and fruits (9,4%), crops for livestock’s food (7,0%) and other kind of crops (7,0%). According to the Agriculture Census in Greece (Hellenic Statistic Authority 2019), Messenia had 84700 ha of land for agriculture and pasture use during 2009. High in the agricultural economy of the region are the olive grove holdings, occupying 60400 ha followed by 14300 ha of permanent grassland and meadow, permanent crops and kitchen gardens and a small amount of 4000 ha for grapes and vineyards.

3.3. Geology and Hydrology The Greek landscape morphology owns its characteristics to extensive and intense geological deformation of the earth’s crust, known as the Alpine Orogeny, which took place in recent geological time (Bintliff 2012:12). The geomorphology of Peloponnese is characterized by diversity in both local and regional patterns having as main underground components limestone and alluvial sediments (Weiberg 2016). In the UMME pocket map 3- 7 northern Messenia’s geology is illustrated with mountains, ridges, hilly lands, Pliocene terraces, valleys (kampos) and alluvial slopes being the prominent components. What is more interesting is the quality and type of soil that we can find in the study area (Fig. 5). Based on the soil map of the study area (OPEKEPE & AUTH 2015), six different classes of soil were digitized. The hilly areas of the region are not presented in Figure 5 as they were not illustrated in the original map. In northern Messenia, the three valleys included in the study area have some differences in their soil composition. The Kyparissian river valley

21 mainly consist of campisols (CM), luvisols (LV), calcisols (CL) and with little inclusions of fluvisols (FL). Among these soils, campisols can be highly productive and are widely used for cultivation. Luvisols soils have some inclusions of clay and they come from colluvial deposits of limestone weathering, though these are also considered being mostly fertile and for a wide range of agricultural activities. Calcisols soils can be found in arid or semi- arid regions and bushes, grasses and xerophytic vegetation are mainly growing on this kind of soil. Fluvisols, are relatively ‘young’, fertile soils, created by alluvial deposits and are common to find close to riverbanks, riverplains or lakes and lagoons. The Soulima valley has a less diverse soil consistence, with campisols being prominent in the biggest part of the valley, a zone of fluvisols in the heart of the valley and a small parish of regosol (RG), a type occuring in arid or semi-arid, mountainous, and eroding regions. Finally, the Pamisos valley is rich in fluvisols soils, while the surroundings are composed of campisols, with some parishes having inclusions of leptosols (LP) and a little of regosol. Leptosols soils appear in mountainous land or in areas that have eroded so intensively that the hard rock comes near to the surface. Rainfed cultivations has difficulties to thrive here, but the soils may be used for extensive grazing or crop trees. In general, the soils in these three valleys indicate that we are in presence of a fertile land that can provide its inhabitants with a diverse ground for different types of crop cultivation. Equally significant for agriculture production are the water resources of the region. The study area has a rich network of rivers, streams, and underground springs. In UMME, pocket maps 3-6 and 3-7, springs, streams and rivers are graphically illustrated allowing a better understanding of the water resources of the area. However, the hydrological network of Greece has been mapped afresh by the Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration (IGME & GEODATA 2019). In Fig. 6, the hydrology of the study area is presented. There are some springs, in the Kyparissian and Steniklarian valleys and one south of the Soulima valley, on the hilly terrain, which were already known by the UMME records as Drosopigi or Panayia. Beyond the Neda River there are three more springs along the north bank of the river. The Kyparissia River -also known as the Kalo Nero or Peristeria river-, originates from the Kyparissian Mountains, while the Neda River gathers its waters from Lykaio Mountain and both flow into the Kyparissian gulf. At the east side of the Kyparissian valley, perennial streams are abundant, providing a unique supply of water for the surrounding fields. The Vasiliko or Chouchlotos (Xouxlotos) River, starts a few kilometres north of the modern village Dorion and drains into the Mavrozoumena River along with another river branch the Amfita River. The Amfita river waters the Steniklarian valley and flows east of the Ramovouni ridge and along the modern Vasiliko village to be finally poured into the Mavrozoumena river. The Mavrozoumena River also drains water from small and medium streams coming from the hills that demarcate the Steniklaros valley. There also abundant perennial and seasonal streams that are not illustrated in Fig. 6.

3.4 Spatial distribution Distribution maps have traditionally been used by archaeologists for quantitative evaluation of sites and their changes through time. It has been proven to be an important tool for interpreting and analysing both spatial patterns and landscape dynamics (Conolly & Lake 2006:162). In this chapter, the legacy data will be used for producing a GIS-based kernel density estimation (KDE) which aims to estimate spatial distribution of sites and potential hotspot areas. In other words, the digitized MH-LH IIIB sites will be used as input for producing heat map distribution between the core and the surrounding areas (Bonnier et al. 2019). For the KDE we need to set a specific radius according to which the different density levels shall be calculated. In this thesis, a 5 km radius will be set, based upon Vita-Finzi and Higgs (Vita- Finzi et al. 1970) definition of ideal catchment area for agricultural communities. The result is raster layer with uneven classes that are separated according to significant

22 alterations. In order to visualize the results of the KDE in a comprehensive way, the KDE raster was divided into three-tiers where the ‘maximum extent’ corresponds to the potential full area of the kernel, the ‘medium extent’ consists the second tier and the ‘high-density area’ is the hotspot (also called core or kernel) of the heat map (Bonnier et. al 2019). Here, it should be highlighted that high-density definition corresponds to aggregation of sites and not to population densities and that graduated symbols in Figures 7-8 are used to display the size of sites in hectares, as they were found in the UMME publication. Also, regarding the radius, while a 5 km radius should not be considered as a de facto catchment area for all the sites but rather as an average. For the KDE two datasets were created, one with sites that have uncertain periodical subdivisions or poor quantity of finds (dataset 1) and the second one where sites with the above factors are excluded (dataset 2, Appendix 2 was used for the creation of these two datasets). Specifically, sites ascribed to the LH period with no further subdivision into LH I, II or III and sites with little or uncertain dated finds (values 3 in Appendix 2) were included in the first dataset. In the second dataset, both the LH sites and those with uncertain amount or date of finds are excluded. It should be emphasized that sites simply dated as LH were added in the first dataset for both study periods, MH- LH II and LH IIIA-B. However, these sites are excluded from the dataset 2. Undoubtedly, despite the fact that uncertain sites could be omitted, and the analysis could only be conducted for sites in data set 2, with as much information from the legacy data as we could extract, we may define a milestone for further research on these ‘problematic’ sites. The maps in Fig.7a-b illustrate the KDE for the MH – LH II periods, operated for 35 sites included in dataset 1 and 19 sites that are present in dataset 2. In Fig. 7a (dataset 1), the hotspot of aggregated sites is occurring in the central part of the study area, the Soulima valley, extending both west and north, to the Kyparissian river valley and the hilly terrain respectively. A minor cluster is also developed in the Steniklarian valley, consisted by two centrally located, big-sized sites and three more in the core’s periphery. The medium extent of the core, expands around the two kernels and moves towards the northernmost part of the study area, including all the sites that are located there. The maximum extent frames both medium and core areas without any distinct variation in its shape. In Fig.7b (dataset 2), the core of sites remains in the Soulima valley, though less extended than in the first analysis. The second core in the Steniklarian valley, is almost absent and only two sites are situated in its periphery. The medium extent of the core forms an interesting shape that surrounds all the sites in Steniklarian, Soulima valleys but also the northernmost and the southernmost located sites. The maximum extent, as in dataset 1, does not appear any spatial variation. While we would expect a dispersed settlement pattern when there are many settlements in the analysis (dataset 1) and a nucleation of settlements when there are few, the spatial pattern of the MH – LH I-II periods seems rather random and dispersed in both analyses. We may have a concentration of sites in the core area, but neither their size nor their pattern seems to obey to a specific order. Maybe a pattern is taking form in the Steniklarian valley, with the two sites of similar size in the centre of the core area and two or three more, not necessarily smaller in size, in their periphery and the medium extent of the core area. In the KDE of the LH IIIA-B periods (Fig.8 a-b), 41 sites are included in the first dataset (Fig.8a) and 27 sites in the second one (Fig.8b). In Fig. 8a (dataset 1), the hotspot is again in Soulima valley but this time it extends and includes the few dispersed sites of the Steniklarian valley. The medium extent of the core extends towards the few northern settlements and towards the southern part of the area, also incorporating those scattered settlements. In Fig.8b (dataset 2), two separate core areas have been formed, one in the Soulima valley and one in the Steniklarian plateau. The core areas of LH IIIA-B sites (dataset 2) are similar in terms of geographical extent and sites aggregation, to those of MH- LHII (dataset

1). Though, the medium extent of this analysis (dataset 2, LH IIIA-B), it appears an expansion fluctuation, as it surrounds both the high-density cores, but it also forms a cluster around the dispersed settlements of the northern part of the study area. Comparing both periods and datasets, the findings show that the Soulima valley and partially the Kyparissian river valley were the primary areas for the establishment and the development of settlements throughout the chronological span from MH to LH IIIB periods. The Steniklarian Valley may also have important sites as they are big in size in both periods and it shows a tendency to stand independent from the main core of the adjacent Soulima valley. The sites located north, towards Kakovatos, are quite dispersed to form a hotspot, however they are always included in the medium extent of the KDE. In general, it is hard to underline any specific spatial distribution patterns, even if there is a frequency of sites aggregation around the Soulima and Steniklarian valleys. However, comparing the number of sites with the extent of the density tiers, we can notice that even if the number of sites is higher in one specific period, the medium and maximum extent can vary as the distribution of sites fluctuates. For example, the medium extent of KDE for MH- LH II settlements (Fig. 7b), occupies a great amount of land compared to the medium extent of the LH IIIA-B (Fig. 8b) even there more sites ascribed in LH IIIA-B period. That is because of the sparse distribution of few settlements in the southern part during the MH- LHII period. Finally, the effort to identify sites with successive occupation throughout the MH - LH IIIB periods returned poor results, since there is an occupation ‘gap’ in different periods for each site (see Appendix 1-2), except of one site that was inhabited throughout the entire chronological span: Peristeria (#10).

3.5 Land-use Above, the site distribution over the landscape of northern Messenia indicates already a preference to Soulima and Kyparissian River valleys. Willing to get the fullest advantage of the site distribution maps and to reconstruct the potential rural settlement patterns as well as the possible land use shifts, further analysis will be produced based this time on the region's topography. Regional topography may dictate the utility of settling down in a specific area, whether this will be in a valley or a place with easily accessible water resources or with fertile soil (Sollers 2005: 258). The main activities of the rural societies of the Mediterranean were the cultivation of cereals and barley and the mobility of sheep and goats’ flocks for pasture, from valleys to mountains, during winter and summer respectively (Halstead 2000: 111). When the inhabitants of MH-LH III B sites settled down, perhaps they took into consideration factors like environment, topography, and perhaps social political events of that period. The environment is Northern Messenia, as we know it today, could be ideal for evolving sites as it is rich in springs, rivers, streams and fertile valleys (cf. Chapter 3.2-3). Moreover, certain characteristics of topography such as elevation and slope are considered important indicators of preference in settlement locations as they empower the functionality of a site in terms of defence and control of the area (Chapter 3.1). Finally, we are aware of a strong social- political formation during the Late Bronze Age, in the heart of Messenia, with Ano Englianos palace being the most important component of it but we lack information regarding the social political situation in the study area of the present thesis. Eventually, perhaps the analysis environmental and topographical factors can lead to assumptions considering the social political conditions of the MH-LH IIIB periods. In the UMME publication, Herman Wersch (1972: 177-187) uses Loy’s land quality classification (Loy 1972:36-76) to hypothesize land use patterns in Messenia (Table 1). A generalized potential land use map (pocket map 11-21) follows closely Loys’ classification and indicate six major land use classes (Wersch 1972: 182f). The classification that Wersch defined is based on slope, soil fertility and crops suitability with categories 1 to 3 being those

24 with the higher potentials for cultivation, while categories 4 to 6 are mostly marginal, lowland or forestry lands. Using the size of area (h.a) to normalize each land use category and combining this to the frequency of sites distributed in the area, it appears that class 1 had the highest density of habitation sites during the Bronze Age. More specific, class 1 had a 2.9% of density habitation during MH and skyrockets in LH with 8.5%, similarly class 2 has percentage of 2.6 in MH period and a 7.6% in LH period. The percentages in land use classes 3 and 4 are relatively lower in both periods, but higher in LH than in MH due to respective higher number of sites. Finally, is remarkable that the un-inhabited in MH, class 5 gain some ‘popularity’ among the inhabitants of LH period. In another project conducted in Keos island, Todd Whitelaw (2000: 228-243) also discusses site distribution and spatial patterns and how it is related to specific topographic features, such as slope. Whitelaw highlights the need for quantifying site dynamics to compare them between time periods, and he makes an approach to set a quantitative parameter of site location preference and slope angle (Whitelaw 2000:234-237). Whitelaw underlines three categories of land-use surfaces around which the rural societies acted in Keos: low slope areas, meaning valleys with fertile soils and less than 10 degrees of slope, areas adjacent to the valleys that may need terracing before they get cultivated, 10-15 degrees and finally, terraced areas over 15 degrees (Table 2). Comparing the two classifications of land use surfaces and having in mind the sites distribution of northern Messenia, the three classes seem to be more suitable for the present thesis. As Wersch has noticed, classes 5 and 6 were low in the rank of land use preference or not occupied at all, clustering this way all the sites for both periods around classes 1 to 4. Then class 2 and 3 as they have been defined by Wersch has similar features in terms of soil fertility. Following the method in Bonnier’s current examination of land use in previously published legacy data from Berbati - Limnes area in Greece (Bonnier et. al 2019), the three tiers of the heat map are intersected with a layer that depicts the slope values of the area. The slope has been classified according to Whitelaw’s slope classification (Table 2) in less than 10 degrees, 10 to 15 and over 15 degrees. Previously, the three tiers of the reclassified KDE layer illustrated the high- density cores and the potential medium and maximum extent of it. The intersection of these 3 tiers with the quantified layer of slope will provide us quantitative data regarding the analogy of different classes of slope in each tier. The quantification of land use-surfaces was conducted for the sites listed in both datasets 1 and 2. Starting from dataset 1 and the two high-density cores of MH-LHII it can be noticed a diverse distribution of slope classes (Table 3, Fig. 9a). The big central MH-LH II core, from now on core 1, it occupies an area of 14.699 ha of which the 49% belongs to slope class 1, 17% to slope class 2 and 34% to slope class 3. The minor core of the same period, located on the Steniklarian plateau, called from now on core 2 (Fig.9a), it occupies a quite small area of only 1.630 ha from which the 82% is in slope 1, 7% in slope 2 and 11% in slope 3. There is a big difference between the total surface of the cores, thus if we discuss about preference the inhabitants of core 2 have opt to establish mainly in flat land. Regarding the high-density core of LH IIIA-B (Fig.9a), it occupies an area that includes both cores 1 and 2 from the previous period covering almost the same surface, 16.057 ha. The preference in different classes of slope is also similar to that of both cores from MH-LHII (Table 3, Fig. 9a). It is remarkable, that slope 3 comes second in the preference of the inhabitants of both periods and slope 2 appears as the least favoured. Considering the great number of hectares occupied by the medium and maximum extend of both periods, flattened land is now replaced by marginal, elevated areas and the shift between these two classes is even more dramatic in the maximum extent of the hotspot (Fig. 9b-c). In dataset 2, the MH-LH II has one high density core that captures 10.629 ha while in LH IIIA-B two different cores were formed occupying an area of 13.122 ha (Table 3, Fig. 9d). The distribution of slope classes’ follows the same pattern as in the analysis of dataset 1, with slope 1 ranked first and slope 3 and 2 following. The second core, of the LH IIIA-B is now expanding to marginal areas, having a 27% percentage of its surface within slope 3. In

