Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19.1 (2006) 7-43 ISSN (Print) 0952-7648 ISSN (Online) 1743-1700

Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern Corinthia, Greece

William R. Caraher1, Dimitri Nakassis2 and David K. Pettegrew3

1 Department of History, The University of North Dakota, Box 8096, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA E-mail: [email protected] 2 Department of Classical Studies, Trinity University, 1 Trinity Place, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA E-mail: [email protected] 3 Department of History, Messiah College, 1 College Avenue, Grantham, PA 17027, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract Archaeological survey in the eastern Mediterranean has become increasingly intensive over the last 20 years, producing greater and more diverse data for smaller units of space. While complex, siteless data sets have allowed more sophisticated reconstructions of natural and cultural regional histories, the employment of more intensive methods has refocused the scope of Mediterranean surveys from region to ‘micro-region’. Such increasingly myopic approaches have been criticized for their failure to address research questions framed by a large-scale, regional perspective and the analytical categories of ‘settle- ment’ and ‘site’. This paper uses results from a survey in southern Greece to show how artifact-based approaches make valuable contributions to ‘big-picture’ historical and archaeological issues in a Mediter- ranean context. Keywords: archaeological survey, siteless survey, artifact collection strategies, Greece, Archaic, Late Roman, Ottoman

Introduction important developments of the trend in Medi- Siteless, artifact-level survey has been a funda- terranean survey toward refining and intensi- mental component of regional projects in the fying data collection (Cherry 1983: 394-97; Mediterranean for over two decades. Despite 2002: 571-73; Terrenato 2004). the continued vitality of site-based paradigms This trend has recently evoked criticism for documenting and analyzing material land- from those outside and within the field of Med- scapes, surveys that record the artifact as the iterranean survey (see Cherry 2002: 571-73). basic unit of analysis are now very common Archaeologists of the Americas (e.g. Blanton and have even become an expected standard 2001) have accused their fellow researchers of for regional projects in the Mediterranean ‘myopia’ for collecting data at such intensity (see discussion and examples in Gallant 1986: that they cannot sample enough territory to 418; Bintliff et al. 2000b; Fentress 2000: 44; address research questions framed at a regional Francovich and Patterson 2000; Terrenato scale; consequently, survey has become a less 2004: 37). Studying the landscape in terms of effective tool for approaching issues of demo- artifacts rather than sites is among the most graphic and social change, the emergence of

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 8 Caraher et al. complex societies, the life-cycles of civiliza- Schofield 1991). However much intensifying tions, and core-periphery interaction. Even approaches may decrease geographic coverage, Mediterranean archaeologists themselves many Mediterranean archaeologists see this as (Fentress 2000; Terrenato 2000a; 2004) have a better choice than returning to more exten- become skeptical of hyper-intensive survey, sive approaches, whose less intensive data col- noting especially that the counting of pottery lection strategies now seem inconsistent with across the landscape can be so time-consuming the complexity of the artifactual record. that it severely restricts the geographic scope One primary example of this complexity, of the survey, thereby introducing more biases and of the difficulties involved in the analysis than it eliminates (cf. also the espousal of of intensive data sets, is the ongoing debate ‘full-coverage survey’ in Fish and Kowalewski about the interpretation of low-density pot- 1990). In these scholars’ assessment, a return tery distributions. Do these artifactual scatters to more extensive survey methods could at represent meaningless background noise, non- least clear Mediterranean archaeologists of the habitation activity areas, manured lands under charges of sampling bias, particularism, and cultivation, or scatters created by geomorpho- myopia, in turn repositioning archaeological logical processes (Wilkinson 1982; Bintliff survey within its proper regional setting. and Snodgrass 1988; Alcock et al. 1994; Mee These criticisms rightly point to the short- and Forbes 1997: 40; Bintliff 2000a: 209-11; comings of the narrow scope of Mediter- Bintliff et al. 2002)? Or do low-density scatters ranean survey, but undervalue the reasons of different periods represent vestigial habita- for the development of non-site and siteless tions that survive poorly in the surface record approaches (see Thomas 1975; Foley 1981a; due to cultural formation processes and the 1981b; Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Ebert post-depositional effects of erosion, plowing, 1992) and their implementation in a Mediter- and taphonomic processes (see Bintliff et al. ranean context (see generally, Cherry 1983: 1999; 2000a; Barker et al. 2000; Bintliff 2000a: 394-97; 1994: 104-105; Cherry et al. 1991: 203-7; Schofield 2000; Pettegrew 2001; 2002; 20-22; Schofield 1991; Bintliff 2000a). While Bintliff et al. 2002)? These questions cut to counting ‘off-site’ pottery in order to define the heart of current paradigms for interpreting ‘site’ scatters has been a primary motivation artifact distributions, for in one reading, these for artifact-level survey in the Mediterranean scatters may be significant only in their rela- from its inception (Cherry 1983: 396-97; tion to ancient habitations, while in another, Gallant 1986), there are other more critical these scatters are ancient habitations. Medi- reasons for adopting siteless approaches. Arti- terranean archaeologists now seem divided fact-level survey can be seen as an impulse on whether to accept these complexities, ever to reveal the full range of human behavior pursuing ‘invisible’ landscapes and missing across the landscape (Cherry et al. 1991: 20- farmsteads into the rabbit-hole of artifact pat- 22; Alcock et al. 1994: 137-41), or even as an terning (e.g. Bintliff 2000a: 208-209; 2000b; explicit rejection of site-based paradigms on Pettegrew 2001), or to abandon the chase, ontological or methodological grounds (Dun- forgetting about the lower spectrum of arti- nell 1992; Bintliff 2000a; Bintliff et al. 2000b: fact scatters and cutting their losses with a 2). Thus, siteless methods are used not only return to traditional site-based methods (Fen- to define sites by quantifying regional artifact tress 2000; Terrenato 2000a; 2004; Osborne patterns, but also to document the landscape 2001). While for some there may be value in terms consistent with the reality of con- in truncating methodological intensiveness tinuous artifact distributions (see papers in and artifact-level approaches to return to

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 9 broader geographic coverage, a more promis- 1997 and 2002 (Figure 1). EKAS intensified ing approach for many will be to make explicit data collection at the expense of overall cov- how intensive artifact-level survey contributes erage (only c. 4 sq km total). We recorded the to fundamentally different readings of past nature and context of artifact distributions land use. Understanding and articulating the more meticulously than most regional surveys relationship between method and knowledge in the Aegean through intensive regimes of production in survey archaeology will assist environmental data collection and an artifact in designing survey methods that adequately sampling strategy called the Chronotype Sys- address the research questions of individual tem, although we physically collected far fewer survey projects. artifacts than most surveys (see the follow- This paper endorses the utility of siteless ing section). While these recording practices methods through the empirical evaluation of reduced the amount of territory that could be survey data, namely three case studies from covered, it also allowed for a richer under- the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey standing of the temporal and spatial character (EKAS), carried out in the territory of the of the Corinthian artifactual landscape. In ancient city of Corinth, Greece, between the following case studies, we explore the

Figure 1. The eastern Corinthia, with known sites and EKAS survey units.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 10 Caraher et al. implications of such intensive approaches for physical prospection, experimental survey, regional archaeological survey. Approaches mortuary analysis, harbor investigation, and based on siteless methods, we suggest, provide the use of Geographic Information Systems new insights into the nature of artifact pat- (Tartaron et al. 2007). We believed that the terning, not only in the Corinthia, but more combination of these methods would foster generally in Greece and the Mediterranean, an understanding of the archaeological record and are therefore relevant to regional surveys befitting its complexity and prove significant elsewhere. Systematically counting artifacts in the interpretation of artifact patterns. is not superfluous to understanding regional Moreover, the territory of the northern plain settlement, but is absolutely vital for reading of the eastern Corinthia lies in a region rich human activity and change in artifact-rich in natural resources, in the immediate shadow landscapes. of one of the most important urban centers of the Greco-Roman world. Our survey area was a major travel corridor between the eastern The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey and western Mediterranean as well as, locally, (EKAS): Scope, Overview, and Methodology between the city of Corinth and its panhel- EKAS was a diachronic, intensive, siteless lenic sanctuary of Isthmia and eastern harbor survey carried out in the territory east of at Kenchreai (Figures 1 and 2). This study the ancient city of Corinth, with the goal of area bordered, or even incorporated, major investigating the changing relationships of sites in the Corinthia that had been subject the urban center with its eastern hinterland. to a long history of historical syntheses (e.g. EKAS field teams conducted intensive survey Fowler 1932; Salmon 1984; Engels 1990; primarily in the region between Ancient Cor- Rothaus 2000) and archaeological investiga- inth and the panhellenic sanctuary at Isth- tions, including extensive survey and exca- mia, but limited investigations also occurred vation in and around Isthmia, Kenchreai, in the coastal regions of the southern Corin- Kromna, Perdikaria and the trans-Isthmian thia (Figure 1). The results of the survey have walls (Wiseman 1963; 1978; Broneer 1973; appeared in numerous papers and remain the Scranton et al. 1978; Gebhard 1993; Gre- subject of ongoing research (see Rothaus et gory 1993; Morgan 1999), not to mention al. 2003; Tartaron et al. 2003; 2006; Caraher the tradition, more than a century old, of and Diacopoulos 2004; Pettegrew 2004, 2006; archaeological work in the city of Corinth James 2005; Caraher and Gregory 2006). A itself (Williams and Bookidis 2003). Given fuller discussion of EKAS’ methodology will the profusion of both cultural material and soon be published in a preliminary report archaeological and historical scholarship, an (Tartaron et al. 2007). intensive approach was significant in produc- From its inception, EKAS embraced the ing new, more nuanced readings of an area intensive approaches common to recent that was already well known. survey work in the eastern Mediterranean. The employment of a wide range of data Building on the methodological foundations collection strategies in a region with a his- of earlier projects, such as the Pylos Regional tory of dense occupation produced one of the Archaeological Project (Davis et al. 1997) most intensive archaeological survey projects and especially the Sydney Cyprus Survey in mainland Greece (Cherry 2002: 573), and Project (Given and Knapp 2003), EKAS one of the most restricted in its geographic adopted tract-level siteless survey,1 geomor- coverage. Field teams over the course of three phology, site-based gridded collection, geo- summers were only able to survey intensively

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 11

Figure 2. The Isthmian basin, with known sites and EKAS survey units. c. 4 sq km, with the result that we have a visibility, land use, size) for the collection and formidable record of archaeological and envi- documenting of artifacts in the soil matrix. Fur- ronmental data for a very limited area. Rather ther bolstering the rigor of this procedure was than review all facets of EKAS intensity, the principle that archaeological units could we will focus on that specific component of not cross the boundaries of geomorphological intensity most frequently targeted by critics of units—areas formed by the same natural or cul- Mediterranean survey—the counting of arti- tural processes as defined by geomorphologists facts distributed across the landscape—and attached to each survey team. For each survey show how counting artifacts is valuable, and unit we collected artifact data and information perhaps even necessary, for understanding potentially useful for later analysis, such as veg- cultural activity in artifact-rich landscapes. etation, visibility, and current land use, as well as methodological factors (e.g. time required Artifact-level survey: Counting and Chronotypes to complete the unit). The survey unit, then, In EKAS, as in most siteless surveys in Greece forms the basis in EKAS for analyzing and and the Aegean, field teams defined the spa- interpreting the distribution of artifacts across tial unit for collecting data so as to ensure the Corinthian landscape. The minute atten- homogeneous environmental conditions (i.e. tion to environmental factors, particularly

