The Eurotas Valley and the Helos Plain in the Early Helladic Period Addressing Some Key Issues on the Basis of Topography and Pottery

The Eurotas valley and the Helos plain in the Early Helladic period Addressing some key issues on the basis of topography and pottery

EMILY BANOU

Abstract

In comparison with other regions of the mainland, Early Helladic Laconia is not well known or understood. In this paper an attempt is made to clarify the situation in Laconia in the Early Helladic period, by asking some important questions, arising from research in other, better explored regions. Such questions relate to issues such as the beginning of the Early Helladic period, with special reference to the Early Helladic I ceramic phase, the emergence of settlement patterns during the Early Helladic II period, the existence of an Early Helladic III ceramic phase and the comparison of the Early Helladic picture of Laconia gained so far, with the situation in the Late Helladic period. The paper focuses on the Eurotas valley and the Helos plain, the two Laconian areas most densely occupied throughout the Bronze Age. In addition to data made available through publication, it is based on data gained through extensive survey undertaken by the author, as well as on some preliminary remarks from the current study — in collaboration with Louise Hitchcock and Anne Chapin — of sherd material kept in the collections of the British School and the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Keywords

Paliopyrgi – Asteri Karayousi – Ayios Nikolaos (Souroukla) – ‘Faience Ware’ – Dark-on- Light Patterned Ware.

Introduction First of all, I would like to thank the organizers of this Round Table for kindly inviting me to participate, and also to congratulate them for their initiative in choosing Laconia as the topic of this meeting. By doing so, they contributed significantly to its recent emergence out of a kind of scientific isolation, to which it was, say, ‘condemned’ for the last three decades, despite the insistent efforts of a few distinguished scholars — some of whom are among us today — not to lose

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 3939 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 40 EMILY BANOU

Laconia totally from sight. It is only to be hoped that it is not too late, as evidence is constantly being destroyed and the study of important sites does not seem to yield what was expected. Nevertheless, surface research and excavations, like the Laconia Survey, the Geraki and the Kouphovouno projects, have shed a fresh light on Early Helladic (EH) Laconia, allowing us to ask, at least, some questions about what it has in common with other, better known regions, what new information it has to bring out or what, if any, it has of its own. Such questions, arising from research in other areas, include: i) the beginning of the Early Helladic period, with special reference to the EH I ceramic phase; ii) the emergence of settlement patterns during the EH II period; iii) the existence of an EH III ceramic phase and iv) the comparison of the EH picture of Laconia gained so far, with the situation in the Late Helladic (LH) period. In doing so, I will focus on the Eurotas valley — and by this I mean the land crossed by the middle course of the river Eurotas — and the Helos plain, which have been at the centre of my interest too. The aforementioned questions will be addressed on the basis of the topography of EH sites known so far in these two Laconian areas, as well as on the basis of ceramic evidence, including the study — in collaboration with Louise Hitchcock and Anne Chapin — of sherd material from the collections of the British School, the American School of Classical Studies and the German Institute of Athens, as well as my own extensive survey of these areas.

The sites The pioneering work of Helen Waterhouse and Richard Hope Simpson before and after the Second World War resulted, inter alia, in the discovery or the recognition of four EH sites at the Eurotas valley: Kouphovouno, Amykles, Paliopyrgi and Ayios Vassileios.1 Also, the systematic excavation of the Menelaion by the British School from 1974 to 1980, under the direction of Hector Catling, revealed modest traces of EH date.2 In the 1980s, the Laconia Survey, which covered a total area of 70 km2 on the northeastern borders of the Eurotas valley, an area admittedly not best suited for habitation or exploitation, added the impres- sive number of 30 entirely new EH sites.3 Two more EH sites, Ayios Yeoryios and Vouno Panayias to the east and southeast of the modern village of Skoura, were