25 dataset 2, the medium extent of MH-LHII core is having a 45% of its area in class slope 3 and class slope 1 follows with 39%. In the LH IIIA-B period two medium extent cores were performed, one in the central study area and one in the northern part of it (Fig. 9e). The first one has almost same amount of slope 1 and 2 in its territory, 43% and 42% respectively while in the second core the lead is on the first class of slope with 46% and the third class follows with 37%. In all the cores in both periods, slope 2 fluctuates from 15 to17% while the second core of the LH IIIA-B is the only medium extent core that occupies more slope 1 than 3. Finally, the maximum extent in both periods, as it is reasonable occupies more and more land in slope 3, with slope 1 and 2 following (Fig.9f). The above analysis of slope in terms of land use patterns and shifts proves a preference of the inhabitants of the high-density cores to use flat land for cultivation (slope 1), while next they opt the marginal areas (slope 3). It is remarkable that when there is a second core in the high- density area, like in MH-LH II, dataset 1 and LH IIIA-B dataset 2, it opts mostly flat land (slope 1). On the other hand, land that has slope class 2, is always limited in all the three extends and it holds significantly low percentages in both periods. An intersection of sites points with the three classified slope proves the above result. In Fig. 10 the pie charts illustrate the number of sites (in %) ascribed to each category of slope. In both the datasets, the inhabitants seem to be in favour of either sloped or flat territories, as the percentages of class 3 and 1 are almost always in the first and second place of preference (with an exception in MH-LHII, dataset 2). The settlements ascribed in dataset 1 keep a similar pattern in both periods. Over 40% of the MH –LH II and LH IIIA-B settlements were established by the past inhabitants in marginal areas (slope 3) while their second choice was flat land (slope 1, Fig. 10 a-b) The settlements ascribed in dataset 2 follow a more variate pattern (Fig. 10 c-d). In MH –LH II period settlers chose to establish their villages in slopy areas (58%) and directly after this in areas with less slope but not completely flat (slope 2: 26%). This result overturns what it has been proved previously in the land use analysis, where slope 2 was always occupying less hectares and it was third in the rank after slope 1 and 3 (Fig. 10c). There is an exception regarding the settlements of LH IIIA-B, dataset 2, were slope 1 gain ground against slope 3, while slope 2 is third in settlers’ preference, following the pattern of the dataset 1 analyses (Fig. 10d). In chapter 3.3, the soil map reflects different types of soils in the study area, though it does not cover the whole region. The initial idea was to intersect the soil maps to the KDE, to test possible preference of sites to allocate in areas with specific soil type and slope. However, in the original map (OPEKEPE &AUTH 2012) not all the areas were digitized and identified with specific soil consistency and the KDE extents widely to the hilly areas with unidentified soil types. Eventually, an intersection of the soil map with the position of each site attempted, returning results only for 24 sites, where four of them are situated within the fluvisol, five in the calsisol, two in the luvisol and thirteen in the campisols soils (see Fig. 5). Regarding the water sources (Fig. 6), the settlements located in the Kyparissian river valley were favoured as the area has abundant ground water that extents toward the Soulima valley but also a river crossing the valley. Within there a lot of sites that would take advantage of these ground waters (# 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 45, 46 and 47). On the northern part of the study area, the Neda River and the ground water sources probably attracted the inhabitants of the past and they were wisely settled around the water (# 16, 1, 2, 3 and 5). On the central plateau of the Soulima valley, there no rivers, springs or ground waters but maybe some season creek watered part of the area. Though, settlements developed also around the rivers of Vasiliko (Xouxlotos) (# 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31) and Amfitas (# 17, 18, 20 and 21).

4. Hierarchy and Connectivity

In an attempt to construct potential site connectivity and hierarchy between sites, the result of four different GIS analyses will be discussed: visibility, viewshed, connectivity and least cost path. The GIS analysis has the potential to enhance our understandings of past landscapes, as we take a step beyond to observe the topography (Wheatley& Gillings 2000). With simple analysis we could hypothesize numerous scenarios on how connectivity and visibility could be factors that affected the inhabitants’ decision to establish themselves around the area of the three valleys. On the other hand, analysis of connectivity and visibility among sites, which are based on landscape, should be done carefully, as we have no evidences on how the landscape looked like and any attempt of landscape reconstruction should be deemed as weak.

4.1. Visibility Visibility may play a significant role on a socio-political or symbolic level (Llobera 2005), considering that it has been used in past civilizations as the most reliable mean of control over an area, but also it has been recognised as an indicator of power and status. For example, many sites have been built on a hill, avoiding settling on the fertile lowlands. The decision to build on a hill offers exceptional visibility to those that live in the settlement and on the same time it provides power status, since a hilltop settlement is visible from valley located sites, reminding who is prominent or privileged among others. Like the settlements, location of monumental tombs worked as statements of power and status (Cavanagh & Mee 1998: 123- 127). As mentioned in the topography chapter, the study area mainly consists of lowland, but with the presence of highly contrasted low hills and mounts. Table 4 shows a list with the number of sites that are assigned to different intervals of elevation. Apparently, as it can be seen in the distribution maps, the inhabitants of the study area do not follow any specific pattern to settle. Their preference to elevated areas varies, from 40 m.a.s.l., reaching up to 760 to 780 m.a.s.l. However, it may be noticed that areas with elevation over 100 meters and up to 320 meters are preferred. In MH- LH II people seem to prefer elevations that are higher than 120 m, having though a few sites on a lower level, those that are close to the shores (#4, 3, and 11). On the highest elevation, north and relatively far from the valleys is placed the tholos of Ailias (# 40), at 760 to 780 m.a.s.l. The LH IIIA-B sites are seemingly less widespread and more evenly classified upon specific elevation values. For example, there are five sites (# 1, 10, 16, 17, 24), on the elevation of 120-140 m and five more at 160-180 m (#6, 20, 30, 31, 50). Similarly, there are some small groups of sites located at higher elevation areas at 420-440 m (#7, 13, 14, and 34). In total there are more LH IIIA-B sites on high hills than those assigned to MH- LH II period. Looking for hierarchical patterns through visibility criteria is a simple analysis to do but quite controversial when it is time to decide the observer points. Is it right to set only one observer point or is it better to use more than one and if so, which points are going to be selected? Could a cumulative visibility be generated by the total number of sites work, or is it better to use the sites within the hotspot areas as they were previously defined in the KDE? Or should the viewshed only be conducted for those sites that are better recorded in the sources, such as Malthi (#29), Kakovatos (#3), Peristeria (#10)? Three different analysis are presented below, using different observer points: one cumulative visibility analysis (V) where the total number of sites for both periods and datasets were used (Chapter 3.4), one cumulative visibility analysis (V) generated for the points that fell within the hotspots of

27 both datasets for both periods and finally individual viewshed analyses (VS) for three well recorded sites (#3, 10, 29). For the analyses, both the viewshed (VS) and the visibility (V) tools were used over an elevation model (DEM) of the study area. Here I should point out that, since the tombs are considered as signs of power and hierarchy these were included in both datasets, for both periods. For the first scenario, four visibility maps were produced, two using the MH-LH II sites and tombs of MH-LH II period as observer points (dataset 1&2) and two for the LH IIIA-B sites and tombs (dataset 1&2). The aim is to record the inhabitants’ ability to supervise their surroundings and then to compare this ability between the two periods. The visibility tool (V) used in this analysis records the number of times (frequency) that each cell location in the input surface raster (DEM) can be seen by the input observation points (ArcGIS2018 Desktop). The outcome of the first analysis for MH -LH II and LH III A-B sites (dataset 1&2) is presented in Fig. 11a-d, where the different colours shows the frequency that each visible cell of the raster surface is observed by the sites. As mentioned above, this visibility analysis examines the ability of each group of sites to overview the surroundings, regardless of the connection between individual observer points and observed surface and for that reason only the location of the sites is displayed and not their names. The large number of sites in both periods in dataset 1 (Fig. 11 a-b), appears to provide an almost catholic surveillance of the area, covering the significant passage from the Kyparissian river valleys to Soulima valley and then to the Steniklarian plateau. The visibility extents alongside the shores of the Kyparissian gulf but not in the eastern hilly inland. Both periods of dataset 1 have almost identical visibility capacity along the landscape overviewing an area of 60.302 ha in MH- LH II period and 59.823 ha in LH III A-B (Table 5) In Fig. 11 c-d, the visibility analysis for dataset 2 has similar geographical and spatial extent as the one coming from dataset 1 (Fig. 11 a-b), thus the observed area is ‘rugged’, with vital ‘gaps’ in the Kyparissian valley and merely along the Kyparissian gulf shores. Specifically, the MH –LH II visibility (Fig. 11 c), although it covers a big part of the Steniklarian valley, barely reaches the two sites of the northern part of the Steniklarian plateau and it also weakens in the passage from the Kyparissian to the Soulima valley (46.498ha of observed area). In the LH IIIA-B period (Fig. 11 d) the view around the Steniklarian valley is better as it leaves no gaps of surveillance, and so it is the visibility towards the Kyparissian river valley (49419 ha of observed area). About the most frequent visible areas, in all the four- visibility analysis maps the eastern part of the study area is observed more frequent. Especially the Steniklarian plateau and its eastern part, but also some hilltops south and north of the Soulima valley are the most frequently observed parts of the study area (Fig. 11 a-d). Looking upon hierarchical visual patterns it is interesting to combine them with the spatial core areas, formed in the land-use analysis chapter (cf. Chapter 3.4). The visibility analysis (V) uses as observer points the sites located within the high-density cores of both periods. The aim is to identify connections among the way that the sites are located in the landscape and their ability to observe their surroundings. Additionally, it may be illuminating to compare the KDE hotspots between the two periods but also the cores between them, for example core 1 and 2 from MH –LH II period (dataset analysis 1, see Fig. 12 a-b). In the MH-LH II analysis of the first dataset, two site density cores were noted, one was capturing many of the sites in and around the Soulima valley (Fig. 12 a) and the second two sites in the Steniklarian valley (Fig. 12 b). In Fig. 12 a, the line of sight from the sites within the high-density core 1 is displayed. It is remarkable that the visibility layer is capturing almost the whole study area, excluding a few parts along the Kyparissian gulf, as well as a part of the Steniklarian plateau but not the south part of it, known as Pamisos valley. If these aggregated sites of the core 1 had any social-political power over the study area, then certainly they were a powerful core, as they were able to observe the biggest part of the

28 inhabited region (33983ha). Moreover, the sites visibility within their own territory, core 1, is remarkable as it covers a 73% of the core’s total surface. Though, their visibility towards core two of the same period is not so strong as it covers only a 12% of the total surface occupied by core 2. On the other hand, the second core of sites (Fig. 12 b), had a quite restricted view (5172 ha), as the two sites of the core (#20, 27) are located in the plateau of the Steniklarian valley, with the hills around them blocking their ability to see beyond their very own territory and the Pamisos valley to the south. The percentage of visible area within the core is as high as 68% while visual contact towards Soulima or Kyparissian valleys (core 1) is absent. The LH IIIA-B dataset 1 (Fig. 12 c), has one main core that occupies the whole Soulima area as well as part of the Steniklarian plateau. Visibility analysis appears as a nearly complete overview that exceeds the one generated from the MH-LHII core 1. The visible area within the core territory is 85% while outside the core the visibility layers covers all the three valleys and it oversees almost all the sites except those in the far north of the study area (#1, 2, 16) and a few that are remoted from the valley system (#9, 14). The frequency of the surface cells that can be seen by the observation points follows the topography’s pattern, as the hilly areas north and east of the valleys are more frequently observed than the flat plateaus. The second dataset for the MH-LH II periods (Fig. 13 a) contains fewer sites and one core. Visibility analysis shows gaps in all the valleys of the study area, covering only a rugged area to the north of the Soulima valley. Even the visible areas within the core’s territory is relatively problematic as only 51% of the core surface can be seen by all the sites together. In general, the visibility of the area from these two high-density cores is covering important parts, in the first analysis and it is quite fragmentized in the second one, having in common a poorly supervision over the Steniklarian plateau. The few sites of LH IIIA-B dataset 2 are forming two high density cores, one around the Soulima valley and one in the Steniklarian. As has been mentioned in the land use chapter, the number of sites in the Steniklarian plateau area increased during the LH IIIA-B, creating this second core. The visibility generated from core 1 (Fig. 13 b) barely covers the Soulima valley, while it lacks visibility over the Kyparissian river valley and the Steniklarian plateau. In total, the visibility layer covers only 46% of core’s total surface and it has almost no visibility towards core 2 (3%). The second minor hotspot (Fig. 13 c) consists of four sites, with two located on an elevated area that could oversee the southernmost area of the Steniklarian valley and at the same time overseeing 80% within the hotspot’s inner territory. Though, only 1% of the surface core 1 can be seen by core 2, similar as in the visibility analysis of dataset 1 (Table 5). Regarding the dataset 2 visibility analysis of the high-density cores, a few things can be noticed. A core of sites concentrated in the Soulima valley and even on the slopes and hills north of the valley will not provide a good visibility of the passage from the Kyparissian river valley to the Soulima valleys. With the inclusion of a handful of sites south of the Soulima valley, a better perception of the surroundings could be managed through an increased overview of the area to the west. Moreover, the sites located in the Steniklarian plateau, although there have not been many finds to prove their existence, may have been in a key location as they could control the Pamisos valley and other rivalling sites that may have been existing in their proximity. Finally, testing the visibility in the area with the intent to unveil any potential hierarchical patterns, I operate three viewshed analyses (VS) at sites that have yield more evidence (finds, settlements remains, etc.) and which were occupied in both chronological periods: Malthi (#29), Peristeria (#10) and Kakovatos (#3). For generating the analyses, a DEM of the region and the viewshed tool were used. To get the best result for each site, the outline of their total geographical extent was digitized with a polygon and then converted into poly-points, since viewshed tool can work only with points and lines. Eventually, with the assumption that these sites had kind sort of fortification around the settlement, still visible in Malthi and additional height of 3 meters was added as an offset.