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 12 Caraher et al. geomorphology, produced units that tended to sents a more realistic and efficient solution to be smaller than 0.25 ha in size (median unit sampling the surface assemblage on a regional size was 0.21 ha), which reduced the amount scale than so-called total collection strategies. of territory we could cover, but also increased During survey, walkers counted with spatial control over our data. clicker-counters all pieces of pottery, tile, and EKAS recorded two kinds of artifactual data lithic, and collected every unique Chronotype in the course of survey. First, as has become encountered in their swath, but no more than common survey practice in the Aegean, field a single example of each individual part (rim, walkers spaced at 10-m intervals walked base, handle, neck/shoulder, body sherd) of a transects across each unit, recording with Chronotype. For example, a field walker who tally counters the total amount of pottery, had collected a ‘combed-ware’ body sherd tile, lithic, and ‘other’ artifacts for a 2-m wide and a ‘black-glazed’ body sherd was not to swath; under ideal conditions this provided a collect additional examples of combed-ware 20% sample density of major artifact classes and black-glaze body sherds in their swath, for each unit. These recorded counts were although he or she would count them as part subsequently used to compute the distribution of the total artifact count. Following survey, of total artifact densities across the landscape. our ceramic analysts recorded the specific Second, to characterize the finds from each Chronotypes gathered from each unit. This of the survey units, EKAS employed a highly information, along with the total density intensive artifact collection strategy known as counts and other data collected for the survey the ‘Chronotype System’, originally developed units, was keyed into MS Access and provides for and utilized in the Sydney Cyprus Survey the basis for all subsequent analysis. Project (Meyer 2003; Meyer and Gregory Three points should be noted regarding our 2003) and whose utility is currently being dis- artifact sampling strategy and survey intensity. cussed (Gregory 2004; Tartaron et al. 2007). First, as discussed at length in the preliminary A Chronotype is a unique artifact type based report (Tartaron et al. 2007), our permit from on specific physical attributes (material, fabric, the Greek Ministry of Culture restricted us shape, decoration, etc.), which reflect the arti- from ‘collecting’ (i.e. physically removing) fact’s chronological and functional character. artifacts from the field except when those Chronotypes employed by EKAS range from artifacts were found at significant ‘sites’. This highly diagnostic fine wares, such as ‘African restriction limited the amount of artifacts Red Slip Form 104A’, to poorly diagnostic taken back to the lab and forced us to process utilitarian wares as ‘Cooking Ware–Ancient’. most finds while in the field, including identi- Although most surveys have ignored poorly fication, photographing, and drawing. When diagnostic body sherds, especially in an off-site compared to most other surveys in Greece, context, EKAS recorded these in the hope our artifact recording strategy (the Chronotype that they might relate specific information System) constituted a more intensive, higher about past land use. As we will argue below, resolution sample of the artifactual record by the Chronotype System is a valuable refine- seeking information on the full range of arti- ment of the typical purposive artifact sampling fact types seen in the field, even poorly diag- strategy used by surveyors in the Aegean, nostic body sherds; but our artifact collection which tends to favor ‘feature sherds’ (rims, procedure (i.e. collection for permanent stor- bases, handles, decorated and surface-treated age) was less intensive, in that we were allowed body sherds) and to ignore everything else as to remove very little pottery from the field. ‘non-diagnostic’ artifacts. Moreover, it repre- To put this into quantitative terms, our field

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 13 teams counted with tally counters approxi- And, finally, our artifact recording strat- mately 159,000 artifacts over the course of egy (including both total artifact counts and three years: a quarter of these counted artifacts Chronotypes) enables the quantification of (n = 38,000) were picked up according to the both raw counts of broad artifact classes such Chronotype System and recorded by the arti- as pottery, tile, and lithics, as well as the kinds fact processing teams, while only about 2,000 of artifacts found in each survey unit across the objects (1.3% of the total counted) were col- landscape. Although arguably the Chronotype lected from the field for permanent storage. System does not allow us to make exact quan- We recorded very intensively in the field, but titative statements about the total number of removed very few artifacts in the process. artifact types per unit—we do not know, for Second, the Chronotype System is a hier- instance, how many pieces of Late Roman archical taxonomy that encourages broader combed-ware body sherds a field walker saw period date-ranges when the precise period and did not pick up (because redundant)—it identification of pottery is in doubt. As is does provide a representative sample of the well known, for example, black-glazed pot- artifact types that were seen in a survey unit. tery can fit into a period spectrum stretching Hence, while the system is not designed to from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods, while parse out the total count of artifacts into ridging on coarse wares is common from the respective periods—as, for instance, Bintliff Roman period (second to seventh centuries) and Howard (1999; 2004) have done for sur- vey finds in Boiotia—it is designed to measure to modern times. Chronotyping encourages more than simply the presence/absence of broader-period groupings (e.g. Black-glazed, artifacts, for it provides an approximate and Archaic-Hellenistic periods or Wheel-ridged, quantified sample of artifact types encountered Roman period-Early Modern) when it is in survey units. The inherent bias of the unclear to which specific sub-period an arti- Chronotype system, in fact, is that it elimi- fact dates. This was especially important given nates duplicates and thereby underestimates our permit restrictions to process artifacts in particularly common artifact types, including, the field without washing them in a labora- for instance, ‘Black-Glazed–Archaic-Hellen- tory before identification, as is typically done. istic’ body sherds and especially poorly diag- There were, for instance, a small group of nostic body sherds such as ‘Medium Coarse survey units (n = 191 of 1,336 units) where sig- Ware–Ancient’ and ‘Tile–Ancient Historic’. nificant dust accumulation on the unwashed Consequently, we maintain that such a system pottery surface hindered precise artifact iden- of artifact recording provides an efficient and tification; in such cases, artifacts were assigned approximate assessment of the types of arti- to much broader Chronotype period groupings facts and periods embedded in artifact density, such as, for instance, ‘Archaic-Hellenistic’ and which is an improvement on assessing period simply ‘Ancient’. While it was unfortunate representation according to a simple grab sam- that we could take so few objects from the ple of the most ‘diagnostic’ artifacts (for fur- field, the use of a hierarchical classification ther discussion, Tartaron et al. 2007). As the and dating schema did allow us to record all following case studies will argue, this record- artifacts picked up by fieldwalkers, even if in ing technique produces a thorough record of less precise groupings, and had the additional the artifactual diversity present in each unit advantage of constituting a ‘low-impact’ sam- across the survey landscape, which allows for ple of the archaeological record (see Gregory more subtle analyses of regional histories than 2004; Tartaron et al. 2007). do site-based approaches.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 14 Caraher et al.

The Siteless Perspective at Archaic and Clas- James Wiseman identified a major ancient site sical Kromna of the Corinthia on a slight rise in a relatively flat, fertile plain at a crossroads between the Archaeologists have been slow to exploit the city of Corinth, its eastern port Kenchreai and full range of data produced by modern inten- sive survey, in that despite the adoption of site- the panhellenic sanctuary at Isthmia (Figures 1 less methods in the Aegean in the 1980s, there and 2). On the basis of an excavated inscription has been a reluctance to embrace artifact-level found in the area preserving the name ‘Aga- analysis. In fact, the implementation of siteless thon Kromnites’, Wiseman concluded that the survey in the Aegean may be seen historically site was an important Corinthian town known as a reflex by survey archaeologists to increase from literary sources as Kromna (Wiseman the reliability and accuracy of their site iden- 1963: 257, fig. 4, 271-73; 1978: 66-68; Tar- tifications (e.g. Gallant 1986). Thus, rather taron et al. 2007). We will continue to refer to than deconstruct the site, siteless methods in this site as Kromna, although Wiseman’s iden- the Mediterranean have reified it (for some tification of this site with a Corinthian town exceptions to this, see Bintliff and Howard called Kromna is probably mistaken (Pette- 2 1999; Bintliff et al. 1999). This tendency is grew 2006). While other 20th-century exten- itself related to the conceptual vocabulary of sive surveys did not recognize a settlement in the archaeological discipline in the Mediter- this location (Fowler 1932; Sakellariou and ranean and elsewhere, which is accustomed to Faraklas 1971), Wiseman observed standing thinking in terms of excavated sites. walls and other architectural members (noted Survey’s role is accordingly to locate sites in 1960-61, but already absent by 1970), wells in time and space, which are often assumed and cisterns, and surface pottery from the 5th to exist as clearly defined spatial and chrono- century BC to the 4th century AD; furthermore, logical entities (Dunnell 1992; for a critique of some excavated tombs to the west yielded Late archaeological conceptions of space, see Smith Protogeometric and Archaic pottery (Wise- 2003: 33-54; cf. Casey 1996; 1997). Thus, the man 1978: 66, 78 n. 119). Wiseman placed complexities of survey data have often been the boundaries of Kromna at the locations simplified to mere ‘dots on a map’ (Cherry of three cemeteries, indicated by large num- 1994: 97) in survey publications, despite the bers of broken sarcophagi no longer visible growing realization that there is a nearly today, to the east, west, and south (Wiseman ‘continuous carpet’ of artifacts for some of the 1963: 271-72). Thus, he could conclude that regions that have been surveyed (e.g. Bintliff Kromna emerged as an important nucleated and Howard 1999), including—perhaps even settlement—perhaps even the most important especially—the Corinthia. A siteless perspec- inland site on the Isthmus—at least by the 5th tive, therefore, has the potential to redress this century BC, but could say little about its pre- or problem by evaluating the data in different post-Classical history and extent. ways, thereby revealing more nuanced spatial During the 1999 and 2000 field seasons, patterns and regional histories that challenge EKAS produced enormous amounts of data our preconceptions, rather than merely rein- recording the dense carpet of artifacts in this forcing them. region (Figure 3). When these data were A long tradition of research in our study area combined with Wiseman’s observations, offers the means to compare data from previ- there emerged three alternatives for organ- ous site-based extensive surveys and EKAS’s izing and analyzing these data, corresponding artifact-level siteless survey. In the 1960s, to the methods of (1) extensive site-based

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 15

Figure 3. Artifact distribution in the Kromna-Perdikaria region. survey, (2) intensive site-based survey and suggest a more nuanced picture, with perhaps (3) intensive siteless survey. Fortunately, we as many as 25 peaks in density in the area are capable of discussing the results of all these between, and including, the ridges of Perdika- methods, since Wiseman’s study provides the ria and Kromna (Table 1 and Figure 4). This first, and the highly detailed data collected by analysis defines the densest fields as sites and EKAS allows us to model the data from both deals only with the ‘on-site’ material, which intensive modes of analysis. becomes the basis for the study of the region. As discussed above, Wiseman’s extensive In this case, we have used ‘artifact density per approaches essentially identified Kromna as a percent visible’ to define sites; this statistic site of Classical date, based on an unsystematic attempts to eliminate the bias of differential survey of surface finds. He defined the town as surface visibility by measuring the total artifact a functionally undifferentiated space bounded density of a field as compared to the density by the remains of ancient mortuary activity of all other fields with the same visibility (Wiseman 1978: 66). If we analyze the EKAS (Thompson 2004: 72-78).3 In this case, we data according to the intensive site-based have defined ‘sites’ as fields that belong to the model as implemented by most Mediterranean top 10% of artifact density per percent visible.4 surveys, the artifact densities alone would These fields yielded an average of nearly 9,300