1 Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 72-81. 2 The evidence concerns 11 sherds of EH II date, found on the Aetos South Slope, on the southern- most end of the Menelaion ridge; see Catling 2009, 194-195, fig. 244, AM 1-11. 3 Cavanagh et al. 2002, 263-313.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4040 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 41

discovered during my extensive investigation of the area in the beginning of the 1990s,4 while one EH sherd, coming from the wider area of the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, was recognized in the sherd collection of the German Archaeo- logical Institute. Re-examination of old material deriving from rescue excavations by Christou in the early 1960s, and a new rescue excavation by the local Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities a few years ago, resulted in the location of an EH site around the church of Metamorphosi at Anthochori.5 Finally, the recent discovery of an apparently important EH site at Ayia Irini, by the stream of Magoulitsa, on the southwestern outskirts of modern Sparta, by the Ephoreia, raised the total number of EH sites in the Eurotas valley to 40 (Figure 1).6 Apart from the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, where the evidence is too slight to be discussed in the present context, and the sites from the Laconia Survey, on which the directors of the project are the most appropriate to speak and which lie at the periphery of the valley and therefore could not be considered as typical, all other sites seem to have had a long history of occupation. Although, with the exception of the Menelaion, none of them has been thoroughly excavated and most are known from surface finds alone, they do show considerable traces of occupation throughout the Bronze Age. Curiously enough, the slightest evidence comes from the Menelaion, where only eleven sherds have been recognized and dated in the EH II period.7 Kouphovouno8 and Anthochori9 have yielded traces of occupation from the EH I-II period and this also holds for Paliopyrgi10, Ayios Yeoryios and Vouno Panayias.11 The best represented phase is EH II, with Paliopyrgi, Vouno Panayias and Ayios Yeoryios having yielded a few sherds of EH II-III date as well, as will be shown below. What is more important is the fact that all these sites seem to have been inhabited, during some time at least, in the Middle Helleadic (MH) period too.12

4 Banou 1999, 63-66, 70-73. 5 Zavvou 2009, 28-42. 6 Zavvou & Themos 2009, 106-110. 7 See n. 2. 8 Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2002, 587; Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2003, 562; Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2004, 94 fig. 23; Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2006, 725; Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2007, 978; Mee 2009, 45. 9 Zavvou 2009, 39. 10 Study in progress in the ASCSA and the BSA sherd collections, in collaboration with L. Hitchcock and A. Chapin. 11 Banou 1999, 70-73. 12 Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 75 (Amyklaion), 78 (Paliopyrgi), 81 (Ayios Vassileios); Banou 2000, 177-183 and 189-194 (Kouphovouno, Ayios Yeoryios, Vouno Panayias); Cavanagh, Mee & Renard 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008 (Kouphovouno); Zavvou 2009, 28-31 (Anthochori); Catling 2009, esp. 319-323 (discussion of the MH pottery) and 324-335.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4141 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 42 EMILY BANOU

Figure 1. Map of Laconia with Early Helladic sites in the Eurotas valley (except sites of the Laconia Survey) and the Helos plain: 1. Artemis Orthia; 2. Sparta Magoula; 3. Menelaion; 4. Kouphovouno; 5. Amyklaion; 6. Paliopyrgi; 7. Ayios Yeoryios; 8. Vouno Panayias; 9. Ayios Vassileios; 10. Anthochori; 11. Ayios Stephanos; 12. Panayiotis Lekas; 13. Panayiotis Lekas South; 14. Xeronissi; 15. Souroukla (Ayios Nikolaos); 16. Peristeri; 17. Kokkinada; 18. Filissi; 19. Vlahioti Lakka; 20. Vlahioti Anemomylos; 21. Asteri Karayousi; 22. Asteri Dragatsoula; 23. Ayios Strategos

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4242 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 43

Figure 2. Vouno Panayias, from Paliopyrgi

This applies not only to sites that could be classified as being at the top of a four-level hierarchy of settlement in the EH period, such as Paliopyrgi and Vouno Panayias (Figure 2), but also to second-rank sites like Kouphovouno, Ayios Yeoryios and Anthochori.13 The implication is that conditions dictating establish- ment of settlements in the lower Eurotas valley, such as oversight and control both of arable land and communication routes, were already in operation in the 3rd millennium BC and remained so throughout the Bronze Age. In the Helos plain the research of Waterhouse and Hope Simpson brought to light nine EH sites: Ayios Stephanos, Panayiotis Lekas, Panayiotis Lekas South (another small site about 200 m to the south of the previous site) and Xeronissi on the west side of the plain, Peristeri, Kokkinada, Karayousi on the western outskirts of modern Asteri, Dragatsoula, about 200 m to the southeast of the same

13 A four-rank settlement hierarchy, comprising towns, villages, farms and hamlets, has been applied to LH Laconia (Banou 1996, 100-102). A general hierarchy like that could be applied to EH Laconia as well. Settlements having ‘corridor houses’ could be placed at the top of such a hierarchy. See also Janko 2008, 560 for Ayios Stephanos.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4343 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 44 EMILY BANOU