The acropolis of Malthi (Fig.14) has an exceptional location as it is situated on the north edge of the Ramovouni ridge, on an elevation about 280-300 m.a.s.l. and at the south side of the Soulima valley. The visibility from Malthi to the MH-LHII sites shows that among the 42 (all potential sites and tombs are added in this analysis) only 6 sites are visible (# 25, 26, 31, 35, 36, 39). The area in the Kyparissian river valley and the Steniklarian plateau are not visible at all, while there are many sites that are within the range of the Malthi line-of-sight, but their position is not visible from Malthi (#24, 28, 32, 41, 43 and 42). It could be said that is almost intentional, as the visible surface from Malthi covers a wide range (11,462ha), but as it is natural it has gaps of no visible areas due to the hilly terrain of the region were the above sites are located. Similar is the visibility over the LH III A sites, where on the visible sites were added the settlement recorded west of the Ramovouni (#30) and the tombs in Gouves (#51). The Gouva settlement and tholos (#45, 44), were added to those sites that are within the range of viewshed but built in an unseen slope. There is a straight separation line in the east part of the study area, due to a range of low hills on the northern east edge of the Ramovouni ridge. Besides the obstacle, Malthi has some visibility over the southern part of the Steniklarian valley (Pamisos valley). Eventually, Malthi may have had a privileged supervision over Soulima valley but certainly not over the sites located in it. Although, as stated before, the sites here are only illustrated with one dimensional point that has no geographical extent, so sites that are nearly adjacent to the visible raster cells should not be considered completely out of sight. The visibility from Peristeria is very limited, overviewing only a small part of the region, north of the cliff and some hill peaks dispersed in the Soulima valley (Fig. 15). It barely covers the passage from the Kyparrisian gulf to the mainland, while the visibility is also low towards southern Messenia. The viewshed coverage is 3,766ha and from Peristeria, people could only supervise one site (#46) during the MH-LHII period and one more during the LH III A-B period (#44). Like Malthi’s viewshed analysis, there are some sites within the viewshed but not located exactly on a visible spot (# 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 45). If visibility was playing an important role in those times for ranking the sites’ influence and power, Peristeria was certainly not regarded as a privileged one. The last VS analysis was generated for Kakovatos (Fig. 16). The view from here is limited in the area around the tomb (#4) and the settlement (#3), with some visibility of the hill peaks to the east and north, as well as an exceptional visibility over the low levelled shore that lies 2.5 klm west of the site. There were two sites occupied only during LH IIIB period, Elliniko (#7) and Kaimena Alonia (#5) and both are within visible areas from Kakovatos. An impressive outcome is the line of sight that reaches in straight line some 25- 30 km south towards today Kyparissia and Filiatra towns, overviewing the Kastro (#6) and Palaiophrygas (#8), but also the shores of the Kyparissian gulf.

4.2. Cost Connectivity network and Least Cost paths Linear B contains some information that bear witnesses to contacts between the region’s sites (Simpson 2014: 45-70). Commodities contribution and tax impositions between different places and the Ano Englianos palace are some of the recorded activities found on these tablets. The exact locations of the places mentioned remain unknown and so do the relationships between them and the palace. Moreover, there are no remains of roads or paths that could be used for reconstructing the network between sites. In this chapter, connection between different sites is approached through the use of Cost Connectivity (CC) and Least Cost Path (LCP). Important for tracing paths with the above tools, is the elevation of the area and more specifically the slope of the terrain. For that reason, the slope model used in chapter 3 is also used in this analysis as the variable for cost time and energy consuming paths. The aim is to reconstruct the potential cost connectivity network between sites, find alternative paths of communication, identify nodal sites and calculate distances within clusters of sites. The LCP needs a source and a destination point;

30 thus, the CC is preferable for analysis that incorporate more than two sites. For the CC analysis all sites for both periods were used and for the LCP analysis, individual sites were set as source and destination points. The LCP is used here as a method to illustrate alternative paths between two single sites, without the distraction of adjacent or intermediate sites. The CC analysis was conducted for both dataset 1 and 2, and tomb locations were added in both datasets and periods. In Fig. 17 a, the connectivity network among the MH-LH II sites for both datasets is illustrated. The CC for dataset 1 has a total length of 110 km and the CC for dataset 2 is 101 km. Both analyses look similar, even if dataset 2 has significantly fewer sites than dataset 1. In the CC analysis (dataset 1), the few sites (#2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15, 16) of the northern part of the study area are connected through the hilly terrain of the region, avoiding any deviation through the flattened Kyparissian shores. Similar, the sites in the southern part (#6, 8, 10, 11, 12) are also avoiding the shores and moving within the inclined terrain. It is interesting to notice how these paths meet in Mesovouni (#47) and they could potentially continue to Akourthi (#43). The sites south of Akourthi create another path that involves sites 9, 33, 34, 35 and 48. On the north-eastern side, a path starts from the highest site of the study area (#40), continues to the south (#39) and it leeds in Sintilithi (#38) where is united with the small path coming from Metsiki (#37). This path continues centrally to the study area, passing from sites 42 and 41. In the east side, sites 23, 22, 20 and 19 are connected with two separate paths that meet in Loutses (#17) and they continue towards the centre of the study area passing from Agios Taxiarchis (#50) and reaching to Xerovrysi (#24). A smaller path of two sites (#25, 26) is coming from the south of Xerovrysi and from that point, the connection network moves northly, to the centre of the study area, passing from Malthi (#29), Rachi-Chani (#31) and Morlou (#32).The sort path (5.5 km) from Stylari (#41) to Mesovouni (#47), with intermediate node Akourthi (#43) can be considered as the central axis of this connectivity network, since all the sites of the eastern and western side of the study area are linked with through these sites. Similar in structure and orientation are the paths created from the sites of dataset 2, though having fewer sites incorporated. What differs is the itinerary that the north-eastern sites follow (#37, 40), as being less in number. The path moves to the west instead of centre and it joins in site Tsoukeda (#13) the path that is coming from the north. The LH IIIA-B connectivity network (Fig.17 b) is denser and more clustered towards the centre of the study area. This is due to the increased number of sites in the core of the study area, the Soulima and Kyparissian river valleys. The total length of the dataset 1 connectivity paths is 120 km and for the dataset 2 is 165 km. The CC for dataset 1 is similar to the CC for dataset 2 regarding the central part of the network. Like the MH-LH II analysis, the paths start from all directions of the study area, north, north east, east, south west, and through intermediate sites they unite to a central axis. In the CC analysis for both datasets, the eastern path, located in the Steniklarian plateau remains the same as in MH-LH II dataset 1 analysis, including two more sites (#18, 21). Similarly, the north east path remains unchanged connecting sites 40, 39, 38, 37, while the southern path that moves around Malthi becomes denser in both datasets as the number of sites in this specific part of the study area rises. As main axis for both datasets is considered a 5 km path in the centre of the Soulima valley, which starts from Stylari (#41) moves towards Gouva (#44, 45) and crosses Akourthi (#43) in CC of dataset 1 and Paradami (#46) in dataset 2. It is interesting to see the different paths that the northern and southern sites follow. While in MH-LH II and also in the LH IIIA-B dataset 1, the sites in the north (#2, 3, 4, 5) are crossing the hilly terrain and passing intermediate sites (#16, 15, 14) to reach the centre of the valleys, in dataset 2, the absence of Aspra Litharia (#16) is guiding the path along the flattened Kyparissian shores. Similar, the path starting from Kastro (#6) when not taking into consideration 8 and 11, like in the previous three CC analyses, it follows the shore and it turns to the east only when it comes in front of the passage from the Kyparissian gulf to the valleys. To conclude, the CC networks were constructed for visualizing paths between sites based on the slope and for identifying nodal points where most of the sites were linked. Both

31 aims were illustrated in the above CC analyses, depicting widespread or clustered connectivity networks but also main axes of contact for both periods and datasets. An additional aim is to illustrate alternative paths between two sites, using LCP analysis. As it has been noticed in the CC of LH IIIA-B, dataset 2, if some sites are not present, the route of the path changes dramatically. For testing different itineraries, a few sites were used as source points and Malthi was used as destination point (Fig.18). The MH-LH II sites (dataset 2) were chosen for a comparison between CC and LCP methods and the reason is the small number of sites in this dataset as well as their equal distribution along the landscape. The difference between the two methods is apparent in the path coming from the north. In the LCP analysis, the paths starting from sites 3, 4, 2 and 16 follows the flattened shores to move towards Malthi, instead of the hilly peaks preferred in CC analysis for the same sites. In terms of quantitative comparison, if we take as an example the paths starting from the northernmost site, like Kakovatos (#3, 4), the total length of the LCP is 36 km while the CC path, which crosses all the hilly areas and passes by 9 sites is around 40 km. As we move further down, the LCP from Aspra Litharia (#16) to Malthi is 28 km and the CC path is 26 km long, from Sphakoulia (#14) to Malthi the LCP is 16 km and the CC 17 km long. In the Steniklarian plateau, the path from Hayios Georgios (#19) to Malthi is quite different between the two analyses. The LCP crosses the valley and moves around the hills, approaching Malthi from the east side (14 km), while the CC path avoids the plateau and moves close to the foothills, in order to pass by Hagios Nikolaos (#20) and to reach Malthi from the south (17 km). Different in direction and length is the path starting from Ailias (#40), being just 12 km with the LCP analysis and around 22 with the CC analysis. In both analyses, the paths starting from Akourthi (#43) to Malthi are 8.5 km and those from Stylari (#41) to Malthi are 6.5 km. In CC analysis, sites like Peristeria (#10) and Kastro (#6) are seemingly following a much- deviated route, since they are passing by sites 12 and 47 before they descend to the Soulima valley and move towards Malthi. However, the difference between the CC path and the LCP is not extremely high, since from Kastro (#6) to Malthi the CC path is 25 km long and the LCP 21 km, while the Peristeria (#10) CC path to Malthi is 18 km and the LCP 14 km. The LCP analysis was mostly used for finding alternative paths that leads straight to one destination, with no other deviation. With some exceptions, the LCP and CC paths do not differ dramatically in length and direction, especially those located in the central core of the study area, the Soulima valley. Finally, a combination of the results of the analyses carried out in chapters 3 and 4 will be attempt below. The idea is to examine if the visibility analysis and the CC network are related to each other. Based on the KDE in chapter 3, the focus will be mainly in the Soulima, Kyparissian and Steniklarian valley where the cores were formed. In Fig. 19 a-b cost connectivity and core visibility are displayed together and it is impressive how they expand towards the same directions. The MH-LH II (dataset 1) cost connectivity network and the visibility cover is thicker in the centre of the study area, especially within core 1 (Fig. 19a). It is interesting to note how the visibility follows the connectivity network outside the core 1, towards sites 37, 39, 40. From core visibility, sections of nearly all paths that are part of the network are visible, with the only exception those paths connecting sites 17 to 23 and 14 to 3. It is remarkable that only one path is visible in its entirety, located centrally and connecting sites 41 and 43. Similarly, the visibility cover for core 2 (dataset 1) is following the CC network within and outside the core territory, being able to totally overview only one path, from site 17 to 20 (Fig.19 a). The combination of CC and core visibility of dataset 2, for the same period, is following the same pattern (Fig. 19 b). Sections of the paths inside and outside the core are visible but, in this analysis, none of the paths is entirely visible. The same combination of CC and VS for LH IIIA-B period (dataset 1&2) is illustrated in Fig. 20 a-b. In the hotspot core of Fig. 20 a, the thick network of sites is covered at a great extent by the core visibility. Sections of all the paths are visible, even those in the

Steniklarian plateau, but an exception is the path from Peristeria (#10) to Elliniko (#7) and from Sphakoulia (#14) towards Kakovatos (#3-4), though none of them is visible in its entire route. The combination of CC and VS for Dataset 2 seems poor compared to the Dataset 1 and MH-LH II analyses (Fig. 20 b). The core visibility barely covers the south side of the CC network and it has no view at all towards the path network of the Steniklarian plateau and to the northern part of the study area (path from Peristeria #10 to Kakovatos #3). The CC network of the Steniklarian plateau is visible from core 2 and it fills in a way the surveillance gap that is so apparent in the core’s 1 visibility analysis.