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 16 Caraher et al. artifacts per ha as surveyed by tract walking, a but now known to have a Middle Neolithic figure well above typical thresholds for defin- and Late Roman component as well), we can ing sites in the Aegean.5 More importantly, confirm multiple loci of Classical activity in however, these units possess exceptional den- a larger area, specifically the area between, sities within the immediate archaeological and and including, the two ridges. These peaks regional context and are well above the aver- in artifact density within what appears to be age density figure of about 2,000 artifacts per a larger site might be interpreted in a variety ha for the survey area generally. of ways: they might be seen as evidence of These site data (Figure 5) show a cluster patchy settlement, uneven secondary deposi- of Classical sites in the area considered by tion of artifacts, or taphonomic processes. Wiseman to be the core of Kromna, but add Moreover, the Late Roman material observed a number of sites with Archaic-Hellenistic by Wiseman at Kromna can now be put into and Classical-Hellenistic phases in the low- a wider context, as there are a number of sites lying area to the south of Kromna. Together with Late Roman occupation throughout the with the site on the ridge of Perdikaria (site area: more than half (13 out of 25) of the sites 22 on Table 1, known to Wiseman [1963: have a substantial Late Roman component, 66, 68] as a Bronze Age and Classical site, with another five possible sites assigned a

Figure 4. ‘Density sites’ and artifact density in the Kromna-Perdikaria region.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 17

Table 1. Sites defined by artifact density per percent visible in the Kromna-Perdikaria study region. Site Area (ha) Artifacts Artifacts per Primary period represented1 Secondary period(s) represented2 ha walked 1 0.78 1626 10,443 Late Roman Archaic-Classical (Classical), Roman 2 0.82 1249 7,637 Archaic-Classical (Classical) Roman (Late Roman), Archaic- Hellenistic 3 0.08 135 8,706 Archaic-Classical (Classical) 4 0.38 640 8,435 Archaic-Classical (Classical) Classical-Hellenistic, Late Roman, Roman 5 0.56 1286 11,583 Classical Archaic-Classical, Late Roman 6 0.03 53 10,029 Late Roman 7 0.08 132 7,918 Roman (Late Roman) 8 0.26 279 5,455 Modern Late Roman 9 0.18 339 9,516 Classical Classical-Hellenistic, Archaic- Hellenistic, Late Roman 10 0.55 1733 15,884 Roman (Late Roman) Archaic-Hellenistic 11 0.66 906 6,838 Classical-Hellenistic Late Roman, Roman, Archaic- Classical 12 0.24 262 5,554 Insufficient data 13 0.13 143 5,408 Classical-Hellenistic Archaic-Hellenistic (Archaic) 14 0.33 625 9,466 Archaic-Hellenistic (Classical) Archaic-Classical, Roman 15 0.47 796 8,456 Roman (Late Roman) 16 0.28 313 5,656 Roman (Late Roman) 17 0.06 163 13,883 Classical-Hellenistic Archaic-Classical, Late Roman 18 0.19 260 6,700 Late Roman Roman 19 0.42 1249 14,965 Late Roman Roman, Classical-Hellenistic, Late Medieval, Archaic-Hellenistic 20 0.35 398 5,687 Early Helladic 21 0.18 364 10,092 No single dominant period Roman, Medieval, Geometric- Archaic, Archaic-Hellenistic 22 2.42 5634 11,663 Archaic-Hellenistic Early Helladic, Late Helladic, Neolithic (Middle Neolithic), Late Roman, Roman 23 0.04 42 5,415 Late Roman 24 0.39 538 7,290 Late Roman Archaic-Hellenistic, Roman 25 0.09 96 5,409 Late Roman

Notes 1. This field records the periods for which there are substantial numbers of sherds attested (excluding very broad chronological periods, such as ‘Ancient’). If broad categories such as Archaic-Classical or Roman can be refined through the presence of more precisely dated artifacts, that is indicated by the use of parentheses. 2. These are other periods represented by significant surface material, listed in descending order.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 18 Caraher et al. more general ‘Roman’ date that possess sig- multiple, sometimes overlapping chronological nificant amounts of Late Roman sherds as periods, fails to assess the chronological subtle- well (Table 1). Thus, compared to extensive ties of artifact patterning in the study area. survey, intensive site-based survey, as is well While some sites are relatively easy to interpret known, reveals more periods of occupation, as single-period sites (site 9 is almost entirely isolates peaks in artifact densities at larger composed of artifacts of certain or probable sites (Kromna and Perdikaria) and reveals the Classical date), others seem to derive their high presence of smaller sites missed by extensive density from the fact that they are palimpsests surveys. A site-based analysis of the Kromna of lower-level activity in multiple periods, a region reveals evidence of dense occupation pattern frequently noted in regional survey in the Classical and Late Roman periods (e.g. Bintliff and Howard 1999). Thus, site 21, throughout the area, as well as concentrated one of the highest density sites in this area (see activity in the Bronze Age (sites 20 and 22) Table 1), has no clear dominant chronological and the Medieval period (sites 19 and 21) in component, but contains material distributed and around Perdikaria. more or less evenly among nearly every histori- However, the site paradigm, based as it is cal period. At Kromna itself, a comparison of on raw counts of all artifacts representing these sites with locations of Classical artifacts

Figure 5. Greek historical ‘density sites’ in the Kromna-Perdikaria region.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 19 shows that at least two concentrated clusters no case do they represent more than four total of Classical pottery do not fall within sites sherds, or a mere 12% of sherds datable to a defined by artifact density (Figure 6). The period shorter than a millennium. Only site usual site-based method of archaeological sur- 13 may be interpreted as having an Archaic vey therefore fails to represent the distribution phase of occupation, but its small size (0.13 ha) and density of Classical pottery accurately in would doubtlessly lead to its interpretation as a what is already known as an important Classi- farmstead by most Mediterranean surveys. cal site. Within the site paradigm, then, Archaic More critical, however, is that the site-based sherds cannot be analyzed at all, because there method fails entirely to recognize the presence are no clusters of Archaic finds. Nevertheless, of Archaic pottery to the south of Kromna. the siteless data make it clear that there is a None of our sites defined by artifact density definite dispersed Archaic pattern in the low- has a strong Archaic signature, with the pos- lying area between Kromna and Perdikaria sible exception of site 13, and only three of the (Figure 7). Given the general low density of 25 sites have any Archaic sherds at all. Where Archaic pottery in the EKAS survey area, Archaic sherds are present on these ‘sites’, they the Archaic pottery at Kromna represents a represent a tiny fraction of the assemblage: in significant concentration; nearly half (46.3%)

Figure 6. Distribution of Classical artifacts and ‘density sites’ in Kromna.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 20 Caraher et al. of the Archaic pottery from EKAS was found 1984). The presence of Archaic material is sig- in the Kromna-Perdikaria region, which in nificant, since Kromna was undoubtedly one areal size barely constitutes 20% of the total of the most important settlements in the east- area surveyed by EKAS. Additionally, much ern Corinthia, certainly due to the region’s material in the area dates to broader cat- agricultural fertility, the extensive stone quar- egories which embrace the Archaic period ries located immediately to its west (Hayward (Archaic-Classical and Archaic-Hellenistic), 2003: 27-28), and its location at an important suggesting that much of this material may crossroads between Corinth and its eastern have an Archaic date as well (see below). harbor (Pettegrew 2006; Tartaron et al. 2007). A plausible interpretation of these data is to While site-based approaches would certainly see the Archaic pattern as a more ephemeral conclude that settlement here was a new ancestor to the settlement that coalesces at foundation, associated with the widely attested the crossroads immediately to the north in the expansion in rural settlement in the Classical Classical Period, perhaps representing a dis- period, siteless data provide a more nuanced persed pattern of settlement such as has been understanding of the changes in the location proposed for the city of Corinth itself, albeit and the nature of its settlement. at a much larger scale, during the Geometric In sum, then, it is clear that a traditional and Archaic periods (Roebuck 1972; Williams site-oriented survey in this area simplifies the

Figure 7. Distribution of Archaic pottery and ‘density sites’ in the Kromna-Perdikaria region.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 21 data by defining the densest areas as ‘sites’ and suddenly came back to life in the late 4th and banishing the rest of the data to obscurity with 5th centuries AD with a full variety of scattered the label ‘off-site’. Besides conflating separate farmsteads and country estates (for overviews, artifact densities by failing to differentiate see Alcock 1993: 33-49; Bintliff 1997; Shipley between sherds dating to different periods, the 2002: 329-31; Kosso 2003; Pettegrew 2006). site paradigm limits what the data can tell us This settlement pattern is so consistent that about diachronic change. In this particular historians have argued that the entire province case, employing the site concept for Kromna of Roman Achaia experienced a late phase of results at worst in the complete failure to note agricultural intensification and prosperity, tied the Archaic period, and at best in mischar- variously to population growth (Bintliff 1991: acterizing its nature and extent. Of course, 126-27, although cf. Bintliff 1997), market one or two sherds in a single field need not economies (van Andel and Runnels 1987: be particularly meaningful, nor are they easily 113-17), or imperial policy (Kosso 2003). The interpreted, but a consistent pattern of rela- material abundance of the Late Roman coun- tively small numbers of artifacts does demand tryside is further defined by the relative paucity explanation (cf. below). Thus, siteless survey of Early Roman and Early Medieval material, is capable of revealing low-density landscapes which throws the abundance of Late Roman (the Archaic pattern) hidden by site-based material into sharp relief. methods, and representing high-density scat- The historical significance of such ‘settle- ters (the Classical pattern) with greater preci- ment explosion’ is that it seems to contradict sion than the site, commonly defined as an traditional depictions of the rural economy anomalous high-density scatter with clear spa- in late antiquity (Kosso 2003) and the centu- tial boundaries (e.g. Wright et al. 1990: 606). ries-old narratives of economic, political, and A careful analysis of the siteless data reveals even moral decline at the end of antiquity. a more nuanced history than its site-based In older accounts of the Late Roman Empire, counterparts, with nascent settlement in the for example, the countryside suffered from the low-lying farmland between Perdikaria and exhaustion of soils due to cultivation of mar- Kromna expanding to the north and south in ginal territory, the widespread abandonment the Classical period. of land, and a general decline in agriculture (e.g. Jones 1964: 812). Recent archaeological Pattern and Problem in Late Roman Settle- research, on the other hand, has suggested that ment Explosion countrysides were flourishing in this period (see Bowden et al. 2004). Regional survey projects Following the material abundance of the Clas- in Greece have shown the frequency of small- sical period in the Greek landscape, there is and medium-sized farms, which opposes the a down-turn in surface finds in the Late Hel- dramatically pessimistic view of decline in the lenistic and Early Roman periods, followed by late antique rural economy (Kosso 2003). This a surge in surface material in the Late Roman corpus of evidence for Late Roman Achaia has period. This development, universally inter- now become a standard footnote in general preted as an ‘explosion’ of Late Roman settle- surveys of the expansion of rural settlement ment, is one of the most consistent phenomena during this period (e.g. Ward-Perkins 2000: noted in regional survey in Greece and the 321; Banaji 2001: 16-17, 214; Chavarría and eastern Mediterranean. In the prototypical pat- Lewit 2004: 18-19). tern, a countryside sparsely inhabited between Although Late Roman material is certainly the late 3rd century BC and 3rd century AD ubiquitous in the Greek countryside, and

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 22 Caraher et al.