Figure 3. Souroukla, from the west

modern village, and Ayios Strategos, on the east side.14 Our preliminary study of the sherd material from Souroukla kept in the American School of Classical Stud- ies identified one sherd with shallow ridges dating to the EH II late period (Figure 3; Figure 9);15 very recently, investigation of the area by the Ephoreia following local information, added three more sites around the modern settlement of Vlahioti, just to the east of the town of Skala (Anemomylos, Lakka and Filissi — with a single vase coming probably from a tomb),16 raising the total number of known EH sites to 13 (Figure 1). Two of them, Ayios Stephanos and Asteri Karayousi, have yielded traces of occupation, though slight, from the EH I-II phase (see below); and all sites were occupied during the EH II period. On the present state of evidence, the Helos plain lacks a first-rank settlement. Both Ayios Stephanos in the west and Asteri Karayousi (Figure 4) in the east could be classified as second-rank settlements; it is interesting though, that smaller sites seem to be concentrated around the modern town of Skala. The conspicuous hill on which part of Skala is built, lies at the centre of the plain, between the mouth of the Eurotas river to the east and the Vassilopotamos river to the west;17

14 Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 97-100 (Ayios Stephanos), 95-97 (Lekas Panayiotis), 95 (Lekas Panayiotis South), 95 (Xeronissi), 92-93 (Peristeri), 92 (Kokkinada), 89-92 (Asteri Karayousi), 89 (Asteri Dragatsoula), 87-89 (Ayios Strategos). 15 Souroukla has been identified with Ayios Nikolaos by the author in 1996; see Banou 1996, 54 n. 86. 16 Themos 2007, 457 and 473 (Lakka), 462 (Filissi), 463 (Anemomylos). 17 The central position of Skala is recognizable on the geomorphological maps of Memmou and Bintliff, showing the evolution of the Eurotas delta; see Bintliff 2008, 543-546, figs 13.4 and 13.6 respectively.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4444 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 45

Figure 4. Asteri Karayousi, from the west

and until the Middle Byzantine period it could be approached by the sea18 (hence, very probably its surviving name). Apart from Filissi, which could not be considered as a proper site, all the other surrounding sites were occupied in the LH period too; moreover, except for Peristeri and Kokkinada, they were occupied in the MH period as well. Thus, looking at the hill of Skala for an important Bronze Age centre would be justifi- able, though probably disappointing, because of the heavy modern building activ- ity. A second candidate, offering better chances for research, would be the hill of Vlahioti to the east.

The pottery Let us now turn to pottery, to see if and what specifically this can tell us about some main issues of EH history, such as those addressed above.

Early Helladic I-II Traditionally, the beginning of the EH period is linked to the appearance of burnished pottery, as initially distinguished by Blegen in 1918 and subsequently

18 Bintliff 1977, 473. Bintliff places ancient Helos on the southeastern part of the plain though, between Karayousi and Ayios Strategos; see Bintliff 1977, 474-480 and 2008, 543.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4545 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 46 EMILY BANOU

described in detail in the study of the pottery from Korakou and Zygouries: a polished monochrome ware, brick-red, pale buff or black in colour, hand-made, of not well refined clay, occasionally with incisions, and with the open bowl as its most common shape, as a rule without a raised base. This ware constitutes Blegen’s AI group and marks the very beginning of the EH period.19 Since then, however, research in the Argolid, thoroughly discussed by Dousougli in her pres- entation of surface finds from three sites, Kephalari, Makrovouni and Talioti,20 and also summarized by Wiencke in her study of the EH I pottery from Lerna,21 has failed to distinguish a separate ceramic phase relating to this group; instead of this, researchers in the field — among them Weisshaar and Dousougli — speak of an EH I-II period, defined by a combination of various elements of typology and decoration.22 A common feature of this phase is the so called ‘Red-slipped ware’, apparently corresponding to Blegen’s Group AII.23 On the other hand, scholars studying the Final Neolithic period in the Peloponnese speak of the difficulty of distinguishing the very last phases of this period from the previous ones and from the following EH II period.24 The case being so in the better known Argolid, which has served as a guide for the rest of the Peloponnese, it comes as no surprise, that a clear EH I phase has not been distinguished in Laconia yet, despite the careful attention of scholars involved in the study of the period. Few sherds of the ‘Red-slipped’ variety were recognized in the nine sites of the Laconia Survey, pointing to the very probable existence of it in other Laconian areas too.25 One sherd belonging to this category has been published from Ayios Vassileios.26 A few more may be included in the sherd material from Paliopyrgi. In the last cases the slip is heavily applied, which does not seem to be the case at Kouphovouno27, but also in the Argolid.28 So, it would be better to return to typology to find more examples of the EH I-II period, for instance:29