5. Discussion

5.1. The landscape’s contribution to the evolution of the settlements The landscape is a significant variable in humans’ observation of their surrounding environment. It is one of the main factors for determining the preference to a specific area in terms of establishing a settlement. One of the main quests of this thesis as emerged through its narrative, has been to associate the sites’ distribution in a manner that would inform us on the existence of potential settlements and land use patterns in the Messenian Bronze Age landscape. With the intent to interpret the landscape’s role to the evolution of the settlements, different parameters such as topography, environment and geology were the components of the GIS analyses. The KDE, in combination with the above-mentioned parameters, has been utilized for revealing spatial patterns and for demonstrating land use preference. The results showed that most sites are concentrated in the Soulima and Kyparissian river valleys. It is evident that these two areas were chosen and made a preferred spot for settling since the MH to LH IIIB period. The Steniklarian valley constitutes another area that had started to develop and gradually attracted settlers from MH through LH IIIB. Though, the sparse habitation of the northern part of the study area has left some unanswered questions regarding the interaction of the past settlers to the landscape. The settlements of Kakovatos (#3), Tholon, (#1), Lepreon (#2) Kaimena Alonia (#5) and Aspra Litharia (#16) were in different landscape than the settlements in central study area. The terrain has higher slope gradient and there no big valleys like Soulima or Steniklarian plateaus but rather smaller, although fertile ones (cf. Fig. 5) and abundant ground water (cf. Fig. 6). People here tended to settle sporadically and close to the shore (except #2), which could possibly make them vulnerable as they were in the ‘front-line’ of contact with people approaching from the sea. However, it can be noticed an evolution of the settlements from MH-LHII to LH IIIA-B periods, where Kakovatos (#3), Lepreon (#2) and Aspra Litharia (#16) coexisted in MH-LH II periods while in LH IIIA-B Kaimena Alonia (#5) Tholon, (#1) were also established. Considering the evolution of the settlements on the landscape through the two time periods and the big size of two of these sites (#3, 2), we could assume that the inhabitants were not feeling threatened but rather safe and that they probably used the landscape in their favour, nesting their settlements in secure areas not visible by the sea. But how did the inhabitants of the three valleys perceive and act in the landscape? If the centre of the landscape are factors as topography, resources and land-use (Ashmore & Knapp 1999: 7), then the people living in Soulima, Kyparissian and Steniklarian valley had an exceptional understanding of their surroundings throughout the MH to LH IIIB periods. During the MH-LH II periods the sites in the region noted a major expansion (Simpson 2014: 38) and people settled preferably in areas with high slope gradient or elevated terrain (cf. Chapters 3.4, 4.1). The agricultural activity was already an important part of their economy, as cultivation of olive trees and wheat were introduced at that period according to the latest pollen results (Modig 2017). In the Soulima and Kyparissian valleys, the inhabitants of MH- LH II periods, did not keep up with a specific settling pattern but is apparent that they were trying to obtain as much flat land as they could even if that means that they should settle in slopped terrain or in knolls projecting over the flat areas, like Kondra (#36). This fact has to do with the core areas of this period and not the potential medium and maximum extent that eventually reflects the regions’ natural hilly topography. Additionally, the economy of the inhabitants allowed them to construct some monumental

34 tholos tombs such as those in Peristeria and Psari (# 10, 37) and to develop a few big centres with fortification such as Malthi (#29) and Peristeria (#10). In the Steniklarian there were no big centres, but the settlement pattern is similar to the one used in the Soulima and Kyparissian valleys, sporadic settlements, located in slope or low hills. Undoubtedly, the preference to settle in slopes and low hills cannot be only connected to the agricultural economy but also to the defensive function of the settlements. In the LH IIIA-B periods, the evolution of settlements grows both in number and size while settlers seem to cluster even more around the valleys’ landscape. People opting flat land to cultivate and directly after they turn to marginal land, while slightly sloped areas remain third in their preference. The settlers of this period follow the same pattern as the MH – LHII settlements of dataset 1, establishing their villages in marginal land and then in flat areas. Though, the settlements ascribed in dataset 2, follow a different pattern and settle mainly in flat land and directly after to marginal land. The Soulima and Kyparissian valleys are again the epicentre of human activity, where new settlements are popping up while many of the MH- LH II settlements seems to continue at least in one of the following periods (LH IIIA-B). Moreover, according to the pollen analysis, oak trees were replaced with other cultivation, among them olive groves which marked a peak at the end of LH IIIA-B periods. It is apparent that inhabitants of the region were not only settled in the region, but they significantly interacted and formed the landscape. Initially the deforestation of the region probably altered the landscape which could be proved both a positive and a negative factor, as leaving the terrain bare of thick oak forests can offer fertile land for cultivation but it exposes those who dwell within this region. The latter is directly related to the political and social structure of theses societies and how they interacted to each other. If the vital centre of the area was the protected landscape of Soulima and Kyparissian valleys, where most of the settlements were established, then, under the conditions that the settlers created it, it is possible to assume that in the area flourished an honest corporation rather than a game of rivalry between the settlements. Another contribution of past inhabitants over the landscape is related to their preference to settle and cultivate marginal land which would need extensive terracing. An interpretation could be that as the settlements were expanding in number but also in size, they preferred to settle in areas with marginal land or in low hills in the flat area for maximizing the surface of arable land. However, that requires a spatial planning before they even settle, which may not reflect the characteristics of that prehistorical society. Even if that was the case, the expanse to the sides of the bottom of the valley would be less labour consuming and closer to flat land. In fact, this system of settling preference is proved in the results of dataset 2, for MH- LH II period, when settlers opt for marginal land (58%) and then slope 2 followed with a 26% and flat land was in the third position of land preference. However, in LH IIIA-B, dataset 2, the increasing number of settlements did not really follow this pattern, but they rather have a balanced distribution of settlements between flat land (39%) and marginal land (36%). Eventually, it seems to me that the increase of site number was not the reason for settling in marginal land but rather they were urged there for safety and defence reasons, a preference though that the inhabitants of LH IIIA-B were not sharing. While the Soulima and Kyparissian river valleys could be identified as ‘settlement champers’ (cf. Bintliff 2009: 107-117), characterized by sufficient water resources, fertile soil, both aspects for a flourishing agropastoral economy and most important with a passage to the sea and safeguarding hills, Steniklarian is certainly missing some of the above criteria. Isolated from the adjacent valleys, people who dwelled in the Steniklarian plateau seem to have different perception of their landscape as they prefer to withdraw in the innermost part of the plateau. These settlements are mostly located in sloped areas (#23) or low hills (# 20, 21, 50), capturing only a small part of the area which is proportionally way flatter that the other two valleys. The fertile fluvisols and water resources were probably enough for these sites in order to develop their agricultural economy. However, the passage to the sea and the lack of hills to the south are seemingly the disadvantage of this landscape. Not knowing their relationship with the Pamisos valley or the Soulima and Kyparissian river valleys, is hard to

35 explain their decision to settle therein, excluding connections with the settlers of the latter and being exposed to the Pamisos inhabitants. The evolution of settlements in the Kyparissian, Soulima and Steniklarian valleys cannot be considered a coincidence. Landscape and its components, environment and nature, were well evaluated by the settlers who decided to establish their societies and it was additionally altered by them when they proceed in deforestations or terracing of marginal land. The inhabitants of the past had certainly a complete perception of their surroundings and they adjusted their need on this.

5.2. Movement, meeting grounds and monitoring The accessibility and movement in space is a significant variable in peoples’ preference to establish their settlements, as it also is the ability to monitor your own or others’ territories. In order to conceptualize movement and supervision patterns, a reconstruction of the connectivity network and visual structure were tested in Chapter 4. Visibility analysis can work as methods because visual structures has emerged within the landscape from patterns of human behaviour and actions (Wheatley 2014: 1-15). Significant part of human actions on the past landscape is the choice of a place to settle, from where the visibility and movement analyses derived. Results of visibility and viewsheds analyses suggested a rather varying overview of the Soulima, Kyparissian and Steniklarian valleys. Depending on the observation points, landscape served both in favour and against the benefit of certain sites. In specific cases there would be sites from where, due to their ubication and to their subsequent observation point, it would be impossible to gain a substantial overview of the surrounding area. In the case of MH-LH II (dataset 1&2) and LH IIIA-B (dataset 1) the second scenario where visibility from the cores is subject to examination, suggests a weakness from these sites to gain overview of the nearby Steniklarian plateau. Despite the consistent number of observation points within the cores, certain areas like Steniklarian plateau remain “hidden”. Could be that be part of a defensive strategy that perhaps the settlers of Steniklarian plateau followed? Or the Stenikalrian settlers were just an inward-looking society? On the other hand, the increase of existing sites in the Steniklarian plateau away from the sight of the main core of the Soulima valley, raise questions regarding the identity of these sites and their role within the wider area. An assumption could be that the settlements of the Soulima valley would have been in cooperation with the settlements existing in the the Steniklarian valley, from where greater visibility and control over the adjacent Pamisos valley would be ensured. A rivalry between these two settlement cores should be excluded as the Steniklarian core has zero visibility towards the Soulima valley but a rather good overview of the Pamisos valley, while on the other side the core of Soulima maintains a certain level of visibility over the Pamisos valley but not towards the Steniklarian plateau. Hence, it seems that these two cores were made to complete rather than compete each other. Though, the visibility from the central core of LH IIIA-B, dataset 1, indicates that having sites 37 and 38 (and perhaps 21) under your control, can offer a good monitoring of Steniklarian plateau. It is also worth noting, that within the core, in both periods in dataset 2, the lack of sites in the south side of the Soulima and Kyparissian river valleys, limits the supervision even within the territory of the core. The individual viewsheds conducted from the acropolis of Malthi indicate that this site has a great view over a wide geographical area. However, with certain sites being “hidden” on the valleys’ slopes, the site of Malthi cannot reach a full overview of all sites, having the view on just a handful of these. This could in some point explain settlers’ preference to marginal and sloped terrain, which would keep them away from unsolicited gaze. Vision is one of the most important components of landscape archaeology as it can

36 provide most information regarding space structure, it is easier and less speculating to reconstruct, compared to other senses, and it certainly played a role when past inhabitants settled or constructed their tombs giving us today an entry point into past intentions (Llobera 2007). In this case study, the visibility and viewshed analysis indicates that inhabitants of the past examined the space structure and the landscape as they located in ‘pocket’ areas, were they could monitor their territory, but they would also remain protected from visual or physical invasions. In addition, and seeking for hierarchy pattern, is hard to define a site that has an eye bird control over the area, as it seems that was not the case for an individual site but rather of a collaboration and synergies generated between sites and even between cores for the overall surveillance of an area. When analysing monitoring over sites, movement on the landscape and potential meetings nodes are also important. Among the variables that make the settlers to choose a location is the access to resources and the ability to move in the landscape with the minimum cost effort and time. Settlements for example, maybe be opted to situate in areas with access to water resources or fertile land as stated previously. They might also consider the accessibility to nearby settlements an important factor, depending always in the social political structure of the society and the interaction that the settlements had in every time period. If the interconnection between sites is the case, then we should also add the element of who was able to control the transactions between them. In this case study, movement and nodes are being represented by the cost connectivity and least cost path analysis, and potential monitoring of these routes derives from the combination of visibility and connectivity analyses. Reconstructing paths between sites is more than rebuilding potential links and tracing the traffic routes. It is rather a way of tracing the evolution of human communication and inter-community support for survival and development. The research becomes even more a challenge for identifying these primordial enabling routes that contributed to the exchange of goods and information but, most of all allowed contact between people. The analyses showed similar results for both chronological periods examined in this thesis, where people from sites in the north, east and south meet in a specific junction (axis) located quite central in the study area. The connectivity network has rather a dendric form (Galaty et al. 2014), the ‘trunk’ of which are places somewhere in the middle of the Soulima valley that are not necessary settlements but also tombs. This central axis is made up of the: Stylari (#41), Akourthi (#43), Gouva (#44 & 45), Paradami (#46) and Mesovouni (#47) sites and it seems that it connects eastern and western sides of the study area. It is worth mentioning that the above sites have been recorded as existing in both chronological periods, except from Gouva which had been present only during LH III A-B. This central axis in fact, is the only complete visible path when visibility derives from the sites located within the cores. Could that be key node for settlers of western and eastern part of the study area, where they could meet in a neutral ground for conducting any kind of transactions? In conclusion, it is difficult to define a single site as being the pre-dominant among the rest of sites as it would require for the site to comply to a list of criteria that are spanning well beyond the conditions identified in this study. However, a few sites like the ones mentioned above (sites 41 to 47, excl. 42) could probably be considered playing an influential role, which may be either hierarchic or even a trait d’union facilitating communication between the existing communities.

5.3. Further Research When start analysing the legacy data from past century for northern Messenia, I believed that with the use of GIS and the combination of literature, questions regarding settlement patterns, land use and hierarchy in the region will be answered. However, in the end of this process there still queries to be answered and new ones arose.

There are some places that were indicated in the previous chapters as having important or even enigmatic role in the area. One of these places is the Steniklarian valley, with the few settlements and tombs, the abundant fertile land and with the advantage (or not) of being close enough but not adjacent neither to the Soulima valley nor to the Pamisos settlements. A next step to clarify the identity of this core of sites would be to examine it in correlation to the settlements of the Pamisos valley and potentially to investigate the evolution of habitation in this plateau after LH IIIB. On the other hand, there are sites that have possibilities to add more pieces on the puzzle of valleys’ landscape, such as those located centrally in the Soulima valley (#43, 44, 45, 46, 47) and perhaps a few in the northern part of the Soulima (e.g #37) that should probably be examined in correlation to the Steniklarian plateau assets. Eventually, since this thesis is based on the analysis of legacy data there are certain points that would need additional attention such as the chronological frame, location and size of the sites. As stated in the introduction, the chronological frame defined by the researchers for each site it was rather vague and unsafe for some sites. When it was time for examining the site distribution and continuation, the periodization set for each site was an obstacle as it would not give firm results. Similar obstacles created also the textual description of the locations of the sites, that were not always in accordance to the paper maps, as well as the fuzzy criteria for defining the size of a site. All these factors lead to the necessity of an afresh, intensive research program in the area, in order to re-visit, re-examine and give answers to new questions formed in the frame of this thesis.