Early Roman less so, there is good reason to site’ environments. This method enables us to think critically about why this is so and what contextualize the presence and frequency of it implies for understanding changes in land the very fossil types that surveys use to define use. We may wonder especially how this pat- sites. tern of explosion is exaggerated by our ability to recognize some chronological periods in Patterning Abundance: Late Roman Corinthia the surface record better than others. Archae- In surveying the rich land immediately east of ologists have often commented that Late the city of Corinth, we anticipated encoun- Roman pottery is much more diagnostic and tering abundant Roman material. Previous easily recognized in surface survey than Early archaeological fieldwork in the region (e.g. Roman pottery, and it has been suggested that Gregory 1985; Rothaus 1994; 2000; Kardulias this difference affects our understanding of et al. 1995) suggested that Late Roman set- changes in settlement (e.g. Bowden and Gill tlement would be extensive throughout this 1997a: 77; 1997b: 84). We argue that the data area, and Late Roman ceramics proved to be collected by the EKAS Chronotype System the most frequent in the EKAS survey area. allows for a more detailed ‘source criticism’ of The tables below demonstrate the frequency survey ceramic data that can provide us with a and quantity of this material in standard tract measure of the possible scale of distortion (for survey. In terms of the overall amount of pot- this concept applied to survey data, see Rutter tery analyzed, Late Roman material represents 1983; Millett 1985; 1991; 2000; Alcock 1993: 1,707 artifacts—almost 5% of the overall pot- 49-53; Bintliff 2000b: 6-7; Sanders 2000: 172- tery read—and was over five times more abun- 73; Pettegrew 2004). dant than the preceding Early Roman period The methods of traditional site-based survey (Table 2). This abundance doubtless would have certainly contributed to the notion of a translate into many Late Roman ‘sites’ in a Late Roman explosion, since sites are defined site-based survey, as the number of recognized on the basis of large quantities of recognizable Late Roman artifacts would dominate other ‘fossil types’ such as Late Roman pottery. That periods in high-density surface assemblages is, regardless of whether surveys use absolute or (see Table 1, with discussion, above). relative density measures to define their sites, A superficial interpretation of this pattern ultimately they assign sites to periods repre- would read the relative abundance of Late sented by the largest numbers of recognized Roman material as an expansion in settlement, artifacts. The preferred artifact collection but closer scrutiny of the ceramic data suggests strategies at sites, which range from unsystem- that the pattern is almost entirely caused by a atic grab-sampling to total collection, provide ‘source problem’ of differential diagnosticity little indication of the general frequency of of the pottery from the two periods. The Late artifacts across the wider landscape, and thus Roman pattern is dramatically exaggerated by do not facilitate any ‘source criticism’ which two Chronotypes, ‘Spirally Grooved Ware’ and places the artifactual ‘text’ in a larger context. ‘Combed Ware’ sherds, which together form An artifact-level siteless method as adopted by 63% of the entire ceramic assemblage for the EKAS, however, can map the distribution of Late Roman period (Table 3). These Chrono- all artifact classes. Because artifacts were col- types represent typical closed vessel forms of lected in a systematic and consistent manner Late Roman date that were characteristically from all units, it is relatively easy to query the surface-treated with grooving and combing constituent artifactual ingredients of Early and prior to firing (for definition, see Robinson Late Roman patterns in both ‘on-site’ and ‘off- 1959: 6). This form of surface treatment was

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 23

Table 2. Number of Late Roman artifacts read, compared to periods preceding and following. Period Artifacts Artifacts as a percentage of all artifacts read

Early Roman (31 BC–250 AD) 329 0.86% Late Roman (AD 250–700) 1,707 4.50% Early Medieval (AD 700–1200) 19 0.05% especially common to amphora types widely and handles of coarse wares, and fine ware exchanged across the eastern Mediterranean sherds. In EKAS, the differences between peri- in late antiquity (e.g. Peacock and Williams ods can best be summarized by a breakdown 1986: types 43, 46, 48 and 49); consequently, of different functional groups loosely based on their easily recognizable sherds make this fabric (Table 4). Of the 1,707 analyzed Late period particularly visible in the field and in Roman sherds, the overwhelming majority the EKAS data set. Early Roman amphorae, (83%) are coarse wares and amphora frag- by contrast, typically have plain and untreated ments, while fine wares and kitchen wares surfaces, and are less immediately diagnostic. combined represent only 15%; in contrast, the While it may be possible in the field to identify Early Roman period is represented by only 329 plain Early Roman amphora body sherds on the pieces of pottery, with coarse wares and fine basis of color and fabric, most survey projects wares forming approximately equal percent- do not even collect such pottery because they ages, and kitchen wares falling close behind. lack the obvious marks of diagnosticity. In the eastern Corinthia, utilitarian vessel Yet the difference that this surface treat- fragments were much more important ‘fos- ment makes for the visibility of the periods is sil types’ for the Late Roman period than substantial: Late Roman is highly identifiable fine wares, which conversely were far more because these body sherds represent the largest important than coarse wares in signaling Early part of the most common vessels, utilitarian Roman presence. Thus, the Late Roman pres- coarse ware jars and amphorae. The Early ence in the countryside may be the result of Roman period, by contrast, is not immediately the common and easily identified coarse ware diagnostic in its coarse ware body sherds and is body sherds, while the identification of the typically identified by artifacts less commonly Early Roman material is tied to fine ware fos- encountered in regional survey, namely rims sil types, which are typically less common in

Table 3. The ten most abundant Late Roman Chronotypes. Chronotype Number As a percent of all Late Roman Artifacts Spirally Grooved Ware 702 41.1% Combed Ware 371 21.7% Amphora, Late Roman 2 108 6.3% Kitchen Ware, Roman Late 96 5.6% Amphora, Palestinian 82 4.8% Phocaean Ware 68 4.0% Medium Coarse Ware, Roman Late 57 3.3% Phocaean Ware 3 46 2.7% Amphora, Late Roman 1 23 1.4%

Total 1575 92.2%

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 24 Caraher et al.

Table 4. Breakdown of Late Roman and Early Roman fabric groups. Fabric Group Late Roman Pottery % LR Pottery Early Roman Pottery % ER Pottery Count Count Coarse Wares and 1417 83.0% 119 36.2% Amphora Fine Wares 165 9.7% 125 38.0% Kitchen Wares 96 5.6% 82 24.9% Lamp 6 0.4% 3 0.9% Other 23 1.3% ------

Total 1707 100.0% 329 100.0% a survey environment. Any interpretation of demonstrates that the difference is hardly on changes in land use and settlement between the same scale as the raw counts of the arti- these periods would first need to take into facts; while Late Roman artifacts outnumber account these factors. their Early Roman counterparts by more than The Chronotype System, in conjunction a factor of five (5.19:1), the total area of units with siteless survey, allows a comparison of with Late Roman pottery is just over twice as Early Roman and Late Roman artifact patterns large as the area of units with Early Roman in the eastern Corinthia on the basis of fossil (2.33:1), thereby reducing the magnitude of types less subject to the biases discussed above. the Late Roman explosion by half (Table 5). For instance, if we simply exclude coarse wares The comparison of the two periods can be from our analysis, and compare fine wares, seen in Figure 8, which registers raw pottery kitchen wares, and lamps, the resulting figures counts. are roughly comparable: 165 Late Roman Moreover, if we eliminate the two most fine ware sherds are comparable to 125 Early common types of Late Roman pottery (see Roman fine ware sherds, as are 96 Late Roman Table 3), the area covered by Late Roman kitchen ware sherds to 82 Early Roman kitchen pottery declines by 53% of its total area, such wares, and six Late Roman lamp fragments to that the area covered by Early Roman pottery three Early Roman lamp fragments (Table 4). is 74% of the area of Late Roman material. This comparison of ceramic assemblages for A more productive comparison, however, the two periods indicates that the amount of would be between classes of artifacts, such certain kinds of Late Roman pottery deposited as fine wares. This would have the benefit of in the countryside was not substantially differ- comparing the distribution of certain classes of ent than the amount of Early Roman. pottery that might be functionally analogous. Since the method of collection employed Here we discover that the area covered by by Chronotype sampling ties the quantity of units with Early Roman fine wares is 82% the artifacts analyzed, in part, to the number of area of Late Roman fine wares. Extending this units in which they appear, it is necessary to comparison to other classes, the area of units consider the distribution of artifacts in the with Early Roman amphorae cover 67% of survey area in order to assess apparent vari- the area of units with Late Roman amphorae, able diagnosticity of Early and Late Roman and even in the murky waters of cooking pots, material. A simple comparison of the spatial Early Roman vessels cover just above 50% of distribution of Early and Late Roman ceramics the area of their Late Roman counterparts.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 25

Figure 8. Densities of Early Roman and Late Roman artifacts in the Isthmian basin.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 26 Caraher et al.

Table 5. Units with Late Roman material, compared to periods preceding and following Period Units (corresponding total area) Units as a percentage of all units walked (percentage of total area walked)

Early Roman (31 BC–250 AD) 193 (94.3 ha) 14.5% (17.1%)

Late Roman (AD 250–700) 577 (219.5 ha) 43.2% (40.0%) Early Medieval (AD 700–1200) 14 (6.5 ha) 1.1% (1.2%)

This spatial analysis confirms the analysis well-traversed agricultural plain throughout above based on raw counts—namely, that the the Roman period to the end of antiquity. Late Roman explosion is grossly exaggerated by the more diagnostic nature of its artifacts, Sampling Low-density Scatters and the particularly the highly diagnostic body sherds Ottoman Landscape of amphorae. Particularly striking is the parity between Early Roman and Late Roman fine The previous two case studies highlight the wares—with respect to absolute numbers and potential for interpreting low-density artifact areal coverage, Early Roman comprises about scatters by comparing them to spatially or 80% of Late Roman—since these are both chronologically related higher-density scatters. indicative of rural settlement and less suscep- In the case of Kromna, the Classical site pro- tible to problems of differential diagnosticity. vided an interpretive perspective on the lower- A closer scrutiny of our intensively col- density Archaic material, while the highly lected data, then, demonstrates that the prevalent Late Roman material allowed for a ceramic structure of the Late Roman period critique of the less recognizable material from has much more in common with the period the preceding Early Roman period. Our final that preceded it than a superficial comparison case study seeks to analyze a low-density arti- of the ceramics would indicate. The foregoing fact scatter that cannot be understood based analysis demonstrates that more pottery at a on comparisons to spatially or chronologically later date need not be as significant as it might adjacent material. In particular, this analysis seem to be. We can therefore suggest that the will explore the link between low overall surface record in the Corinthian plain pro- density and low-density, single-period artifact vides a challenge to scholars wishing to argue scatters, in order to isolate shortcomings in sur- for an ‘explosion’ in settlement at the end of vey sampling strategies when confronted with antiquity. If this analysis has revealed certain exceptionally small assemblages. As a means of overlooked biases inherent in the analysis of compensating for these shortcomings, we will Late Roman ceramics, it should not detract suggest two intuitive and probabilistic ways from the general picture of a busy Late Roman of extracting significance from such small, countryside in the eastern Corinthia. In fact, low-density assemblages. Aoristic analysis and highly diagnostic Late Roman pottery reveals nearest-neighbor analysis offer modest pros- a countryside with the ‘lights turned on’, a pects for expanding our ability to understand potential image of how other ‘lesser historic the very kind of low-density artifact scatters periods’ (Bintliff 2000b: 6-7), perhaps such that intensive artifact-level survey takes such as the preceding Early Roman, would appear pains to document. It should be stressed at the if their utilitarian assemblages were as diag- outset that these interpretive techniques will nostic. Thus, this analysis ultimately speaks not permit the kind of analysis possible from to the constant importance of this rich and more robust samples. In fact, the techniques