19 Wace & Blegen 1916-1918, 176-177; Blegen 1921, 4-5; Blegen 1928, 76. 20 Dousougli 1987, 165-169. 21 Wiencke 2000, 631-632. 22 Dousougli 1987, 165-166, 207-208; Weisshaar 1990, 16-17. 23 Although the slip of this ware is considered as heavily applied by Weisshaar (1990, 16). 24 Weisshaar 1990, 21; Dousougli 1996, 128; Wiencke 2000, 632. 25 Cavanagh & Crouwel 1996, 9, fig. 11.2 (7-10). 26 Banou 1999, 73, fig. 8 (2), pl. 13d (top right). 27 Sherds with a rather thin, cherry-red slip, not heavily burnished, which ‘is not considered classic red-slipped pottery’, have been found in Area A at Kouphovouno; see Mee 2009, 45. 28 Wiencke 2000, 631-632. 29 The following categories constitute the main EH I repertoire, compiled for the purpose of the present article on the basis of the general discussion of EH I pottery by Weisshaar (1990, 17-19), Dousougli (1987, 165-169) and also Phelps (2004, 126-127).

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4646 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 47

Figure 5. Early Helladic I-II flaring rim from Figure 6. Early Helladic I-II T-shaped rim from Paliopyrgi Paliopyrgi

a) Open jars with flaring rims, present among the sherd material from Vouno Panayias, Paliopyrgi and Asteri Karayousi (Figure 5);30 b) Bowls with T-shaped rims, like those from Paliopyrgi and Karayousi (Fig- ure 6); c) Rims of bowls with incisions on or just below the rim, with an example from Ayios Vassileios;31 d) Mat impressions on the base of large vessels, present at Paliopyrgi and, again, Karayousi, known also from Anthochori (Figure 7);32 e) Rolled rims from basins that are pinched on the exterior, slipped with a red-brown slip and burnished, apparently with an instrument that indents the surface, with one example from Souroukla and one example from Pali- opyrgi, both of which find parallels in the area of the Laconia Survey (Figure 8).33

Early Helladic II The most diagnostic EH II ceramic repertoire consists mainly of saucers, sauceboats, jars and askoi. EH II fine ware is commonly made of a buff or orange clay and is totally or partially coated with a glaze-like paint of different colours, care- fully or hastily applied, often resulting in a mottled appearance. Sometimes a

30 Banou 1999, 72, fig. 7 (1), pl. 13b (top left). 31 Banou 1999, 74, fig. 8 (1), pl. 14a (top left). 32 Zavvou 2009, 36-37, fig. 4.24. 33 Cavanagh & Crouwel 1996, 9, fig. 11.2 (11-15).

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4747 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 48 EMILY BANOU

Figure 7. Early Helladic I-II base with mat Figure 8. Early Helladic I-II rolled rim from impressions from Paliopyrgi Souroukla

cream-like slip is rather thickly applied.34 All Laconian sites — except Artemis Orthia, Souroukla, Kokkinada and Filissi — discussed here have yielded pottery of this kind, which predominates among other wares.35 In addition to the aforementioned categories of pottery, the excavations of Blegen at Korakou and Zygouries brought to light the so-called ‘Faience Ware’. This ware deserves special mention, because of the technical skill its manufacture involves. Blegen described it in detail as follows: It is an extremely well-made kind of pottery, hard and thin, sometimes almost approaching egg-shell fabrics in delicacy. (…) The clay (…) is sometimes pink or buff in color but usually appears gray or almost black at the surface. The firing was efficiently done. (…) Indeed these vases have, when struck, the musical tinkle of well- made china. (…) The whole surface of the vase (…) was coated with a fine slip, apparently yellow or cream-colored when applied. In the firing a vivid mottled effect was often obtained, and the finished surface, which was smoothly polished,