5.4. Summary I stated in my introduction that this thesis had three main requests: to examine settlement distribution and land use patterns, to explain connectivity between sites using KDE, LCPs and visibility analyses tools, and to define potential hierarchies in the region. In Chapter 3, the KDE of distribution maps showed a preference of the settlers to establish their settlements in the Soulima and Kyparissian valleys, while a minor cluster noticed in the Steniklarian plateau. The settlements located in the north part were seemingly dispersed and not connected to each other, while their location was preferring a place close to the shores of the Kyparissian gulf. The combination of the KDE to the topography of the area appears an interesting fact that perhaps is connected to the social political status of the settlements. People chose to settle in marginal terrain and secondary in flat areas, which would be in low hills and knolls rather than the flat valleys, while mild sloped areas were almost always third in their preference. This was a pattern followed by the inhabitants in both chronological frames that were set in this thesis with an exception during the LH IIIA- B, dataset 2 analysis, were flat land overtakes the marginal land percentage. This could be related to the fact that the settlements of LH IIIB perhaps reached their maximum expansion before the destruction of Ano Eglianos palace (Simpson 2014: 40). Though, except their clustering to the Soulima and Kyparissian valleys, inhabitants do not seem to recognize a centre where they could settle around as satellite, secondary settlements. Eventually, their tendency to settle in specific locations along the valleys, granted them abundant access to flat and secondary in marginal land, as it was shown from the intersection of the high-density cores with the three slope classes defined according to Whitelaw’s classification (Whitelaw 2000). The visual and paths network reconstruction over the landscape revealed a valley system with both advantages and disadvantages. Talking about the visual part, what can be said is that the sites within the high-density core areas had a good visibility of their territory which could expand partially outside their tight boundaries of the cores, towards all the directions even in part of the Pamisos valley. However, the Steniklarian valley was often not visible from the cores (MH-LHII dataset 1, MH-LHII and LH IIIA-B dataset 2). The visibility

38 access deteriorates when in dataset 2, in both periods, the lack of sites in the south side of the valley limits the visibility even within the core. In the case of LH IIIA-B, maybe this is a result of their decision to settle in flat land, which could subsequently mean that they felt secure enough to move in flat lands and not having the surveillance of their entire territory. The double dataset may or may not have managed to prove the existence of these sites, while an in-situ research maybe deemed necessary for limiting any potential margin for arbitrariness in the results of this thesis. Regarding the connectivity network, it holds a dendric system, the heart of which are Stylari, Akourthi, Gouva, Paradami and Mesovouni located on the passage from the Kyparissian river valleys to Soulima valley. These sites were perfectly positioned right on the path that could potentially control or even hinder movement of people, goods and information in the area. Eventually these sites seem to have a strong connection to each other as their long- term coexistence could only be conceived with an honest incorporation over the landscape where they lived and conducted all their activities. And what about hierarchy in the area? Malthi, Peristeria and Kakovatos considered as large centres (Simpson 2014: 40), but the analysis conducted so far does not provide any special characteristics to those three settlements. Finally, maybe the word hierarchy does not really reflect the sites’ interconnection and it could be here, in the very last part of this thesis, replaced with the term spatial bond.

Litterature

Alcock, S, & Cherry, J. 2004. Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxbow Books. Oxford. Allison, P. 2008. Dealing with Legacy Data - an introduction. Internet Archaeology. 24 http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue24/introduction.html (accessed 2-09-2018) ArcGIS desktop help 2018. Least Cost Path, Viewshed, Kernel Density, Visibility and Connectivity tools. https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/main/a-quick-tour-of-geoprocessing-tool-references.htm (accessed 29-06-2018) Ashmore, W. & Knapp, B. A., (ed.) 1999. Archaeologies of Landscapes: Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell. Oxford Bintliff, J. L. 2009. Catchments, Settlement Chambers and Demography: Case studies and general theory in the Greek landscape from Prehistory to early modern times. In: Colloque ArchaeDyn. Dijon, 23-25 June 2008. Bintliff, J. L. 2012. The complete archaeology of Greece: From hunter-gatherers to the 20th century AD. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, West Sussex, Malden, MA. Bintliff, J. L. & Snodgrass, A. 1988. Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A Regional and Interregional Perspective. In: Current Anthropology. 29 (3) 506-513 Blegen, C.W. (ed) 1973. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in western Messenia [excavations conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1939, 1952-1965], Acropolis and lower town; Tholoi, grave circle, and chamber tombs; Discoveries outside the citadel. Princeton, N.J. Bonnier, A. 2010. Harbours and hinterlands: landscape, site patterns and coast-hinterland interconnections by the Corinthian Gulf, c. 600-300 B.C. Department of Archaeology and Classical Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm. Bonnier A., Finné, M., Weiberg, E. 2019. Examining Land-Use through GIS-Based Kernel Density Estimation: A Re-Evaluation of Legacy Data from the Berbati-Limnes Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology, 44:2, 70-83, DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2019.1570481 Cavanagh, W. G. & Mee, C. 1998. A private place: Death in prehistoric Greece. Paul Åströms, Jonsered. Chatzi, G. 1981. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 36 (Chronika B' 1) 156. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1982. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 37 (Chronika B' 1) 137-138. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1983. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 38 (Chronika B' 1) 111-113. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1984. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 39 (Chronika B' 1) 78-79. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1985. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 40 (Chronika B' 1) 103-106. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1986. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 41 (Chronika B' 1) 42. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1991. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 46 ( Chronika B' 1) 134-138. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1992. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 47 (Chronika B' 1) 124. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. Clarke, D. L. (ed) 1977. Spatial archaeology. Academic Press, London. Conolly, J. & Lake, M. 2006. Geographical information systems in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Constantinidis, D. 2001. Introspective sitescaping in GIS. In Z. Stančič and T. Veljanovski (eds) Computing Archaeology for Understanding the Past, CAA 2000. Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Proceedings of the 28th Conference, Ljubljana, April 2000. Brit. Archaeol. Rep. Int. Series 931, 165-72. Oxford. Cosmopoulos, M. B. 2016. The political geography of a Mycenaean district: The archaeological survey at Iklaina. The Archaeological Society at Athens, Athens. Davis, Jack L. & Alcock, Susan E. (eds) 1998. Sandy Pylos: an archaeological history from Nestor to Navarino. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Davis, Jack L. & Bennet, John (eds.) 2017. The Pylos regional archaeological project: a retrospective.: American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey Davis, J. L., Alcock, S. E., Bennet, J., Lolos, Y. G. & Shelmerdine, C. W. 1997. The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. In: Hesperia 66 (3), 391–494. Dickinson, O. T. P. K., & Simpson H. 1977. The origins of Mycenaean civilisation. P. Åström, Göteborg. Dodwell, E., 1819. Classical and topographical tour through Greece during the years 1801, 1805, and 1806. Rodwell and Martin, London. Dörpfeld, W. 1907. Tiryns, Olympia, Pylos. Athenische Mitteilungen 32: VI-XVI --1908. Alt-Pylos I: Die Kuppelgräber von Kakovatos. Athenische Mitteilungen 33: 295-317 Eder, B. 2011. Kakovatos und Triphylien in mykenischer Zeit. https://portal.uni- freiburg.de/klassarch/forschung/kakovatos (accessed 2018-07-21). Farinetti, E., 2011. Boeotian landscapes: A GIS-based study for the reconstruction and interpretation of the archaeological datasets of ancient Boeotia. Archaeopress, Oxford. GAC see. Dickinson, O. T. P. K. & Simpson, R. H. 1979 Gaffney, V., Stančič, Z. and Watson, H. 1995. The impact of GIS on archaeology: a personal perspective. In: G. Lock and Z. Stančič (eds) Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective. London, 211-29. Galaty, M., Parkinson, W., Pullen, D. & Seifried, R., 2014. Mycenaean -scapes: Geography, political economy, and the eastern Mediterranean world-system. In: Touchais, G. 2014 (ed). Physis: l'environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique: actes de la 14e Rencontre Egéenne Internationale. Paris, Institut National d' Histoire de l'Art (INHA), 11 - 14 décembre 2012., Peeters, Leuven. 449-454. Geodata.gov.gr. 2015.Rivers and groundwater shape files. http://geodata.gov.gr/maps/?package=c07a4eb3-05a7-4bd2-9c25-1f1bb2f3f281&resource=0aa5717c- 98d1-43c1-bfe6-c366dfb9cd4c&locale=en (accessed 2018-05-20) Halstead, P. 2000. Land Use in Postglacial Greece: cultural causes and environmental effects. In: Halstead, P. and Frederick, C.(eds) Landscape and Land Use in postglacial Greece. Sheffield, England. Hellenic Statistic Authority. 2009. http://www.statistics.gr/statistics/agr (accessed 2018-09-27). Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge University. Cambridge. Hole, F. & Heizer, R.F. (eds).1973. An introduction to prehistoric archaeology 3. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Horden, P. & Purcell, N. 2000. The corrupting sea: a study of Mediterranean history. Blackwell. Oxford. I.G.M.E. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration. Spring data. http://www.igme.gr/geoportal/ (accessed 2018-05-20). Iakovides, S. 1970. Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα Εξ Αθηνών (2) 291

Ingold, T., 1993. The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25 (2), 152–174. Jazwa, C & Jazwa, A. 2017. Settlement ecology in Bronze Age Messenia, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 45:157-169. Karagiorga, Th. 1972. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον. 27, B:1: 258-262. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. Knappett. C. (ed) 2013. Network analysis in archaeology: new approaches to regional interaction. Oxford University Press. Oxford Korres, G. 1976. Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. 131: 469-550 ------1977. Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. 24: 118-127 ------1978. Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. 133:130-134 Kraft JC, Rapp GRJr, Aschenbrenner SE. 1980. Late holocene palaeogeomorphic reconstructions in the area of the Bay of Navarino: Sandy Pylos. Journal of Archaeological Science. 7:187-210 Leake, W. M. 1830. Travels in the Morea. Llobera, M. 1996. Exploring the Topography of Mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity 70, 612–622. Llobera, M. 2005. What you see is what you get? Visualscapes, Visualgenesis and Hierarchy. In: Evans, Thomas L. & Daly, P.T. (eds). Digital archaeology: bridging method and theory, Routledge, New York; Abingdon, Oxon. Llobera, M. 2007. Reconstructing visual landscapes. In: World Archaeology, 39:1, 51- 69, DOI: 10.1080/00438240601136496 Loy, G.W. & Wright, H.E. Jr. 1972. The Physical Setting. In: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment. McDonald and Prapp (eds). Minneapolis. 36-46 Lukermann, F. 1972. Settlement and circulation: Pattern and systems. In: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environment. McDonald and Prapp (eds). Minneapolis: 148-70. Manning, Sturt W. 1995. The absolute chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: archaeology, radiocarbon and history, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield 110. ---- 2010. ‘Chronology and Terminology’. In: The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000- 1000 BC), Eric H. Cline (ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford. 11–28. Marinatos, S. 1960a. Περιστεριά Μεσσηνίας. In: Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον,16 (Β1) 110-119. ------1960b. Πρακτικά της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. 201-209 ------1960c. Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας. 149-158 ------1961-1962. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον,17 (Β1) 101-103. ------1963. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον,18 (Β1) 99-100. ------1965. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον,20(Β1) 205-206 ------1966. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, 21(Β1) 166-168 Marinatos, S. & Iakōvidēs, S. 2014. Anaskaphai Messēnias, 1952-1966. Hē en Athēnais Archaiologikē Etaireia, Athens. McDonald, W. 1942. Where Did Nestor Live? American Journal of Archaeology, 46 (4), 538-545. doi:10.2307/499086 McDonald, W. A. & Simpson R.H. 1961. Prehistoric Habitation in Southwestern Peloponnese. American Journal of Archaeology 65 (3), 221–260.

------1964. Further Exploration in Southwestern Peloponnese: 1962-1963. American Journal of Archaeology 68 (3), 229–245. ------1969. Further Explorations in Southwestern Peloponnese: 1964-1968. American Journal of Archaeology 73 (2), 123–177. McDonald, W. A. & Rapp, G. R. 1972. (eds). The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. McDonald, W. A. & Simpson, R. H. 1972. Archaeological Exploration. In: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. 117-147 Modig E. 2017. 'Reconstruction of past vegetational changes at Gialova lagoon - Southern Peloponnese, Greece'. Master Thesis in Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology. Stockholm University. OPEKEPE & AUTH 2015. Development of an Integrated system for soil geographic data and delineation of agricultural zones in Greece. In the framework of sub-project 7: 'High added value Agricultural Digital Services'. Scientific Team: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Agricultural University of Athens, Greek Photogrammetric LTD, AGROLAB RDS. http://appliedsoilab.web.auth.gr/images/GRSoilMap_ENG_500k_poster_oversize_May2016_v2_300d pi.pdf Papathanasopoulos, G. 1964. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον. 19 ( Chronika B' 1) 154-155.Hypourgeio Politismou. Pouqueville, F. C. H. L. 1806. Travels through the Morea, Albania, and several other parts of the Ottoman Empire, to Constantinople. Barnard & Sultzer, London. Rawson, M. & Blegen, C. W. (red.) 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in western Messenia: [excavations conducted by the University of Cincinnati, 1939, 1952-1965]. Vol. 1, The buildings and their contents. Princeton, N.J. Saint-Vincent, B. D., Brongniart, A., Chaubard, L. A., Deshayes, G. P et al. 1832-1836 Expédition scientifique de Morée. J. B. G. M. Bory de Saint-Vincent (ed). Sbonias, K. 1999. Archaeological Survey and Demography: Introduction to Issues in Demography and Survey. In: Bintliff, J. & Sbonias, K. (eds), Reconstructing past population trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 BC-AD 1800), Oxbow, Oxford. 1-20. Simpson, R.H. 2014. Mycenaean Messenia and the kingdom of Pylos. INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sollers, L.2005. Settlement in the Prehistoric Mediterranean. In: The Archaeology of Mediterranean prehistory. E. Blake & A.B. Knapp (red.). Blackwell, Oxford. 252-269. Sperling, J. 1942. Explorations in Elis, 1939. American Journal of Archaeology, 46 (1), 77-89. doi:10.2307/499108 Syriopoulos, K. T. 1994. He Proïstorike katoikesis tes Hellados kai he genesis tou Hellenikou ethnous. He Archaiologike Hetaireia, Athenai. Syriopoulos, K. T. 1995. He Proïstorike katoikesis tes Hellados kai he genesis tou Hellenikou ethnous. He Archaiologike Hetaireia, Athenai. Terrenato, N. 2004. Sample Size matters: The paradox of global trends and local surveys. In: Alcock, S, & Cherry, J. (eds), Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. 36- 48, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. Oxford University Press, Oxford. UMME see McDonald, W. A. & Rapp, G. R. 1972 (eds). UNESCO 1992, https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/. (accessed 2018-07-19).