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 27 presented in the following section suggest nucleated settlements and centralized, large- some simple and accessible methods for iden- scale exploitation of the countryside typified tifying those low-density scatters which could this period (for a general overview of this reward more thorough investigation by schol- period in the EKAS area, see Gregory 2006). ars more versed in material from particularly Although the absence of substantial amounts problematic periods. of Ottoman-period material in eastern Cor- One of the most important justifications for inthia confirmed that any large economic or artifact-level survey and increasing intensity administrative center must have stood out- in data collection is that low-density scat- side our survey area, this is not evidence for ters can shed light, on periods poorly repre- the absence of Ottoman-period activity alto- sented in site-based collection. The Ottoman gether. Scholars have generally struggled to period in southern Greece has often presented recognize Ottoman material in the landscape archaeologists with just such a challenge. from a very limited number of fossil types, Basic ceramic types for this period and region although this is now changing. In general, are inadequately known (for a recent general they have depended on the distinctive green- survey, see Vroom 2003: 69-73; 2005), making glazed fine ware as the primary signature of its the interpretation of settlement patterns heav- presence or absence (Davis 1991: 133; Vroom ily dependent upon the locations of modern 2003: 69-73). For EKAS, these weaknesses Greek villages and documentary sources rang- in identifying pottery may have contributed ing from early modern travelers’ accounts to to the paucity of Ottoman-period artifacts Ottoman tax records (Kiel 1990; 1997; 1999; recognized in the survey area. The challenge Steadman 1996; Zarinebaf et al. 2005). The presented by a data set shaped under these traditional narrative of 17th- to 19th-century conditions is to devise ways to identify areas settlement in Greece emphasizes the pres- that will reward future (and undoubtedly ence of high-density nucleated settlements more intensive) investigation, and to avoid populated by culturally distinct ‘foreign’ elites the conclusion that the absence of evidence who controlled large tracts of land devoid of provides evidence for absence. This case study ‘native’ settlement. Thus, a repressive foreign will examine such Ottoman material deriving power exploited and excluded a native popula- from units with low overall artifact density as tion, which fled either into inaccessible moun- a means of exploring potential narratives of tain areas or to regions at some distance from Ottoman land use in the eastern Corinthia, prime lands (Finlay 1857; Bees 1936; McGrew as well as considering wider issues relating to 1985). Recent studies, however, incorporating sampling in a siteless survey environment. Ottoman tax records and archaeological sur- During the 1999 season, EKAS documented vey data, have suggested that this marginalized four units with Ottoman-period (AD 1537– native population was, in fact, far more active 1829) material and three units with material and integrated in the settlement system and potentially datable to that period from a group local economy of southern Greece (Topping of 23 units extending over approximately 1972; Wagstaff 1978; Frangakis and Wagstaff 6 ha on the north slopes of Mount Oneion 1987; Sutton 1994; 2000; Kiel 1999; Athanas- (Figure 9). The aggregate density of these sopoulos 2004; Davies 2004; Zarinebaf et al. units, approximately 1,500 artifacts per ha, is 2005). well below the mean artifact density (c. 2,000 A more subtle reading of the Ottoman- artifacts per ha) for the survey area in general, period data from the eastern Corinthia can and far below the sustained high-density ‘on- add nuance to the traditional assessment that site’ scatters typical of nucleated habitation

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 28 Caraher et al. areas such as Kromna (9,300 artifacts per ha; analysis. In many cases the small number of see above). Only five of the units (32, 34, artifacts collected from a given area is the prod- 38, 40, and 72) produced densities in the top uct of sampling strategies designed to locate 40% rank of EKAS survey units, and most of and document more robust concentrations of the units in this area fell below mean artifact cultural material and a desire for a relatively density for the survey as a whole. The sur- high degree of spatial control. Siteless surveys vey’s emphasis on intensive data collection in the Mediterranean typically employ field provides a valuable context for understanding procedures that sample the landscape accord- the distribution of datable material within the ing to spatial area (e.g. geomorphological units context of low-density units. In particular, or modern field boundaries) rather than, for the contextual data collected by EKAS allows instance, number, date, or character of artifacts us to identify potential reasons for the low (e.g. a site-based survey might ‘chase densities’ artifact density in this area and consider the to produce a robust sample by collecting at a implications of low-density units on the sam- higher intensity until perceived breaks in den- pling of material from the surface assemblage. sity). The former approach is satisfactory for Low-density units, particularly those that documenting and comparing the raw or aggre- produce only a small number of artifacts, gate density of artifacts across a given area (see severely limit the opportunities for profitable above, for the limited analytical value of this

Figure 9. Units with Ottoman material on the northern slopes of Mount Oneion.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 29 approach), but can fall short when attempt- latter trend, while unanticipated, correlates ing to assess and compare the chronology and with the overall preponderance of weakly function of surface assemblages of varying diagnostic pottery in all assemblages, which density across larger regions. In high-density becomes more prevalent as the sample size and units surveyed by EKAS, for example, our use number of periods present in the overall assem- of the Chronotype sampling strategy detected blage decreases. A sampling strategy designed a large number of different periods present, to manage and contextualize archaeological trending toward redundant chronological data material observed on the surface assumes that with more than one artifact type per period. chronological variation within a population of Low-density units, on the other hand, tended pottery is closely tied to artifact density. to produce more chronologically homogeneous The potential causes of low artifact density assemblages (Figure 10). Not only were fewer in any unit of space are well discussed in periods represented in a smaller assemblage, but Mediterranean survey literature; possibilities in low-density units we were also less able to include the nature of settlement and discard date artifacts to specific periods (for discussion behavior, geomorphology, and taphonomic of this point, see Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985). and other post-depositional processes such as Hence, low- to average-density assemblages plowing (Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988; Alcock are more apparently homogeneous because of et al. 1994; Snodgrass 1994; Fentress 2000; fewer possible periods represented, as well as Van de Velde 2001). Beyond behavioral and the predominance of pottery that can only be geomorphological factors, lower artifact den- assigned to broad chronological periods. This sity (or the total absence of surface finds)

Figure 10. Comparison of the average number of chronological periods and average number of chronotypes repre- sented on the basis of density rank of surveyed tracts.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 30 Caraher et al. is frequently attributed to limited surface chronological diversity present in a larger visibility (e.g. Ammerman 1985; Terrenato sample and influences our ability to describe 2000b), which is principally defined by the discrete chronological ‘events’ in archaeologi- amount of the surface free from vegetation cal space. It is valuable to note that surface vis- or other obstructions. In fact, variations in ibility has an even more linear and significant surface visibility across a survey area are suffi- relationship to the precision represented in the ciently common in Mediterranean survey that collected surface assemblage than does overall archaeologists often present overall artifact artifact density. This is particularly striking densities ‘corrected’ for surface visibility. The because the number of periods and Chrono- techniques designed to normalize density fig- types represented has a more linear and sig- ures, however, often do little more than mask nificant relationship to artifact density than to the degree to which surface visibility affects overall visibility. Visibility, then, more so than our sample of a putative total assemblage of total density, biases our interpretation of the artifacts present on the unobstructed surface.6 surface assemblage toward the predominant A useful display of the significance of vis- component in all assemblages: those relatively ibility on the character of the sample from a undiagnostic (both in terms of chronology and unit is shown in Figure 11. This graph displays function) artifacts which can only be associ- the effect of visibility on the average precision ated with broad periods (Figure 12). Perhaps with which we can date a collected artifact: our certain artifact types, such as poorly diagnostic chronological precision increases as our visibil- roof-tiles or thick coarse wares tend to survive ity increases. This trend reflects the greater geomorphic and anthropogenic (e.g. plowing)

Figure 11. The relationship between surface visibility and the average chronological span of artifacts in surface assemblages.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 31 processes more readily and remain more obtru- To summarize our assessment of the EKAS sive than fine-walled and highly diagnostic data so far, it would seem that units with fine wares which form the core fossil-types of average to low visibility are unlikely a priori most ceramic assemblages (for some experi- to produce the same quantity and quality of mental data which suggest this explanation, chronological data as units with high vis- see Schon 2002: 163-79). ibility in a way that suggests some independ- The limitations imposed by visibility on ence from trends associated with low overall our ability to produce a robust sample of the artifact density alone (see, e.g., Van de Velde assemblage are particularly significant for the 2001: 36-38). This leaves archaeologists who interpretation of our group of 23 units consid- are engaged in siteless survey with the problem ered in this case study. Two of the four units of extracting comparable information from (52 and 554) which produced definite Otto- assemblages and samples that may, in fact, be man material had visibilities of 30% and 40%. fundamentally incomparable. The use of the This drops our sample of the surface from 20% Chronotype System, which required that each in an ideal environment to less than 10%. lot of artifacts have an associated chronologi- Moreover, a number of the other units in our cal range, no matter how broad, provides us subset of EKAS data exhibit rather inferior with one method to analyze ceramic data. A surface visibility, although the overall visibil- particular approach that is well suited to data ity in this area was 56%, only slightly lower collected through the Chronotype method than the figure (58%) recorded for the survey is ‘aoristic analysis’ (for this concept, see area as a whole. Johnson 2004), which, together with nearest-

Figure 12. The relationship between surface visibility and the average percentage of the assemblage datable to more or less than 1000 years.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 32 Caraher et al. neighbor analysis, can aid in the interpreting has an equal chance of appearing in every year of periods poorly represented in the archaeo- during its potential time span, then the mate- logical record, whether due to issues of sample rial datable to the Medieval-Modern period size, the variability of expertise among the in units 34, 46, and 42 has an approximately archaeologists involved, or the varying degree 30% chance of dating to the Ottoman period; of diagnosticity of certain ceramic types. unit 72 has one piece of Medieval pottery with a 36% chance of an Ottoman date; units 34, Aoristic Analysis and Nearest Neighbor Analysis 52, 554 and 74 all have material securely dat- Aoristic analysis is a method for defining the able to the Ottoman period. One could argue, probability that specific ‘events’ or sub-sets of of course, that a 30%-40% chance that an time occurred at particular points within more artifact actually dates to a given time period general chronological arrays. For example, we is rather too imprecise for any compelling can argue that pottery made in a distinctive argument. But if we assume that those factors Ottoman style dates to sometime within the contributing to the formation of our surface broader period of Ottoman influence in the assemblage, such as density and visibility, have Corinthia (AD 1537-1829). We can also sug- no direct relationship to the nature of artifacts gest, however, that material dated broadly to collected (i.e. our ability to date them, their the ‘Medieval’ period (for EKAS, dated AD function, etc.), then this is better than simply 700–1829) could have also been produced discarding data on methodological grounds as during the Ottoman period, although with being too imprecise for even tentative conclu- less certainty. We can even argue that pot- sions. Moreover, the well-known variability tery datable only to the ‘Medieval-Modern’ of artifact ‘supply’ during certain periods does period (AD 700–2000) could have a possible not necessarily invalidate this interpretive Ottoman date. This being said, it is neverthe- tool, but rather reinforces the fundamental less the case that the probability of a sherd difficulty of using typologies to model any with a broad period like ‘Medieval-Modern’ behavior. That is, an archaeologist collecting or ‘Medieval’ dating to the more specific data using a particular method must be willing Ottoman period is less than the probability to accommodate the interpretive paradigms of a sherd with a more narrow date. Aoristic available for assessing these same data. analysis provides a means of comparing arti- We can introduce an additional analytical facts that are datable with varying degrees tool that will help us refine our understand- of specificity, by considering the probability ing of probabilistic data—namely, the spatial that any group of artifacts could date to a proximity of these units to one another. While specific sub-unit (e.g. a year or decade) of a there are many ways to assess spatial relation- time span under consideration (Fentress and ships between units, one commonly employed Perkins 1988; Fentress et al. 2004). While this in survey archaeology is nearest-neighbor anal- approach is clearly artificial, it is nevertheless ysis (Lock et al. 1999: 60). In this case, we can a useful way of analyzing data collected and interpolate our irregular unit data to a regular characterized in chronological typologies that grid of 1 × 1 m squares, each with a value rep- are often quite independent from the realities resenting the probability that the survey unit of human behavior. has an artifact that falls within the Ottoman For the 23 units examined here, four units period. These squares can then be used to have definite Ottoman material, and four establish a new grid made of 1 × 1 m squares, units have material potentially datable to the each with the value of the mean of all 1 × 1 m Ottoman period. If we assume each artifact squares within a circle 20 m in diameter. Thus,

