Villages and Valleys Connectivity and Land Use in Northern Messenia During the Middle and Late Helladic Periods
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 ...............................................................................................................