Valmin, M. N. 1926- 1927. Two Tholos Tombs in the eastern part of Triphylia. Bulletin of the Royal Society of Letters of Lund, 53–89. ------1927-1928. Continued Exploration in Eastern Triphylia. Bulletin of the Royal Society of Letters of Lund, 1 - 54, 171-224. ------1938. The Swedish Messenia Expedition. Gleerup, Lund. ------1953. Malthi Epilog. In: OpAth 1:29-46 Van, Wersch, H.J. 1972. The Agriculture Economy. In: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment. Minneapolis.177-187. Ventris, M. & Chadwick J. 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek: Three hundred selected tablets from Knossos, Pylos and Mycenae with commentary and vocabulary. The University Press, Cambridge. Vikatou, O. 1991. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 46 ( Chronika B' 1), 134. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1995. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 50 ( Chronika B' 1), 182-184. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. ------1996. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 50 ( Chronika B' 1), 191-192. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens. Vita-Finzi, C., Higgs, E. S., Sturdy, D., Harriss, J., Legge, A. J. & Tippett, H. 1970. Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36, 1–37. Weiberg, E., Unkel, I. & Kouli, K. et al. 2016. The socio-environmental history of the Peloponnese during the Holocene: Towards an integrated understanding of the past. Quaternary Science Reviews 136, 40– 65. Wersch. H. 1972. The agricultural economy. In: McDonald, W. A. & Rapp, G. R. 1972. (eds). The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. Wheatley D. & Gillings M. 2002. Spatial Technology and Archaeology: The Archaeological Applications of GIS, Taylor &Francis, London. Wheatley D. 2014. Connecting Landscapes with Built Environments: visibility analysis, scale and the senses. In: Paliou, E., Lieberwirth, U., Polla, S. (eds) Spatial analysis and social spaces: Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of prehistoric and historic built environments. Topoi. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. (https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/177443 accessed 05/01/2019) Whitelaw, T. 2000. Reconstructing a classical landscape with figures: some interpretive explorations in North- West Keos. In: Francovich, Riccardo, Patterson, Helen & Barker, Graeme (red.) Extracting meaning from plough soil assemblages, Oxbow, Oxford. Witcher R. 2008. (Re)surveying Mediterranean Rural Landscapes: GIS and Legacy Survey Data. In: Internet Archaeology 24. https://doi.org/10.11141/ia.24.2 Worsham, R., Lindblom, M., Zikidi, C. 2018. Preliminary report of the Malthi Archaeological Project 2015-2016. In: Opuscula: Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome (11) 7-27 Wright, H.E.Jr.1972. Vegetation History. In: The Minnesota Messenia Expedition:Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. 188-199. Zachos, K. 1981. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον, (36) 152-153. Hypourgeio Politismou, Athens Zangger E, Timpson ME, Yazvenko SB, Kuhnke F, Knauss J. 1997. The Pylos regional archaeological project: Part II: Landscape evolution and site preservation. Hesperia: The journal of the American school of classical studies at Athens, 66 (4):549-641. Zavadil, M., Alram-Stern, E. & Horejs, B. 2014. Monumenta: Studien Zu Mittel- und Spathelladischen Grabern in Messenien, Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna.

Absolute Chronology for the Bronze Age Greek Mainland

Chronological phase Years B.C.

Early Helladic 3100 – 2050

Middle Helladic 2050 – 1680

Late Helladic I 1700/1675 –1635/00

Late Helladic II 1635/00–1420/10

Late Helladic ΙΙΙΑ1 1420/10–1390/70

Late Helladic ΙΙΙΑ2 1390/70–1330/15

Late Helladic ΙΙΙB 1330/15– 1200/1190

Late Helladic IIIC 1200/1190– 1075/50

(Chronology based on Manning 2012, except MH period that is based on his publication from 1995)

List of abbreviations in text and catalogues

AJA American Journal of Archaeology CC Cost Connectivity DEM Digital Elevation Model CEM Cemetery EH Early Helladic GAC Gazetteer of Aegean Civilization in the Bronze Age GIS Geographical Information Systems ha Hectares HAB Habitation IKAP Iklaina Archaeological Project KDE Kernel Density Estimation LCP Least cost path tool LH Late Helladic m.a.s.l Meters above sea level MMKP Simpson, H. “Mycenaean Messenia and the Kingdom of Pylos” (see reference list) MH Middle Helladic PRAP Pylos Regional Archaeological Project SS Surface sherds SR Settlement remains TB Tomb UMME McDonald, W. A. & Rapp, G. R. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age regional environment, Minneapolis. V Visibility tool VS Viewshed tool # site

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 The study area. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI& Open Street map. Figure 2 All the sites of MH-LH IIIB periods. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI& Open Street map. Figure 3 The MH-LH IIIA-B settlements in the study area. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI& Open Street map. Figure 4 The MH-LH IIIA-B tombs in the study area. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI& Open Street map. Figure 5 Soil types in the study area. Digitized by the author based on OPEKEPE & AUTH 2015 soil map of Greece. Figure 6 Hydrological map of the study area. Digitized by the author based on IGME and Geodata.gov.gr sources. Figure 7 a KDE for MH-LH II settlements, dataset 1. Figure 7 b KDE for MH-LH II settlements, dataset 2. Figure 8 a KDE for LH IIIA-B settlements, dataset 1. Figure 8 b KDE for LH IIIA-B settlements, dataset 2.

Figure 9a Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in high density core areas, dataset 1.

Figure 9b Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in the medium land use extent, dataset 1. Figure 9c Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in the maximum land use extent, dataset 1. Figure 9d Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in high density core areas, dataset 2. Figure 9e Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in the medium land use extent, dataset 2. Figure 9f Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in the maximum land use exent, dataset 2. Figure 10a Quantification in % of the number of MH-LH II settlements ascribed to each one of the different slope classes, dataset 1 Figure 10b Quantification in % of the number of LH IIIA-B settlements ascribed to each one of the different slope classes, dataset 1 Figure 10c Quantification in % of the number of MH-LH II settlements ascribed to each one of the different slope classes, dataset 2 Figure 10d Quantification in % of the number of LH IIIA-B settlements ascribed to each one of the different slope classes, dataset 2 Figure 11 a Visibility analysis for MH-LH II sites, dataset 1

Figure 11 b Visibility analysis for LH IIIA-B sites, dataset 1

Figure 11 c Visibility analysis for MH-LH II sites, dataset 2

Figure 11 d Visibility analysis for LH IIIA-B sites, dataset 2

Figure 12a Visibility from core 1 of MH-LH II periods, dataset 1

Figure 12 b Visibility from core 2 of MH-LH II periods, dataset 1

Figure 12 c Visibility from the core of LH IIIA-B periods, dataset 1

Figure 13 a Visibility from the core of MH-LH II periods, dataset 2

Figure 13 b Visibility from core 1 of LH IIIA-B periods, dataset 2

Figure 13 c Visibility from core 2 of LH IIIA-B periods, dataset 2 Figure 14 Viewshed from Malthi Figure 15 Viewshed from Peristeria Figure 16 Viewshed from Kakovatos Figure 17a Cost Connectivity networks for MH-LH II periods, datasets 1&2

Figure 17 b Cost Connectivity networks for LH IIIA-B periods, datasets 1&2 Figure 18 Least Cost Paths towards Malthi and Cost Connectivity network of MH-LHII, dataset 2 Figure 19 a Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the MH-LHII cores, dataset 1 Figure 19 b Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the MH-LHII cores, dataset 2 Figure 20 a Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the LH IIIA-B core, dataset 1

Figure 20 b Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the LH IIIA-B core, dataset 2

Table 1 Land use classification according to Wersch (1972:182f) Table 2 Slope classes according to Whitelaw (2000: 234-237)

Table 3 Quantification (ha) of slope classes ascribed to high density, medium and maximum extent of land use.

Table 4 MH-LH IIIA-B sites ascribed to elevation intervals Table 5 Quantification (ha) of visibility and viewshed analysis

Steniklarian Plateau Kyparissian valley Soulima valley

Pamisos valley

Figure 1: The study area. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI & Open Street Map

Fig. 2: All the MH-LH IIIB periods. Basemap: National Geographic ESRI & Open Street Map

Figure 3: The MH-LH IIIA-B settlements in the study area. Base map: National Geographic Figure 4: The MH-LHIIIB tombs in the study area. Base map: National Geographic ESRI. ESRI.

Figure 5: Soil types in the study area. Digitized by the author based on OPEKEPE & Figure 6: Hydrological map of the study area. Digitized by the author based on IGME and AUTH 2015 soil map of Greece. Geodata.gov.gr sources.

52 c) a)

b) d)

53 Figure 7a-b: KDE for MH-LH II settlements, a) dataset 1 and Figure 8 a-b: KDE for LH IIIA-B settlements, a) dataset 1 and b) dataset 2. b) dataset 2.

a) b) c)

d) e) f)

Fig. 9 a-f: Quantification in % of the three slope classes ascribed in high density, medium and maximum land use extent for dataset 1 (a, b, c) and dataset 2 (d, e, f).

54 a) c)

b) d)

Fig. 10 a-d: Quantification in % of the number of settlements ascribed to each one of the different slope classes, for MH-LH II and LH IIIA-B periods, datasets 1 (a, b) and 2 (c, d).

Fig. 11 a-d: Visibility analysis for MH-LH II sites of dataset 1 and 2 (a, c) and for LH IIIA-B sites of dataset 1 and 2 (b, d).

Fig. 12 a-c: a) Visibility from core 1 of MH-LH II periods and b) from core 2 of the same period, c) and from the LH IIIA-B core, dataset 1.

a) b)

Fig. 13 a-c: a) Visibility from the core of MH-LH II periods and b) from core 1 of LH IIIA-B periods, c) and core 2 of the same period, dataset 2.

Fig. 14: Viewshed from Malthi

Fig. 15: Viewshed from Peristeria Fig. 16: Viewshed from Kakovatos

60 a) b)

Fig 17 a-b: a) Cost Connectivity networks for MH-LH II sites, datasets 1&2 and b) Cost Connectivity networks for LH IIIA-B sites, datasets 1&2

Fig. 18: Least Cost Paths towards Malthi and Cost Connectivity network of MH-LHII, dataset 2

Fig. 19 a-b: Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the MH-LHII cores, a) dataset 1 and b) dataset 2

Fig. 20 a-b: Cost Connectivity network combined to the Visibility analysis that was conducted from the sites of the LH IIIA-B core, a) dataset 1 and b) dataset 2

64 Table 1: Land use classification according to Wersch (1972:182-183)

Density of habitation sites by land use category (%)*

Category Description Area (ha) MH sites LH sites

I Best agriculture land/grapes, wheat, other field crops, flax, garden crops 34.000 2.9 8.5

II Field crops, grapes, olive trees, grazing lands 45.750 2.6 7.4

III Wheat, olive trees, grapes, barley, grazing lands 133.000 1.4 4.0

IV Marginal cropland, barley, wheat, natural vegetation, 32.750 2.1 4.6

V Lowlands, grazing lands 23.250 0.9 0.9

VI Poor land, shrubs, forest 113.750 0.3

In number of sites per 100 sq. Km Table 2: Slope classes according to Whitelaw (2000: 234-237)

Slope Slope Cultivation prospects class Angle

1 <10 Cultivation without terracing

2 10-15 Cultivation possible without terracing, probably with soil erosion

3 >15 Agricultural terraces mandatory for cultivation

65 Table 3: Quantification (ha) of slope classes ascribed to high density, medium and maximum extent of land use. core area maximum MH-LHII-Dataset 1 core 1 core 2 medium extent (total) extent slope 1 8,504 7,167 1,338 18,605 26,815

slope 2 2,679 2,569 109 7,542 11,657

slope 3 5,146 4,963 183 22,163 37,511 Total surface 16,328 14,699 1,630 48,310 75,982 maximum LH IIIIA-B-Dataset 1 core area medium extent extent slope 1 8,452 19,456 27,708

slope 2 2,585 7,617 12,099

slope 3 5,020 21,817 38,558 Total surface 16,057 48,890 78,365 maximum MH-LHII-Dataset 2 core area medium extent extent slope 1 5,415 16,220 23,603

slope 2 1,863 7,037 10,438

slope 3 3,351 19,020 31,871 Total surface 10,629 42,277 65,912

core area medium extent LH IIIIA-B-Dataset 2 core 1 core 2 med ext 1 med ext 2 maximum extent (total) (total)

slope 1 7,415 5,385 2,031 17,914 14,193 3,721 17,913

slope 2 1,958 1,706 252 6,641 5,232 1,409 6,640

slope 3 3,749 2,898 851 17,729 14,754 2,975 17,728 Total surface 13,122 9,988 3,134 42,284 34,179 8,105 42,281

66 Table 4: MH-LH IIIA-B sites ascribed to elevation intervals

MH- LH II LH IIIA-B sites m.a.s.l 5 40-60 4 4 60-80 3 3 80-100 11 11, 18 100-120 10, 16, 17, 24 1, 10, 16, 17, 24 120-140 22, 28 21,22, 23, 28 140-160 6, 20, 31, 50 6,20,30,31,50 160-180 51 180-200 32, 43, 46, 48 25, 32, 43, 46, 48 200-220 12, 19, 38, 47 12, 19, 38, 44, 45, 47 220-240 41, 42 41, 42 260-280 23, 26, 29 26, 29 280-300 2, 36 2, 36 300-320 49 49 320-340 27 27 340-360 8, 33 8, 33 380-400 37 37 400-420 13, 14, 34, 13, 14, 34 420-440 35, 39 35, 39 440-460 15 15 520-540 9 9 560-580 40 40 760-780

67 Table 5: Quantification (ha) of visibility and viewshed analysis

Total view over Hectares of visible Hectares of visible Dataset 1 Dataset 2 Site name MH-LH IIIA-B area area sites (ha)

MH-LH II 60,302 MH-LH II 46,498 Malthi 11,462

LH IIIA-B 59,823 LH IIIA-B 49,419 Peristeria 3,766

Kakovatos 8,906

Percentage of Total core surface Total visible area Visible area Visible area within Percentage of visible area within the Dataset 1 visible area within (ha) FROM core (ha) WITHIN core (ha) the second core other core core

MH-LH II_core1 14,698 33,983 10,788 73% 190 12%

MH-LH II_core2 1,629 5,172 1,112 68% 0 -

LH IIIA-B_core1 16,057 36,415 13,652 85% no second core -

Percentage of Total core surface Total visible area Visible area Visible area within Percentage of visible area within the Dataset 2 visible area within (ha) FROM core (ha) WITHIN core (ha) the second core other core core

MH-LH II_core1 10,550 26,434 5,390 51% no second core -

LH IIIA-B_core1 9,988 22,961 4,621 46% 96 3%

LH IIIA-B_core2 3,134 16,150 2,507 80% 53 1%

68 Appendix 1: Sites catalogue and short description

Number Modern of sites Site Name Date Type Hectares Description* Bibliography UMME MMKP GAC Name #

Approximately 500 m ENE of the village Tholo, on a low spur, is located the church of Ayios Dimitrios. In its AJA 1969:130; UMME 1972: 300; Hagios LHIII(A- proximity, on a lower knoll, c. 200 m 1 Tholon HAB 0.6 GAC 1979: 180; Syriopoulos K. 244 21A D244 Dimitrios B) east, LH and Bronze Age coarse ware is 1995:916; MMKP: 24. thinly distributed over an area c. 60 m. Syriopoulos K. mentions thick prehistoric sherds, one dated to LHIII. Hagios Dimitrios in Lepreon has been described as a prehistoric acropolis, c. 200 m ESE of Lepreon, which AJA 1961:231-232; AJA 1969:130; overhangs over a deep valley. Zachos MH, (LH), UMME 1972: 300; GAC 1979: 180; Hagios HAB- found in 1981, MH and LH pottery 2 Lepreon LH II, 1.5 Zachos K. 1981:152-153; Syriopoulos 245 21 D245 Dimitrios CEM? while previous researchers mentioned III(A-B) K. K. 1994:665; 1995: 794, 857, MH tombs, a handle with spiral pattern 1002, 1103; MMKP: 24, 33. probably dated to LH II-LH IIIA and fragments of goblet and kylix dated to LH IIIB. On the hill Ktiria, about 1,5 km NE of Dörpfeld W. 1907: I-XVI; 1908: 295- Kakovatos village, Döperfeld excavated 317; McDonald W. A. 1942: 81-82, in 1907-1908 fortification walls and Sperling J. 538-545; AJA 1961: 230- house remains on the top of the hill. On 231; AJA 1969: 130; UMME 1972: the NW hillside were found MH and MH, LHI- HAB- 300; Syriopoulos K. 1994: 664, 3 Kakovatos Nestora 1.8 LHI-II shreds and settlement remains, 300 20 B94 II, IIIB AC 1995:794, 857,1103; Vikatou O. Dörpfeld identified the site as Nestor's 1991:134, Chatzi G.1992:124, GAC Palace. 1979: 101-102, MMKP 2014: 24, 33, An intensive survey started in 2009 by Eder B.2011 the German Institute states that this was a large village (Eder 2011).