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 33 we create a smoothed grid with the value of This kind of analysis, however, does highlight the grid squares being the mean probability of some shortcomings and prospects for inten- their nearest neighbors. Figure 13 shows how sive, siteless survey. One could, for example, our subset of 23 units forms a concentration of use analytical tools such as these to formulate possible Ottoman period material anchored by strategies to compensate for the sampling bias several areas where definite Ottoman material common in low-visibility and low-density is documented. units. Units such as these could receive mod- It is, of course, impossible to propose on the ified collection strategies with compressed basis of 5-7 Ottoman-period artifacts, even walker spacing or even, as so often in the case bolstered by aoristic and spatial analysis, a of sites, gridded collections. In fact, employing definite Ottoman-period settlement on the a total collection (‘hoovering’ or ‘vacuum- lower slopes of Mt. Oneion in the Corinthia. ing’ all artifacts) circle over a mere 5% of the It would seem likely that this area situated surface area of several units of varying density at the fringes of cultivatable land would be in a recent survey on Cyprus produced assem- well situated for seasonal habitation, activities blages which averaged a sobering 100% more related to agricultural production, or other pottery than was counted over the course of a small-scale settlement (see Gregory 2006). standard 20% fieldwalked sample of the same

Figure 13. A nearest-neighbor analysis showing the average probability of the presence of Ottoman material, with higher probabilities shown in black.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 34 Caraher et al. space (Caraher et al. 2005; see also Van de Moreover, siteless survey detects spatial pat- Velde 2001). Such methods run counter to terns in the data that site-based methods sim- the prevailing tendency among survey archae- plify and flatten out. Site-based methods are ologists to lavish additional attention on high- designed to record patterns in overall artifact density units—precisely the units most likely density, define analytical units or ‘sites’ and to produce redundant chronological or func- collect data about them, whereas siteless sur- tional data—and ignore those units where vey coupled with intensive data collection also our sampling strategy could benefit most from enables the analysis of the spatial patterning additional rigor. This is all the more salient of all classes of artifacts: tiles, Archaic pottery, considering the typical focus of survey archae- agricultural processing equipment, even entire ology in the Mediterranean on the hinterland assemblages. Crucially, spatial patterns formed of regional centers, where the small farm, the by overall densities and different artifact types country house, and seasonal settlements pre- are, in our experience, rarely congruent. Thus, dominate. in many cases, the complex nature of the sur- face record requires detailed data collection in order to characterize adequately the spatial Conclusions patterning of even common artifact classes In this paper we have argued that the trend such as Classical pottery. This is the case even in Mediterranean survey archaeology toward more so for rarer artifact types, whose presence intensification relates directly to issues of tends to be suppressed in site-based methods. ‘large-scale social and demographic processes’ An intensive siteless data set, then, can which survey was originally designed to address provide significant insight into the factors (Fentress 2000; Blanton 2001: 629). One can responsible for relatively different visibility hardly find a larger or more significant process thresholds of successive periods in Mediter- addressed by Mediterranean survey than the ranean countrysides both by revealing ‘hidden ‘Late Roman explosion’, which our siteless landscapes’ and by noting the relative over- and intensive data set confronts directly and and under-representation of certain classes of forcefully. In fact, the Late Roman explosion is surface materials. While undoubtedly surveys exactly the kind of process—being essentially will produce different artifact patterns cor- demographic and economic in nature—that responding to the particularities of regional survey is designed to analyze. Moreover, even histories, methodology, and systems of artifact in the densely populated material landscapes analysis, artifact-level analysis and some degree that characterize much of the Mediterranean, of source criticism remain vital to understand- site-based archaeological survey often barely ing and interpreting chronological patterns of records important historical periods, or else human activity from surface remains. Count- significantly distorts their extent and spa- ing pottery according to rational and consist- tial configuration. Since long-term cycles of ent principles like the Chronotype System expansion and contraction are, in general is not simply a methodological exercise that terms, the types of issues survey is used to dis- bogs down survey, but a necessary component cuss, the analysis of why and how certain peri- for interpreting the whole. ods appear under- or over-represented in our The critiques of siteless survey to which our data cannot be peripheral to larger debates, work responds note quite correctly that Medi- but must remain central to the empirical veri- terranean survey tends to take for granted that fication that the patterns observed in our data its increasingly intensive methods produce are valid. better, more accurate data. While siteless

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 35 methods and analyses do require justification, versity in 2003. Since 2003 he has been the they do so no more or less than the traditional co-director of the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeo- site-based approaches to which some now logical Project on Cyprus. His research inter- advocate a return. What is clearly needed is ests include landscape archaeology, ritual, not outright privileging of one paradigm over space, and social structure in Early Christian another, but explicit discussion of how dif- Greece. ferent survey methodologies produce varying Dimitri Nakassis is Visiting Assistant Pro- data sets and readings of cultural landscapes. fessor of Classics at Trinity University. He In this paper, we have attempted to show how received his PhD from The University of one principal component of intensive survey Texas at Austin in 2006. His dissertation in the Mediterranean—counting and record- examines the role of individual agents in the ing the distribution of artifacts—is absolutely reproduction of the Mycenaean state through vital to answering questions of regional devel- a prosopographical analysis of named indi- opment and social change. While artifact- viduals in the Linear B tablets from Pylos. His level survey is not the only good way to ‘do interests include the Aegean Bronze Age and survey’ and archaeological projects should its literate administration, landscape archaeol- devise methods and analytical approaches ogy, Archaic epic, Greek religion, and social appropriate to their research questions and theory. He is currently associated with two paradigms (Redman 1987), counting artifacts archaeological projects: the excavation of distributed across the landscape remains fun- Mycenaean chamber tombs at Ayia Sotira in damental to the field of survey archaeology the Nemea Valley and the Pyla-Koutsopetria generally and must especially form an active Archaeological Project. component for surveys carried out in artifact- David K. Pettegrew is Assistant Professor of rich environments. History at Messiah College. He completed his PhD in Ancient History at The Ohio Acknowledgments State University in 2006. His dissertation is a landscape study of Corinth’s famous eastern We would like to thank the directors of territory, the isthmus, between the 3rd and EKAS, Timothy Gregory and Daniel Pullen, 7th centuries AD. His research interests center for encouraging us to analyze and publish on using landscape approaches to writing this material. We have benefited from their local and regional history in the Roman and comments, as well as those of John Cherry, Late Roman periods. He has been involved William Dancey, Michael Given, Guy Sand- in excavation and survey projects in North ers, Robert Schon, and Thomas Tartaron. We America, Greece, and Cyprus, and is the field also appreciate the valuable feedback given director for the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeo- by the JMA reviewers. An earlier version of logical Project. this paper was given in April 2005 at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Salt Lake City, Utah. Notes 1. ‘Tracts’ are the basic spatial units of investiga- About the Authors tion, typically consisting of agricultural fields less than one hectare in size, in which there William R. Caraher is Assistant Professor of is uniformity with respect to factors affecting History at the University of North Dakota. He archaeological investigation: visibility, land received his PhD from The Ohio State Uni- use, vegetation (e.g. Wright et al. 1990: 604).

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 36 Caraher et al.

2. There are good reasons to doubt the identi- their examples of Archaic to Hellenistic sites fication of this settlement with the Kromna have densities of 2,600-15,200 artifacts per ha known from literary sources. There are walked (Alcock et al. 1994: 159), which com- two poleis known by this name: Kromna in pares well to the figures in Table 1. Paphlagonia (Homer, Il. 2.855), and a city 6. Variable visibility does not seem to affect in Arcadia known as Kromnos, Kromoi, and artifact recovery in totally predictable ways. Kromna (Xenophon, Hell. 7.4.20-28; Cal- In general, the characteristics of units above listhenes apud Athenaeus 10.75.19, 10.75.33; 70% are remarkably regular. The flattening Pausanias 8.3.4, 8.27.4, 8.34.5); there is no of the various trends at over 70% visibility is evidence for a Corinthian polis or town by this consistent across numerous categories includ- name. The only literary evidence for a Kromna ing overall density. This suggests that either in the Corinthia is a fragment of Callimachus our ability to differentiate between units with (fr. 384 [Pfeiffer 1949: 311-18]). However, in basically good visibility is relatively limited, or Callimachus it refers to a place on Poseidon’s once 70% of the surface is visible, the effect sacred isthmus, and is contrasted spatially on our judgment sample begins to diminish. with Lechaion, Corinth’s northern port on For the complexities of this variable, see also the Corinthian gulf. In Callimachus, Kromna Meyer and Schon 2003: 52-56. and Lechaion define the Isthmus, and Kromna therefore probably refers to Kenchreai, the References eastern and Saronic port of Corinth (Pfeiffer 1949: 313). Moreover, it may be preferable to Alcock, S.E. identify the ethnic Kromnites in the inscription 1993 Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece. found by Wiseman (SEG XXII.219) as refer- Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ring to the well-known Arkadian polis (Shipley Alcock, S.E., J.F. Cherry and J.L. Davis 2000: 371-72). Wiseman’s identification of the 1994 Intensive survey, agricultural practice, and the classical landscape of Greece. In I. Morris archaeological site in the eastern Corinthia as (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Kromna can therefore no longer be uncriti- Modern Archaeologies, 137–70. Cambridge: cally accepted (see further Pettegrew 2006). Cambridge University Press. 3. That is, ‘artifact density per percent visible’ = Ammerman, A.J. (artifact density of field x) divided by (aver- 1985 Plow-zone experiments in Calabria, Italy. age density of fields with the same visibility as Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 33-40. field x). Athanassopoulos, E.F. 4. We have chosen this criterion purely for 2004 Historical archaeology of medieval Medi- the purposes of clarity and explicitness. Ear- terranean landscapes. In E. Athanassopou- lier analyses employed other criteria, such as los and L. Wandsnider (eds.), Mediterranean ‘natural breaks’ in the density data using Jenks/ Archaeological Landscapes: Current Issues, 81- K-means, and produced highly comparable 98. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. results. Banaji, J. 5. This density figure is calculated by dividing the 2001 Agrarian Change in Late Antiquity: Gold, Labour total number of artifacts counted by the area of and Aristocratic Dominance. Oxford: Oxford each field actually walked, typically one-fifth University Press. of the total area of the field (with walker spac- Barker, G., C. Mee, W. Cavanagh, R. Schon and J.M. ing at 10 m). Alcock et al. (1994: 138) report Thompson that most surveys use density thresholds of 2000 Responses to ‘The hidden landscape of prehis- 3,000 to 5,000 sherds per ha to define sites; toric Greece’, by J.L. Bintliff, P. Howard and