34 Blegen 1921, 6-8; Blegen 1928, 83-101. This ware is commonly referred to as ‘Urfirnis’, especially in older literature. A relatively recent, concise and clear description of the variations of this ware in chronological order is given by Renard (1989, 130). 35 Zavvou & Themos 2009, 109 (Magoula); Catling 2009, 194-195, fig. 244 (AM 1-11) (Menelaion); Mee 2009, 45, fig. 5.9, 1 (Kouphovouno); Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 75 (Amyklaion), 78, fig. 16c (3-5) (Paliopyrgi); Banou 1999, 71, figs 6.2, 3 and 5, pls 13a top centre, 13a top third from left and 13a bottom centre respectively (Ayios Yeoryios); Banou 1999, 72 figs 7.1 and 7, pls 13b top left and 13c top left respectively (Vouno Panayias); Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 81 and Banou 1999, figs 8.3 and 8.4, pls 13d bottom left and 13d bottom right, respectively (Ayios Vassileios); Zavvou 2009, 31, fig. 4.1, 35, figs 4.20-21, 39, fig. 4.28 (Anthochori); MacGillivray 2008, 162-165, figs 4.3-4, 169-170, fig. 4.9 (Ayios Stephanos); Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 96 n. 136 (Panayiotis Lekas), 97 n. 143 (Panayiotis Lekas South), 95 n. 133, fig. 10.13, pl. 22b.11 (Xironissi), 92, n. 129, fig. 15.12, pl. 22a.10 (Peristeri), 91 n. 117, fig. 15.10 (Asteri Karayousi), 89 n. 115 (Asteri Dragatsoula), and 89 (Ayios Strategos); Themos 2007, 473, fig. 3 (Vlahioti Lakka) and 479, fig. 15 (Vlahioti Anemomylos).

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4848 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 49

usually presents a variety of colors running from grayish black or even deep blue to orange-yellow and almost white. The dark shades almost always occur in shapeless blotches. (…) Wherever these blotches are formed the whole fabric seems to have been affected, though the carbonization does not in every case go through the biscuit to the inner surface.36

The shapes of this ware mostly include sauceboats, jugs, askoid vases and bowls of different size. It was also found at Eutresis37 and at Asea, where it comprises coarser vessels made of poorly baked clay. These vessels may represent local imitations of the finer ware of this kind, thought to have 38 Figure 9. Early Helladic II ‘Faience Ware’ from been produced in the Argolid. Paliopyrgi: exterior (left) and interior (right) ‘Faience Ware’ has very recently been recognized at Ayios Stephanos;39 it had been reported earlier though, among surface ceramic finds of EH II date, especially in the Helos plain.40 The site which produced several examples of high quality, together with local imitations, is Asteri Karayousi, but ‘Faience ware’ is also present at Vouno Panayias41 and Paliopyrgi (Figure 9).42 Sometimes, sherds of this ware are not easily distinguished from the cream-slipped variety, which, I suspect, may represent an imitation of the most technically advanced ‘Faience ware’.43 It is of interest that ‘Faience ware’ occurs mainly at sites lying close to or by the sea, thus pointing to an important way by which Laconia maintained relations with other regions in the EH II period at least. Finally, a single sherd from Souroukla bears decoration of shallow ridges, like that occurring on sherds from Anthochori, thought to relate to the so-called ‘Geraki ware’ (Figure 10). The clay of this sherd has plenty of silver mica inclu-

36 Blegen 1928, 79. 37 Goldman 1931, 97. 38 Holmberg 1944, 67 n. 3. 39 It is named ‘Yellow Mottled Ware’ by MacGillivray (following the characterization of this ware as such by Blegen on the caption of pl. IX of the publication of Zygouries), and comprises ‘five certain and ten probable fragments of sauceboats and one rim fragment of a possible askos’; see MacGillivray 2008, 165, fig. 4.5. 40 Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1960, 95 n. 133 (Xeronissi), 92 n. 129 (Peristeri), 91 n. 117, pl. 22a (3) (Asteri Karayousi), 89 n. 115 (Ayios Strategos), but also 74 (Kouphovouno); mentioned indirectly from Paliopyrgi, 95 n. 133; Waterhouse & Hope Simpson 1961, 118 n. 22 (Mavrovouni Vardies). 41 Banou 1999, 73, fig. 7.8, pl. 13c top right. 42 Beyond these sites ‘Faience Ware’ has been recognized by the author among sherd material from Lekas Panayiotis, Pezoulia (between Gytheio and Skala), and from Bozas near Plytra. 43 See also the comment of MacGillivray (2008, 174) about the resemblance between the two wares.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 4949 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 50 EMILY BANOU

sions, a feature observed in other coastal Laconian sites, especially at Vardies near Gytheio. This observa- tion opens another topic of discussion concerning the early connections of Laconia with the Aegean, which, however, lies beyond the scope of the present paper. Figure 10. Early Helladic II ‘Geraki Ware’ from Souroukla