At the NE hillside three ruined tholos

tombs were found, dated in LH I-II Dörpfeld W. 1907-1908; Iakovides period. LH IIIA fragments of 'palatial' LHI-II, 1970:291; UMME 1972: 300; GAC 4 Kakovatos Nestora-Tholos CEM -- jars and remains of rich goods were also 300 20 B94 LHIIIA 1979:102; Syriopoulos K. 1995: 794, found in the tombs. Reference for a gold 857 ring found in Kakovatos, dated 1500- 1400BC (Iakovides: 1972).

On the SE slopes of the hill Kaimena

Alonia, located 400 m north west of AJA 1964: 231; UMME 1972: 300; Kaimena 5 Zacharo LHIII A-B HAB - Zacharo, LH IIIB sherds were found on GAC 1979:101; Syriopoulos K. 1995: 301 19A B93 Alonia surface. The site seemed to occupy a 1103; MMPK 2014: 24 limited area of the ridge.

AJA 1961: 232, 1969:133; UMME MH, LHI, On the castle of Kyparissia were found 1972: 276; GAC 1979:149; 6 Kyparissia Kastro LHIII(A- HAB 1.0 70 22 D70 MH, LH I and maybe LH III sherds. Syriopoulos K. 1994: 676, 1995:800, B) 921; MMKP 2014:23

Close to the modern village Mouriatadha, about 6,5 km east of Kyparissia and 25 km north of Pylos, Marinatos excavated a LH IIIB-C site. Parts of Cyclopean walls, retaining walls and tower were already visible on Marinatos S. 1960a: 110–119; HAB- the hill Elliniko. Marinatos uncovered 1960b:201–209; 1960c: 149-158; 7 Mouriatadha Elliniko LH IIIB CEM- 3.0 on the top of the hill a small LH palace AJA 1969: 133; UMME 1972: 290; 201 22A D201 AC with mortar floor while at the sides of GAC 1979:168; Syriopoulos K.: the hill he found big sized buildings, 1110; MMKP 2014: 23, 33. constructed of huge stones according to the cyclopean technique. Close to the ‘palace’ Marinatos excavated also a tomb and he dated the whole area in late LH IIIB-C.

AJA 1969:133; UMME 1972: 278; MH (?), Approximately 800 m SW of the village 8 Vryses Palaiophrygas HAB 0.9 Syriopoulos K. 1994: 676, 921; 72 22C D72 LH Vryses MH and LH surface sherds were MMKP 2014: 23 found.

70 Close to the modern cemetery in the village Sellas, MH and possibly LH sherds were found. Dickinson states that AJA 1969: 133; UMME 1972: 292; this site ‘commands the valley and an 9 Sellas Nekrotapheion MH, LH HAB 1.2 GAC 1979: 168-169; Syriopoulos K. 202 22D D202 interior pass via Triphilia to the S, from 1994: 678, 1995: 922 the Kyparissia river valley through the Kyparissia mountains to the SE Messenia’ (GAC 1979:168-169). Peristeria hill considered as one powerful administrative centre due to its fortified acropolis and the monumental tholos tombs found within the walls (GAC 1979: 1967-1968). Marinatos dated those tombs in MH (1500) while

he classified remains of houses that Marinatos S. 1960a: 110-119; 1960b: covers the hill even earlier. In any case 201-209, 1960c: 149-158, 1961: 101- the hill has been in use until LHIIIB 103; 1963: 99-100; 1965: 205-206; period (1300-1250). A few finds from MH, LHI, 1966:166-168; Chatzi G. 1990: 123- HAB- tholos dated to MH and LHI-II period LHII, LH 124; Korres G.1976: 469-550; 1977: 10 Myrou Peristeria CEM- 2.0 varying from pottery, gold ornaments, 200 22B D200 IIIA2, LH 118-127, 1978: 130-134; AJA 1969: AC semi-precious beads and a fragment of a IIB 133, GAC 1979: 167-168; steatite vessel. Korres completed the Syriopoulos K.1994:675-676, 1995: excavation of a third tholos, dated to LH 800, 862, 1009,1110. I-II period. House remains found in the west side of the hill dated in LH II and those found in the southeast are dated in LH IIIA-IIIB (c.a). On an adjoining hill, named Kokorakou a MH tumulus were found. Syriopoulos mentioned a MH- LH I house, seven MH cist graves and three LH I-II tholos tombs.

71 In a 2klm distance east of the crossroad to Kalo Nero, SW of Glykorrizi village, discovered a low tumulus shaped elevation which possibly covers a tholos tomb. The name of the site is Pyrgaki and it has visibility to Ionian Sea to the west, to the Trifyllian valley to the NE and to the northern part of Peristeria prehistoric acropolis to the south. The tumulus is visible since its elevated almost 2 to 2.50 m from the surface. Its eastern side has been only partially destroyed due to the widening of the 11 Glykorizi Pyrgaki LH CEM rural road that leads to Glykorrizi. On Chatzi G. 1991:134-135 23H the top of the elevation there is a huge amygdalitis stone, 2m long and 0,80m wide, misplaced by mechanic excavator 20 years ago. Sherds of LH period were collected. SW of the tumulus there is a rural house, which has used stones from the tomb for its construction. In addition, NE of tumulus located a rectangular place of 2x3, covered with an abundancy of stones, surrounded of a ditch. The site is not referred to Mc Donald’s and Simpson’s research conducted 30 years ago.

On a hill c. 1.5 km WSW of Glykorizi, MH and LHIIIB surface sherd were found. The settlement seemed to spread over an area of c. 180m. Dickinson AJA 1969 :139; UMME 1972: 300; MH, LH 12 Glykorizi Hagios Ilias HAB 2.2 mentions that it has a magnificent view GAC 1979: 178; Syriopoulos K. 239 23E D239 III(A)-B over Kyparissia valley, and he ranks it 1994: 674, 1995: 1109 as an important site (GAC 1979: 178). McDonald and Simpson identified LH IIIB pottery fragments (AJA 1969).

On the hill Tsoukeda, c. 1,5 km NW of AJA 1969:131; GAC 1979: 178-179; the village Kefalofryso Triphilias, a MH 13 Kefalovrsysi Tsoukedha (MH), LH HAB 1.0 UMME 1972: 300; Syriopoulos K. 240 21F D240 shred and an obsidian blade were found, 1994: 672, 1995:919 and LH surface sherds. On the Sphakoulia hill, about 1,5 km NE of the village Sidirokastro, MH and AJA 1969:131; UMME 1972: 300; MH, LH LH IIIB sherds were scattered to the W GAC 1979: 179, Syriopoulos K. 14 Siderokastro Sphakoulia HAB 2.5 241 21E D241 III(A?) B and S terraces. Dickinson states that this 1994:673, 1995:1109; MMPK 2014: was a large site controlling a fertile 23 upland valley. On the hill Kastri, near the village of Vanadha have been found MH and LHIII sherds, obsidian and maybe a MH(?), tomb. Dicksinson states that the site had AJA 1969:131; GAC 1979: 179; 15 Vanadha Kastri LH III(A- HAB 1.0 a striking view in all directions and may UMME 1972: 300; Syriopoulos K. 242 21D D242 B) have been chosen for its strategic 1994: 672-673, 1995: 920 position. In AJA 1969 is mentioned that occupation has been mainly in LHIII and perhaps earlier. On the hill Aspra Litharia, 800 m SW of the village Fonissa Triphylias, and south AJA 1969: 130-131; UMME 1972: MH, LH of the Neda river MH and LH were 16 Phonissa Aspra Litharia HAB 0.6 300; GAC 1979: 179, Syriopoulos 243 21C D243 (III?) found. The LH III period has been K.1994: 672, 1995:919 referred in GAC without any further evidences. Papathanasopoulos G. 1964: 154;

At the site Loutses, LH III sherds were AJA 1964:231, 1969:143; UMME MH(?), 17 Diavolitsi Loutses HAB 4.5 found on about 400m from the village 1972: 294; GAC 1979:171–172, 214 31C D214 LH III(A) and 800m from the Loutses tomb (#18). Syriopoulos K. 1995: 1109–1110

A small ruined Mycenaean chamber Papathanasopoulos 1964:154; AJA tomb was found close to Diavolitsi 18 Diavolitsi Loutses-tomb LH IIIB CEM 1964:231, 1969:143; GAC 1979:171– 214 31C D214 village and #17. It contained burial and 172; Syriopoulos K. 1995: 1109–1110 pottery sherds dated to LH IIIB.

AJA 1964: 231, GAC 1979: 171; On a hill 400 m NE of the Parapoungi Hagios MH, LH UMME 1972: 294; Syriopoulos K. 19 Parapoungion HAB 0.6 village have been found MH and LH III 213 31B D213 Yeoryios III(A-B) 1994: 673, 1995:920; MMPK 2014: sherds. 27

Near the Agrilovouno village were found MH and LH IIIB sherds and a AJA 1964: 231; UMME 1972: 294; Hagios MH, LH stone base of column dated in 20 Agrilovouno HAB 4.5 GAC 1979: 172 Syriopoulos K. 215 31A D215 Nikolaos III(A)B Mycenaean era. In AJA 1964, the 1994: 674,1109 pottery is classified as provincial LH IIIB.

AJA 1969: 142; UMME 1972: 294; LH III(A- LHIII sherds found, c. 100 m south of 21 Mandhra Chasna HAB 0.5 GAC 1979: 172-173; Syriopoulos K. 217 30 D217 B) the Chazna tholos (#22). 1994: 673, 1995: 920

A ruined tholos tomb (diam. 13m, dromos 11m.) was found at the site AJA 1961:234, UMME 1972: 294; 22 Mandra Chasna-tholos MH (?) CEM Chasna 20m SW of the church of Ayios GAC 1979: 172-173, Syriopoulos K. 217 30 D217 Yeoryios, at the western edge of the 1994: 673, 1995: 920 village. Dated in MH (?). On the site Krebeni, around 400m north of the village has been refered MH, LH IIA- LH IIIC sherds. It is a large site, c. 300m NE of and above Kato Melpeia, AJA 1961: 234-235; 1969:143, MH(?), Sherds were founded mainly in the UMME 1972: 294; GAC 1979: 172, 23 Kato Melpia Krebeni LH HAB 4.5 216 31 D216 central and upper part, indicating a less Syriopoulos K. 1994:673, 1995:1008, III(A)B extensive, but still considerable 1109 extended site. In AJA 1961 plentiful surface sherds, including LHIIIB and perhaps LHIIIA were mentioned.

74 Valmin excavated during 1927 a tholos tomb dated in LH II and he mentions the existence of one more similar tomb. Valmin 1926/27: 88f., Valmin Possibly were used in LH II-LHIII. 1927/28, 171, 190–201, 214–216; LH II, McDonald and Simpson date the AJA 1961: 234; UMME 1972: 294; 24 Vasiliko Xerovrysi CEM 220 28 D220 LH IIIA earliest pottery in the Late palace style GAC 1979: 173; Syriopoulos K. (c.a. LH IIB - LHIIIA1 1450-1400), 1995: 862, 1995:920; Simpson 2014: while Dickinson dated the fragments of 28, 37. the palatial jars in LH IIA. Simpson (2014) dates the tombs in LH IIIA.

25 Kastro is in a high conical hill c. 200 m. Kastro tou MH(?), AJA 1969: 142; UMME 1972: 294; Kastro HAB 1.0 N of the village. The sherds found there 219 28E D219 Mila LH(?) GAC 1979: 173 were dated as Bronze Age.

MH(?), Coarse Bronze Age pottery was found AJA 1969: 142, UMME 1972: 294; 26 Mila Profitis Ilias HAB 0.8 218 28D D218 LH? (?) on the N slopes of Profitis Ilias area. GAC 1979: 173

The site is located east of the Ramovouni ridge, on the north part of which stands Malthi (#29). This place has been in use for many periods since they found sherds from EH, MH and LH IIIB and LH IIIC (not LHI-II), Geometric and Classical periods. Clay figurines found in this site are dated in the LH IIIA and LH IIIB and are probably an import from a big Karagiorga Th. 1972: 258–262; Ramovouni or MH, LH Peloponnesian centre. No traces from UMME 1972: 294; GAC 1979: 173– 27 Mila HAB 28F 221 Lakkathela III A2-C the transitional phase were found (from 174, Syriopoulos K. 1994: 677,1009, MH to LH III). Dickinson states if 1111, MMPK 2014: 28, 33-34. Malthi was the centre of the prehistoric Dorion, Lakathela could be one of its agricultural satellite sites. The gradual abandonment of Malthi in LH III and the presence of a flourishing settlement in Lakathela with big, public building, could probably mean that Lakathela is the historical city of Dorion (GAC 1979: 173-174).