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 37

A.M. Snodgrass (JMA 12.2, December 1999). 2000a Rejoinder. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeol- Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 100- ogy 13: 116-32. 15. Bintliff, J., M. Kuna, and N. Venclová (eds.) Bees, N. 2000b The Future of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe. 1936 Morea. In M.T. Houtsma, A.J. Wensinck, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. E. Levi-Provencal, H.A.R. Gibb and W. Hef- Bintliff, J., and A. Snodgrass fenoing (eds.), The Encyclopaedia of Islam III, 1985 The Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition: 566-77. Leiden and London: Brill. the first four years. Journal of Field Archaeology Bintliff, J. 12: 123-61. 1991 The Roman countryside in central Greece: 1988 Off-site pottery distributions: a regional and observations and theories from the Boeotia interregional perspective. Current Anthropol- Survey (1978–1987). In G. Barker and J.A. ogy 29: 506-13. Lloyd (eds.), Roman Landscapes: Archaeologi- Blanton, R.E. cal Survey in the Mediterranean Region, 122-32. 2001 Mediterranean myopia. Antiquity 75: 627-29. London: British School at Rome. Bowden, H., and D. Gill 1997 Regional survey, demography, and the rise of 1997a Roman Methana. In C.B. Mee and H.A. complex societies in the ancient Aegean: core- Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place: The periphery, neo-Malthusian, and other inter- Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana pretive models. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: Peninsula, Greece, 77-83. Liverpool: Liverpool 1-38. University Press. 2000a The concepts of ‘site’ and ‘off-site’ archaeol- 1997b Late Roman Methana. In C.B. Mee and H.A. ogy in surface artefact survey. In M. Pasqui- Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place: The nucci and F. Trément (eds.), Non-Destructive Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Techniques Applied to Landscape Archaeology, Peninsula, Greece, 84-91. Liverpool: Liverpool 200-15. Oxford: Oxbow Books. University Press. 2000b Beyond dots on the map: future directions for Bowden, W., L. Lavan and C. Machado (eds.) surface artifact survey in Greece. In J. Bintliff, 2004 Recent Research on the Late Antique Country- M. Kuna and N. Venclová (eds.), The Future side. Leiden: Brill. of Surface Artefact Survey in Europe, 3-20. Broneer, O. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. 1973 Isthmia II: Topography and Architecture. Princ- Bintliff, J., E. Farinetti, P. Howard, K. Sarri and K. Sbonias eton: American School of Classical Studies at 2002 Classical farms, hidden prehistoric landscapes Athens. and Greek rural survey. A response and an Caraher, W.R., and L. Diacopoulos update. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2004 Less than a village. Paper presented at the 15: 259-65. 105th annual meeting of the Archaeological Bintliff, J., and P. Howard Institute of America, San Francisco, Califor- 1999 Studying needles in haystacks: surface survey nia, January 2-5, 2004. and the rural landscape of central Greece in Caraher, W.R., and T.E. Gregory Roman times. Pharos: Journal of the Nether- 2006 The fortifications of Mt. Oneion, Corinthia. lands Institute in Athens 7: 51-91. Hesperia 75.3. 2004 A radical rethink on approaches to surface sur- Caraher, W.R., R.S. Moore and D.K. Pettegrew vey and the rural landscape of Central Greece 2005 Final report for the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeo- in Roman Times. In F. Kolb (ed.), Chora und logical Project. Report submitted to the Depart- Polis, 43-78. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ment of Antiquities, Cyprus, August 2005. Bintliff, J., P. Howard and A. Snodgrass Casey, E.S. 1999 The hidden landscape of prehistoric Greece. 1996 How to get from space to place in a fairly Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12: 139- short stretch of time: phenomenological pro- 68. legomena. In S. Feld and K.H. Basso (eds.),

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 38 Caraher et al.

Senses of Place, 13-52. Santa Fe: School of Davis, J.L., S.E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y.G. Lolos and C.W. American Research Press. Shelmerdine 1997 The Fate of Place. Berkeley: University of 1997 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, California Press. part I: overview and the archaeological sur- Chavarría, A., and T. Lewit vey. Hesperia 66: 391-494. 2004 Archaeological research on the Late Antique Dunnell, R.C. countryside: a bibliographic essay. In W. 1992 The notion ‘site’. In J. Rossignol and L. Wand- Bowden, L. Lavan and C. Machado (eds.), snider (eds.), Space, Time and Archaeological Recent Research on the Late Antique Country- Landscapes, 21-41. New York: Plenum Press. side, 3-54. Leiden: Brill. Dunnell, R.C., and W.S. Dancey 1983 The siteless survey: a regional scale data collec- Cherry, J.F. tion strategy. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.), Advances 1983 Frogs around the pond: perspectives in cur- in Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 267-87. rent archaeological projects. In D.R. Keller New York: Academic Press. and D.W. Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Survey Ebert, J.I. in the Mediterranean Area. British Archaeo- 1992 Distributional Archaeology. Albuquerque: Uni- logical Reports International Series 155: 375- versity of New Mexico Press. 416. Oxford: BAR. Engels, D. 1994 Regional survey in the Aegean: ‘the new 1990 Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the wave’ (and after). In P.N. Kardulias (ed.), Classical City. Chicago: University of Chicago Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in the Aegean Press. Area, 91-112. Lanham, Maryland: University Fentress, E. Press of America. 2000 What are we counting for? In R. Francovich 2002 Vox POPULI: landscape archaeology in Med- and H. Patterson (eds.), Extracting Meaning iterranean Europe. Journal of Roman Archaeol- from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 44-52. Oxford: ogy 15: 561-73. Oxbow Books. 2003 Archaeology beyond the site: regional sur- Fentress, E., S. Fontana, R.B. Hitchner and P. Perkins vey and its future. In J.K. Papadopoulos and 2004 Accounting for ARS: fineware and sites in R.M. Leventhal (eds.), Theory and Practice Sicily and Africa. In S.E. Alcock and J.F. in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and Cherry (eds.), Side-by-Side Survey: Compara- New World Perspectives, 137-59. Los Angeles: tive Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 147-62. Oxford: Oxbow Books.. Cherry, J.F., J.L. Davis, E. Mantzourani and T.M. Fentress, E., and P. Perkins Whitelaw 1988 Counting African Red Slip Ware. In A. Mastino (ed.), L’Africa Romana: Atti del V 1991 The survey methods. In J.F. Cherry, J.L. Convegno di studio Sassari, 11-13 dicembre Davis and E. Mantzourani (eds.), Landscape 1987, 205-14. Sassari: Dipartimento di Storia, Archaeology as Long-Term History: North- Università degli Studi di Sassari. ern Keos in the Cycladic Islands. Monumenta Finlay, G. Archaeologica 16: 13-35. Los Angeles: Insti- 1857 The History of Greece under Ottoman and Vene- tute of Archaeology. tian Domination, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: William Davies, S. Blackwood. 2004 The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Fish, S.K., and S.A. Kowalewski (eds.) part VI: administration and settlement in 1990 The Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full- Venetian Navarino. Hesperia 73: 59-120. Coverage Survey. Smithsonian Series in Davis, J.L. Archaeological Inquiry 3. Washington, DC: 1991 Contributions to a Mediterranean rural Smithsonian Institution Press. archaeology: historical case studies from the Foley, R. Ottoman Cyclades. Journal of Mediterranean 1981a Off-site archaeology: an alternative approach Archaeology 4: 131-216. for the short-sited. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 39

and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: 2006 Contrasting impressions of land use in Early Studies in Honour of David Clarke, 157-83. Modern Greece: Kythera and the eastern Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Korinthia. In S. Davies and J.L. Davies (eds.), 1981b Off-Site Archaeology and Human Adaptation in Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Land- Eastern Africa: An Analysis of Regional Arte- scapes and Early Modern Greece c. 1500–1800 fact Density in the Amboseli, Southern Kenya. AD. Hesperia Supplement. Princeton: Amer- British Archaeological Reports International ican School of Classical Studies at Athens. Series 97. Oxford: BAR. Hayward, C.L. Fowler, H.N. 2003 Geology of Corinth: the study of a basic 1932 Corinth and the Corinthia. In H.N. Fowler resource. In C.K. Williams and N. Bookidis and R. Stillwell (eds.), Corinth I: Introduction, (eds.), Corinth XX: Corinth, The Centenary, Topography, Architecture, 18-114. Cambridge, 15-42. Princeton: The American School of Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Classical Studies at Athens. Francovich, R., and H. Patterson (eds.) James, S.A. 2000 Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assem- 2005 An olive press installation from the eastern blages. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Korinthia. Poster presented at the 106th Frangakis, E., and J.M. Wagstaff Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Insti- 1987 Settlement pattern change in the Morea (Pelo- tute of America, Boston. AD Byzantine and Modern ponnisos) c. 1700. Johnson, I. Greek Studies 11: 163-92. 2004 Aoristic analysis: seeds of a new approach to Gallant, T.W. mapping archaeological distributions through 1986 ‘Background noise’ and site definition: a con- time. In Stadtarchäologie Wien (ed.), (Enter tribution to survey methodology. Journal of the Past): the e-way into the four dimensions of Field Archaeology 13: 403-18. cultural heritage. CAA 2003, Computer Appli- Gebhard, E.R. cations and Quantitative Methods in Archaeol- 1993 The evolution of a pan-Hellenic sanctuary: ogy. Proceedings of the 31st conference, Vienna, from archaeology towards history at Isthmia. Austria, April 2003. British Archaeological In N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Reports International Series 1227. Oxford: Sanctuaries: New Approaches, 154-77. London: Archaeopress. Routledge. Jones, A.H.M. Given, M., and A.B. Knapp (eds.) 2003 The Sydney Cyprus Project: Social Approaches 1964 The Later Roman Empire, 284–602. Norman: to Regional Archaeological Survey. Monumenta University of Oklahoma Press. Archaeologica 21. Los Angeles: Cotsen Insti- Kardulias, P.N., T.E. Gregory and J. Sawmiller tute of Archaeology. 1995 Bronze Age and Late Antique exploitation of Gregory, T.E. an islet in the Saronic Gulf, Greece. Journal 1985 An early Byzantine complex at Akra Sophia of Field Archaeology 22: 3-21. near Corinth. Hesperia 54: 411-28. Kiel, M. 1993 Isthmia V: The Hexamilion and Fortress. Prin- 1990 Remarks on the administration of the poll tax ceton: American School of Classical Studies (cizye) in the Ottoman Balkans and value of at Athens. poll tax registers (cizye defterleri) for demo- 2004 Less is better: the quality of ceramic evidence graphic research. Études Balkaniques 4: 70-104. from archaeological survey and practical pro- 1997 The rise and decline of Turkish Boeotia: posals for low impact survey in a Mediterra- 15th–19th century. In J. Bintliff (ed.), Recent nean context. In E. Athanassopoulos and L. Developments in the History and Archaeology of Wandsnider (eds.), Mediterranean Archaeolog- Central Greece: Proceedings of the 6th Interna- ical Landscapes: Current Issues, 15-36. Phila- tional Boeotian Conference. British Archae- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum ological Reports International Series 666, of Archaeology and Anthropology. 315–39. Oxford: BAR.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 40 Caraher et al.