Early Helladic III ‘Light-on-Dark Patterned Ware’ and ‘Dark-on-Light Patterned Ware’, which mark the transition from the EH II to the EH III period, were not known from Laconia until recently. This lack led to the hypothesis of an extended EH II period in Laconia, which would have continued directly into the MH period, or, alternatively, of a relative isolation of Laconia during this period.44 During my extensive survey, however, I had the chance to recognize two sherds — one of the ‘Light-on-Dark’, the other of the ‘Dark-on-Light’ variety — from Ayios Yeoryios and Vouno Panayias respectively.45 Two more sherds of ‘Light-on- Dark Patterned’ Ware from Paliopyrgi have been recognized in the sherd collection of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (Figure 11). They belong to body fragments, are covered with a creamy slip, recalling that of the EH II ‘Cream Slipped Ware’, and they bear the well known decoration of diagonal bars between bands, in a very dark brown (Munsell 7.5YR 2.5/3) to dusky red (Munsell 10R 3/2) paint.46 Although the evidence is still slight, the existence of a gap in Laconia in the EH III period cannot remain valid anymore.

Conclusions According to the evidence presented above, Laconia emerges as a region well integrated in the EH cultural sphere of the Peloponnese throughout the period. This is especially apparent in the fact that both the Eurotas valley and the Helos plain show the same variety of ceramic wares as the Argolid, especially in the EH II period, with the Helos plain being richer; and also from the evidence of

44 Rutter 1988, 74; Cavanagh & Crouwel (1996, 16) consider this lack not to be entirely accidental. 45 Banou 1999, 71, fig. 6.7, pl. 13a bottom right (Ayios Yeoryios) and 73, fig. 7.9, pl. 13c bottom left (Vouno Panayias). 46 A probable EH III Patterned sherd is also reported from Ayios Stephanos; see Zerner 2008, 285, fig. 5.51 no. 2205.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 5050 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 THE EUROTAS VALLEY AND THE HELOS PLAIN 51

diagnostic EH II-III pottery. As far as the existence of a distinct EH I ceramic phase is concerned, evidence, like in other regions of the mainland, remains inconclusive. Relating to settlement patterns, the picture gained so far is clearer, indicat- ing that first-rank and second-rank settlements established in the EH II period at least may have remained so Figure 11. Early Helladic II-III ‘Dark-on-Light Patterned Ware’ from Paliopyrgi throughout the Bronze Age, even with intervals in habitation, during the end of the Early or some part of the Middle Bronze Age. Less evident are Laconian peculiarities, on which, however, recent studies of material from Kouphovouno and Geraki have begun to shed light. Of special interest for future research would be the exploration of the role of the Laconian gulf for contacts not only with Mainland Greece but also with the Cyclades or Kythera. The present state of evidence and preservation requires cooperative and systematic action before valuable evidence is lost forever.

E. BANOU University of Peloponnese [email protected]

References

BANOU, E. 1996. Beitrag zum Studium Lakoniens in der mykenischen Zeit, München. BANOU, E. 1999. New evidence on Early Helladic Laconia, BSA 94, 63-79. BANOU, E. 2000. Middle Helladic Laconia: new evidence, SMEA XLII/2, 175-199. BINTLIFF, J.L. 1977. Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece, BAR Supplementary Series 28, Oxford. BINTLIFF, J.L. 2008. The regional geology and early settlement of the Helos Plain. In: TAYLOUR & JANKO 2008, 527-550. BLEGEN, C.W. 1921. Korakou: A Prehistoric Site near Corinth, Boston. BLEGEN, C. 1928. Zygouries: A Prehistoric Settlement in the Valley of Cleonae, Cambridge MA. CATLING, H.W. 2009. Sparta: Menelaion I: The Bronze Age, BSA Supplementary Volume 45, London. CAVANAGH W. & J. CROUWEL 1996. The Early Helladic pottery. In: W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R.W.V. Catling & G. Shipley (eds), Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: the Laconia Survey II, BSA Supplementary Volume 27, London. CAVANAGH W., J. CROUWEL, R.W.V. CATLING & G. SHIPLEY 2002. Continuity and Change in a Greek Rural Landscape: the Laconia Survey I, BSA Supplementary Volume 26, London.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 5151 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51 52 EMILY BANOU