Veizi site is situated in the area where Chouclotos spring

and Mavrozoumena river meet. Fragments of pithoi jars MH(?), MMPK 2014:28; UMME 1972: 28 Vasiliko Veizi HAB(?) made from 'oatmeal' fabric and a flint were found over a 221 28A LH(?) 296; AJA 1969:141 small area west of the spring. Malthi is 1.5 km NW and Xerovrisi tomb 1 km SE. Malthi is the only total excavated site in the study area. The settlement was built on a prominent and strategic hilltop near the modern village of Vasiliko and Valmin Valmin 1926-27: 60-89, 1938; identified as Homeric Dorion. Architectural remains, AJA 1961: 233,234, 1969:141; Malthi- MH, LH I- burials, sherds and small findings found along the 29 Vasiliko HAB 1.2 UMME 1972: 296; GAC 1979: 222 27 D222 Dorion' II-IIIA acropolis. The latest additions and transformations of the 174, Syriopoulos K. 1994:677, MH architectural remains took place during the LH I and 1995:800, 862, 1009, 1110. perhaps LH IIIA periods. In the LH IIIB were dated some latest additions and partially the tholos tombs, west of the acropolis (#51).

On a very low hill, in Malthi’s foothills and c. 60 from Valmin 1953: 29-46; AJA 1969: the two tholos tombs (#51), part of LH settlement or LHIIIA(?), 141; GAC 1979: 174-175; UMME 30 Malthi Gouves HAB 3.0 perhaps a single large building was excavated. Pottery 223 27A D223 LHIIIB 1972: 296; Syriopoulos K. 1995: date to LHIIIB, phi figurines and fragments of kylixes 1110. indicate earlier habitation.

Rachi Chani is close to Gouves tombs and the prehistoric Papathanasopoulos 1964: 154- MH, LH, settlement of Malthi (700m). An extended Hellenistic- 155; AJA 1969: 141; UMME 31 Kokla Rachi Chani LHIII(A- HAB 1.0 Roman cemetery revealed there and two disposal pits 1972: 296; GAC 1979: 175, 224 27B D224 B) with a high amount of EH, MH sherds and Mycenaean Syriopoulos K. 1994: 675, 1995: pottery sherds and a figurine. 920.

MH, AJA 1969: 140; UMME 1972: Sherds were found c. 3.5 km northeast of Aetos village. 32 Aetos Morlou LHIII(A- HAB 1.5 296; GAC 1979: 176; Syriopoulos 228 24C D228 Dated in MH and LH III and one in LHIIIC periods. B) K. 1994: 677

Hagios AJA 1961: 233; UMME 1972: Cyclopean walls and Mycenaean sherds were found 33 Aetos Dimitrios LH(?) HAB(?) 296; Syriopoulos K. 1994: 677, 226 26 here. (A) MMPK 2014:28

Hagios MH(?), AJA 1969: 140; UMME 1972: 34 Aetos Dimitrios LHIII(A- HAB 0.4 MH and LH III sherds were found here. 296; GAC 1979: 175-176, 227 26A D227 (B) B) Syriopoulos K. 1994: 677

At the site of the Medieaval Palaiokastro, 1klm east fo AJA 1969: 140; UMME 1972: Aetos, were found s. On a steep conical hill, c. 1 km 35 Aetos Palaiokastro MH, LH HAB 0.8 296; GAC 1979: 175, Syriopoulos 225 26B D225 from Aetos, Adriatic type and LH sherd were found. K. 1994: 677 Dickinson mentions a commanding view to N, E, SE.

On the hill Kontra, 2,5klm NE of Dorion (former Soulima) is the chapel Ayios Konstantinos near the MH(?), AJA 1969: 139-140; UMME spring Koprinitsa. To the west of the road and above the LHI/II(?), 1972: 298; GAC 1979: 176-177; 36 Dorion Kondra HAB 1.8 chapel is a large hill c.600 by 500m, in the upper area of 231 24A D231 LHIII(A- Syriopoulos K. 1994:675, which were found surface sherds dated to MH or LH and B) 1995:920 a few to LHIII period. The site was larger than Malthi (D222) and maybe have been of major importance.

Two tholos tombs excavated by Chatzi during 1982- 1986: Among the villages Pano (old) Psari and Kato Psari, at the region of Dorion, in NE Trifylia, on a long and narrow mound named Metsiki, a tholos tomb was found (diam. 7,90m). The tomb was built by local limestone slate. Part of tholos saved up to 1m. and part of the ‘stomio’ is also visible. The bigger part of the Chatzi G. 1981:156, 1982: 137-

upper construction has fallen inside the tomb and has 138, 1983: 111-113, 1984: 78-79, LHI-II, 37 Psari Metsiki CEM been also spread at the surroundings. The pottery sherds 1985: 103-106, 1986: 42; 24D LHIIIA(?) dated to Mycenaean years and maybe also older phases Syriopoulos K. 1995:800, 861; of the bronze age. The pottery found in dromos belongs MMKP 2014: 37-38 to LHI-LHII period, and a lot of the sherds comes from cups of Kefti type/vafeio cups, some black glazed, and some of the Adriatic type. Fragments from alabastrus dated in LHIIA. Maybe LHIII is also present but the very early phase of it. North of this tomb, in a 300m distance, at the site Varelakou, destroyed cist graves were found.

Sintilithi (Profitis Ilias) west of the suburb Koliotsi (SW of the village) found tumulus shaped projection, where until today are visible the remains of the old Prof. ilias Chatzi G. 1982: 137-138; MMKP 38 Psari Sintilithi LH HAB temple. Found a lot of thick pottery and LH sherds. This 24E 2014: 37-38 low hill has outstanding view to the Soulima Valley and the hill Kontra. In small distance there is the pigi Kamari. 2,5klm, NE of the village, LH sherds and maybe some of AJA 1961: 233; UMME 1972: 39 Chrysochori Panayia LH(?) HAB 232 25 a later period. 298; Syriopoulos K. 1995: 920

In the site Ailias, close to the village Chalkias a Mycenaean tholos tomb was found by a shepherd. It’s a new Mycenaean site, which is located 14klm north of Malthi and 4klm north of Psari. One more tholos tomb Vikatou O. 1995: 182–184, 1996, 40 Chalkias Ailias LH II-IIIB CEM 25A was found during the survey in the area. These tholos 191–192 tombs dated in LH IIA-B to LH IIIB. In total were found and excavated 3 tholos tombs, one of which was situated on the adjoining hill at the site Kroikanou.

78 Sherds dated in MH, LH II-III were found in the modern village Styliari. On the southern side McDonald and MH, LH Simpson mentioned a LH tholos tomb and one more AJA 1961:233; UMME 1972: Ano II, HAB- similar at the site Feretze, 4klm further to the east, but it 41 Stylari 1.0 298; GAC 1979: 17; Syriopoulos 233 24 D233 Kopanaki LHIII(A- CEM? was impossible to identify them during later research. K. 1994:674, 794, 861-862, 920 B) McDonald and Simpson suggested that this site was connected to the tombs found by Valmin in Akourthi (#43) AJA 1969: 139; UMME 1972: On the site Bafano, about 2klm NE of Ano Kopanaki is a Ano 289; GAC 1979: 178, 42 Bafano LH HAB 0.9 ridge to W of the road to Kefalovrysi were LH sherds 238 23F D238 Kopanaki Syriopoloulos K. 1994: 674, found on the surface of the E terraces. 1995:920

Valmin 1927-28, 201–209, 216– About 1,5klm west of Ano Kopanaki, Valmin found 220; AJA 1961:233; UMME three tholos tombs dated to LH II-LH III period and he LH IIB- 1972: 298; GAC 1979:177; 43 Kopanaki Akourthi CEM excavated the two of them. The finds from tomb B dated 234 23 D234 III(B) Syriopoulos K. 1994:674, 1995: to LH IIB, while a bronze violin-bow type fibula is 861, 1995:920; Zavadil et al.: unlikely to be earlier than LH IIIB. 261-263

AJA 1969:137-138; UMME 1972: On a N-S ridge on the skyline c.a. 1klm SW of the Gouva- LH III 298; GAC 1979: 177-178; 44 Kamari CEM 1.2 Kopanaki -Kamari road and 1,5klm S of Kamari is a 236 23D D236 tholos (A-B) Syriopoulos K. 1994:673, ruined LH III tholos tomb. 1995:1008, 1009

AJA 1969:137-138; UMME 1972: Further to N and lower down on the same ridge LH LH III 298; GAC 1979: 177-178; 45 Kamari Gouva HAB 1.2 sherds were found spread over an area c.120m. LHIII 236 23D D236 (A-B) Syriopoulos K. 1994:673, sherds. 1995:1008, 1009 AJA 1969:136; UMME 1972: 46 Kopanaki Paradami LH(?) HAB(?) 2klm west of Kato Kopanaki LH sherds were found. 298; Syriopoulos K. 1994:674, 235 23A 1995:920

From the hill Mesovouni, 300m NE of Kamarion on the AJA 1969:136; UMME 1972: opposite side of the stream were found some MH, LHIII MH, LH 298; GAC 1979: 178; Syriopoulos 47 Kamari Mesovouni HAB 1.6 sherds and perhaps a LH tholos tomb. In AJA: 1969, 237 23B D237 III(A-B) K. 1994:673, 1995:1008-1009, LHIIIB fragments of kylikes and maybe some LHIIA 1109 were mentioned.

On a thin isolated ridge marked by a water tower, 1klm AJA 1969:140; UMME 1972:296; Kato 48 Chalikia MH? LH HAB 0.3 SW of Kato Kopanaki Bronze Age sherds were found, GAC 1979:176, Syriopoulos K. 229 24B D229 Kopanaki including probably MH and LH. 1994:675, 1995:920

AJA 1969: 136-137; UMME Rachi MH, LH On the low rounded hill Gourtsia, 300m WNW of the 49 Artiki HAB 0.8 1972:298; GAC 1979: 176; 230 23C D230 Gortsia III(A-B) village, one MH shred and two LHIII. Syriopoulos K.1994:676,1995:921

On high rounded hill c. 400m N of Polichni are the remains of the convent of Agios Taxiarchis. Coarse MH?, AJA 1961: 234, Syriopoulos K. Agios Bronze Age and LH sherds were found within this area, 50 Polichni LHI (?)- HAB 2.5 1994:675, 1995: 800, 1110, GAC 212 29 D212 Taxiarchis including a base dated to MH or LHI. Some LHIIIB LHIIIB 1979:171 sherds from monochrome deep bowls in Kalamata Museum are also apparently from this site.

Valmin found here two robbed tholos tombs in 1927. He Valmin 1926-27, 53–89, 176–178, dated the sherds form tholos I in LH III and posed 212–214, 1933-34: 16-17. Malthi LHIII (A- that the tomb was built before 1300 BC. It was built at 51 Malthi CEM 222 27A D222 Dorion B) the beginning of LH IIIB and was a little younger than Tholos II that was probably built in LH IIIA. Thus, both tombs have been in use at about the same time.

*Based mainly in GAC.

Appendix 2: Sites catalogue for GIS

# Site Name MH_SS MH_SR MH_TB MH_F LH_SS LH_SR LH_TB LH_F LHI_SS LHI_SR LHI_TB LHI_F LHII_SS LHII_SR LHII_TB LHII_F LHIIIA_SS LHIIIA_SR LHIIIA_TB LHIIIA_F LHIIIB_SS LHIIIB_SR LHIIIB_TB LHIIIB_F ha

1 Tholon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.6 2 Lepreon 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1.5 3 Nestora 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.8 4 Nes.tholos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

5 Kaimena Alonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 Kastro 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 7 Elliniko 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 8 Palaiophrygas 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 9 Nekrotapheion 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 10 Peristeria 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 11 Pyrgaki 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Hagios Ilias 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2.2 13 Tsoukedha 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 Sphakoulia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2.5 15 Kastri 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 16 Aspra Litharia 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 17 Loutses 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5

18 Loutses-tomb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 19 H. Yeoryios 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.6 20 H. Nikolaos 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4.5 21 Chasna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.5

22 Chasna-tholos 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 Krebeni 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4.5 24 Xerovrysi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 25 Kastro tou Mila 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

81 26 Profitis Ilias 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 27 Lakkathela 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

28 Veizi 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Malthi-Dorion' 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 30 Gouves 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 31 Rachi Chani 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 32 Morlou 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1.5

33 H. Dimitrios (A) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 H. Dimitrios (B) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.4 35 Palaiokastro 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 36 Kondra 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1.8 37 Metsiki 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

38 Sintilithi 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 Panayia 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

40 Ailias 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 41 Stylari 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 42 Bafano 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9

43 Akourthi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 44 Gouva-tholos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 1.2 45 Gouva 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1.2 46 Paradami 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 Mesovouni 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1.6 48 Chalikia 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 49 Rachi Gortsia 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.8 50 A. Taxiarchis 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2.5 51 Gouves_tholos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

82 Appendix 3: Datasets 1& 2.

Appendix 3 Dataset 1 Dataset 2 # Site Name MH-LH II LH IIIA-B MH-LH II LH IIIA-B 1 Tholon x x 2 Lepreon x x x x 3 Nestora x x x x 4 Nes.tholos Tomb 5 Kaimena Alonia x x 6 Kastro x x x x 7 Elliniko x x 8 Palaiophrygas x x 9 Nekrotapheion x x x 10 Peristeria x x x x 11 Pyrgaki Tomb 12 Hagios Ilias x x x x 13 Tsoukedha x x x 14 Sphakoulia x x x x 15 Kastri x x x 16 Aspra Litharia x x x 17 Loutses x x x 18 Loutses-tomb - Tomb 19 H. Yeoryios x x x x 20 H. Nikolaos x x x x 21 Chasna x x 22 Chasna-tholos Tomb Tomb 23 Krebeni x x x 24 Xerovrysi Tomb 25 Kastro tou Mila x x 26 Profitis Ilias x x 27 Lakkathela x x x x 28 Veizi x x 29 Malthi-Dorion' x x x x 30 Gouves x x 31 Rachi Chani x x x x 32 Morlou x x x x 33 H. Dimitrios (A) x x 34 H. Dimitrios (B) x x x 35 Palaiokastro x x x 36 Kondra x x x 37 Metsiki Tomb 38 Sintilithi x x 39 Panayia x x 40 Ailias Tomb 41 Stylari x x x x 42 Bafano x x 43 Akourthi Tomb 44 Gouva-tholos Tomb Tomb 45 Gouva x x 46 Paradami x x 47 Mesovouni x x x x 48 Chalikia x x 49 Rachi Gortsia x x x x 50 A. Taxiarchis x x x 51 Gouves tholos Tomb Tomb 83