1999 The Ottoman imperial registers: central Millett, M. Greece and northern Bulgaria in the 15th– 1985 Field survey calibration: a contribution. In 19th century, the demographic development C. Haselgrove, M. Millett and I. Smith (eds.), of two areas compared. In J. Bintliff and K. Archaeology from the Ploughsoil: Studies in the Sbonias (eds.), Reconstructing Past Population Collection and Interpretation of Field Survey Trends in Mediterranean Europe (3000 BC–AD Data, 31-37. Sheffield: J.R. Collis. 1800), 195-218. Oxford: Oxbow Books. 1991 Pottery: population or supply patterns? The Kosso, C. Ager Tarraconensis approach. In G. Barker and 2003 The Archaeology of Public Policy in Late Roman J.A. Lloyd (eds.), Roman Landscapes: Archaeo- Greece. British Archaeological Reports Inter- logical Survey in the Mediterranean Region, 18- national Series 1126. Oxford: BAR. 26. London: British School at Rome. Lock, G., T. Bell and J. Lloyd 2000 The comparison of surface and stratified 1999 Towards a methodology for modelling surface artefact assemblages. In M. Pasquinucci and survey data: the Sangro Valley Project. In M. F. Trement (eds.), Non-Destructive Techniques Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van Dalen (eds.), Applied to Landscape Archaeology, 216-22. Geographic Information Systems and Landscape Oxford: Oxbow Books. Archaeology, 55-64. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Morgan, C. McGrew, W.W. 1999 Isthmia VII: The Late Bronze Age Settlement and 1985 Land and Revolution in Modern Greece, 1800– Early Iron Age Sanctuary. Princeton: Ameri- 1881. Kent: Kent State University Press. can School of Classical Studies at Athens. Mee, C.B., and H.A. Forbes Osborne, R. 1997 Survey methodology. In C.B. Mee and H.A. 2001 Counting the cost. Comments on David K. Forbes (eds.), A Rough and Rocky Place: The Pettegrew, ‘Chasing the classical farmstead’. Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 14: 212- Peninsula, Greece, 33-41. Liverpool: Liverpool 16. University Press. Peacock, D.P.S., and D.F. Williams Meyer, N. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman Economy. London: 2003 Pottery strategy and Chronotypes. In M. Given Longman. and A.B. Knapp (eds.), The Sydney Cyprus Pettegrew, D.K. Survey Project: Social Approaches to Regional 2001 Chasing the classical farmstead: assessing the Archaeological Survey. Monumenta Archaeo- formation and signature of rural settlement in logica 21: 14-16. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute Greek landscape archaeology. Journal of Medi- of Archaeology, UCLA. terranean Archaeology 14: 189-209. Meyer, N., and T.E. Gregory 2002 Counting and coloring classical farms: a 2003 Pottery collection, pottery analysis, and GIS response to Osborne, Foxhall, and Bintliff et mapping. In M. Given and A.B. Knapp (eds.), al. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 15: The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project: Social 267-73. Approaches to Regional Archaeological Survey. 2004 A Late Roman settlement ‘explosion’? The Monumenta Archaeologica 21: 48-52. Los continuity and reuse of sites in the east- Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, ern Korinthia. Paper presented at the 105th UCLA. Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Insti- Meyer, N., and R. Schon tute of America, San Francisco. 2003 Experimental data. In M. Given and A.B. 2006 Corinth on the Isthmus: Studies of the End Knapp (eds.), The Sydney Cyprus Survey of an Ancient Landscape. Unpublished PhD Project: Social Approaches to Regional Archae- dissertation, The Ohio State University. ological Survey. Monumenta Archaeologica Pfeiffer, R. (ed.) 21: 52-56. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of 1949 Callimachus, I: Fragmenta. Oxford: Clarendon Archaeology, UCLA. Press.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 41

Redman, C.L. 153-73. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie 1987 Surface collection, sampling, and research der Wissenschaften. design: a retrospective. American Antiquity 52: Schofield, A.J. (ed.) 249-65. 1991 Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions Robinson, H.S. to Ploughzone Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow 1959 Athenian Agora V: Pottery of the Roman Period. Books. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies Schofield, A.J. at Athens. 2000 Understanding early medieval pottery dis- Roebuck, C.A. tributions. In S. Stoddart (ed.), Landscapes 1972 Some aspects of urbanization in Corinth. from Antiquity, 109-19. Cambridge: Antiquity Hesperia 41: 96-127. Publications. Rothaus, R.M. Schon, R. 1994 Urban space, agricultural space and villas in 2002 Seeding the Landscape: Experimental Con- Late Roman Corinth. In P.N. Doukellis and tributions to Regional Survey Methodology. L.G. Mendoni (eds.), Structures Rurales et Unpublished PhD dissertation, Bryn Mawr Sociétés Antiques, 391-96. Paris: Les Belles Let- College, Bryn Mawr, PA. tres. Scranton, R., J.W. Shaw and L. Ibrahim 2000 Corinth: The First City of Greece. An Urban 1978 Kenchreai: Eastern Port of Corinth I: Topogra- History of Late Antique Cult and Religion. Lei- phy and Architecture. Leiden: Brill. den: Brill. Shipley, G. Rothaus, R.M., E.G. Reinhardt, T.F. Tartaron and 2000 The extent of Spartan territory in the late J. Noller Classical and Hellenistic periods. Annual of 2003 A geoarchaeological approach for understand- the British School at Athens 95: 367-90. ing prehistoric usage of the coastline of the 2002 The survey area in the Hellenistic and Roman eastern Korinthia. In K. Foster and R. Laff- Periods. In W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R.W.V. ineur (eds.), Metron: Measuring the Aegean Catling and G. Shipley (eds.), Continuity and Bronze Age. Aegaeum 24: 37-47. Liège and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: The Laco- Austin: Université de Liège and The Univer- nia Survey, Vol 1, 257-337. London: British sity of Texas at Austin. School at Athens. Rutter, J.B. Smith, A.T. 1983 Some thoughts on the analysis of ceramic 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of data generated by site surveys. In D.R. Keller Authority in Early Complex Societies. Berkeley: and D.W. Rupp (eds.), Archaeological Survey University of California Press. in the Mediterranean Area. British Archaeo- Snodgrass, A. logical Reports International Series 155: 137- 1994 Response: the archaeological aspect. In I. Mor- 42. Oxford: BAR. ris (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Sakellariou, M., and N. Faraklas Modern Archaeologies, 197-200. Cambridge: 1971 Korinthia-Cleonaea. Archaies Hellenikes Poleis 3. Athens: Athens Center of Ekistics. Cambridge University Press. Salmon, J.B. Steadman, N. 1984 Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to 338 1996 Land use and settlement in post-medieval Greece: an interim discussion. In P. Lock BC. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sanders, G.D.R. and G.D.R. Sanders (eds.), The Archaeology 2000 New relative and absolute chronologies for 9th of Medieval Greece, 179-92. Oxford: Oxbow to 13th century glazed wares at Corinth: meth- Books. odology and social conclusions. In K. Belke, Sutton, S.B. (ed.) F. Hild, J. Koder and P. Soustal (eds.), Byzanz 2000 Contingent Countryside: Settlement, Economy, als Raum: zu Methoden und Inhalten der histor- and Land Use in the Southern Argolid since ischen Geographie des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes, 1700. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 42 Caraher et al.

Sutton, S.B. Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the 1994 Settlement patterns, settlement perceptions: Mediterranean World, 65-85. Oxford: Oxbow rethinking the Greek village. In P.N. Kar- Books. dulias (ed.), Beyond the Site: Regional Studies in Topping, P. the Aegean Area, 313-36. Lanham, Maryland: 1972 The post-classical documents. In W.A. University Press of America. McDonald and G.R. Rapp Jr. (eds.), The Tartaron, T.F., T.E. Gregory, D.J. Pullen, W.R. Caraher, Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing L. Diacopoulos, D. Nakassis, J. Noller, D.K. Pettegrew, a Bronze Age Regional Environment, 64-80. J.L. Rife, R. Rothaus and R. Schon Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 2007 The Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Sur- van Andel, T.H., and C. Runnels vey: integrated methods for a dynamic land- 1987 Beyond the Acropolis: A Rural Greek Past. scape. Hesperia. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Tartaron, T.F., D.J. Pullen and J.E. Noller Van de Velde, P. 2006 Rillenkarren at Vayia: geomorphology and a 2001 An extensive alternative to intensive survey: new class of Early Bronze Age fortified set- point sampling in the Riu Mannu Survey tlement in southern Greece. Antiquity 80: Project, Sardinia. Journal of Mediterranean 145-60. Archaeology 14: 24-52. Tartaron, T.F., R.M. Rothaus and D.J. Pullen Vroom, J. 2003 Searching for prehistoric Aegean harbors 2003 After Antiquity: Ceramics and Society in the with GIS, geomorphology, and archaeology. Aegean from the 7th to the 20th Century A.C. Athena Review 3.4: 27-36. A Case Study from Boeotia, Central Greece. Terrenato, N. Archaeological Studies, Leiden University 10. 2000a Surface thoughts: future directions in Italian Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden Uni- field surveys. In J. Bintliff, M. Kuna and N. versity. Venclová (eds.), The Future of Surface Artifact 2005 Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean: An Survey in Europe, 21-28. Sheffield: Sheffield Introduction and Field Guide. Utrecht: Parnas- Academic Press. sus Press. 2000b The visibility of sites and the interpretation Wagstaff, J.M. of field survey results: towards an analysis of 1978 War and settlement desertion in Morea, incomplete distributions. In R. Francovich 1685–1830. Transactions of the Institute of Brit- and H. Patterson (eds.), Extracting Meaning ish Geographers 3: 295-308. from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 60-71. Oxford: Ward-Perkins, B. Oxbow Books. 2000 Land, labour and settlement. In A. Cameron, 2004 Sample size matters! The paradox of global B. Ward-Perkins and M. Whitby (eds.), The trends and local surveys. In S.E. Alcock and Cambridge Ancient History XIV: Late Antiq- J.F. Cherry (eds.), Side-by-Side Survey: Com- uity, 315-45. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- parative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean sity Press. World, 36-48. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Wilkinson, T.J. Thomas, D.H. 1982 The definition of ancient manured zones 1975 Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up the by means of extensive sherd-sampling tech- creek without a site? In J.W. Mueller (ed.), niques. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 223–33. Sampling in Archaeology, 61-81. Tuscon: Uni- Williams, C.K. versity of Arizona Press. 1984 The early urbanization of Corinth. Annuario Thompson, S. della Scuola archeologica di Atene 60 n.s. 44 2004 Side-by-side and back-to-front: exploring [1982]: 9-20. intra-regional latitudinal and longitudinal Williams, C.K., and N. Bookidis (eds.) comparability in survey data: three case stud- 2003 Corinth XX: Corinth, the Centenary: 1896– ies from Metaponto, southern Italy. In S.E. 1996. Princeton: The American School of Alcock and J.F. Cherry (eds.), Side-by-Side Classical Studies at Athens.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006 Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment 43

Wiseman, J.R. Wright, J.C., J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, 1963 A trans-Isthmian fortification wall. Hesperia S.B. Sutton and R.F. Sutton, Jr. 32: 248-75. 1990 The Nemea Valley Archaeological Project: a 1978 The Land of the Ancient Corinthians. Studies preliminary report. Hesperia 59: 579-659. in Mediterranean Archaeology 50. Göteborg: Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet and J. Davies Paul Åströms Förlag. 2005 A Historical and Economic Geography of Otto- man Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century. Hesperia Supplement 34. Prin- ceton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

© The Fund for Mediterranean Archaeology/Equinox Publishing Ltd., 2006