CAVANAGH, W., C. GALLOU & M. GEORGIADIS (eds) 2009. Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-modern: Proceedings of the Conference Held in Sparta, Organised by the British School at Athens, the University of Nottingham, the 5th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, 17–20 March 2005, BSA Studies 16, London. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2002. Kouphovouno (Laconie), BCH 126, 583-589. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2003. Kouphovouno (Laconie), BCH 127, 554-563. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2004. Sparta before Sparta: report on the inten- sive survey at Kouphovouno 1999-2000, BSA 99, 49-128. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2006. Kouphovouno (Laconie), BCH 130, 722-727. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2007. Kouphovouno (Laconie), BCH 131, 972-980. CAVANAGH W.G., C. MEE & J. RENARD 2008. Kouphovouno, AR 36-37. DOUSOUGLI, A. 1987. Makrovouni, Kefalari Magoula, Talioti: Bemerkungen zu den Stufen FH I und II in der Argolis, PZ 62, 164-220. DOUSOUGLI, A. 1996. Keramikß. Pelopónnjsov. In: G. Papathanasopoulos (ed.), Neoli- qikóv Politismóv stjn Elláda, Athens, 126-128. GOLDMAN, H. 1931. Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, Cambridge MA. HOLMBERG, E. J. 1944. The Swedish Excavations at Asea in Arcadia, Göteborg. JANCO, R. 2008. Summary and historical conclusions. In: TAYLOUR & JANKO 2008, 551-610. MACGILLIVRAY, J.A. 2008. The Early Helladic pottery. In: TAYLOUR & JANKO 2008, 159-176. MEE, C. 2009. Interconnectivity in Early Helladic Laconia. In: CAVANAGH, GALLOU & GEORGIADIS (eds) 2009, 43-53. PHELPS, W.W. 2004. The Neolithic Pottery Sequence in Southern Greece, BAR IS 1259, Oxford. RENARD, J. 1989. Le site néolithique et helladique ancien de Kouphovouno (Laconie). Fouilles de O.-W. von Vacano (1941), Aegaeum 4, Liège, 1-174. RUTTER, J.B. 1988. Early Helladic III vase painting. Ceramic regionalism and the influence of basketry. In: E.B. French & K.A. Wardle (eds), Problems in Greek Prehistory, Bristol, 73-89. TAYLOUR, W. D. & R. JANKO, 2008. Ayios Stephanos: Excavations at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia, BSA Supplementary Volume 44, London. THEMOS, A. 2007. AnahjtÉntav to Arxaío ´Elov, Praktiká H´ Dieqnoúv Sunedríou Pelo- ponnjsiakÉn SpoudÉn, Púrgov-Gastoúnj-Amaliáda, 11-17 Septembríou 2005, 452- 480. WACE, A.J.B, & C.W. BLEGEN 1916-1918. The Pre-Mycenaean pottery of the Mainland, BSA 22, 175-189. WATERHOUSE, H. & R. HOPE SIMPSON 1960. Prehistoric Laconia: part I, BSA 55, 67-107. WATERHOUSE, H. & R. HOPE SIMPSON 1961. Prehistoric Laconia: part II, BSA 56, 114-175. WEISSHAAR, H.J. 1990. Die Keramik von Talioti. In: Tiryns XI. Forschungen und Berichte, Mainz, 1-34. WIENCKE, M.H. 2000. Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid IV: The Architecture, Stratification and Pottery of Lerna III, Princeton. ZAVVOU, E. 2009. Archaeological finds from the area of Anthochori. In: CAVANAGH, GALLOU & GEORGIADIS (eds) 2009, 29-42. ZAVVOU, E. & A. THEMOS 2009. Sparta from prehistory to Early Christian times. In: CAVANAGH, GALLOU & GEORGIADIS (eds) 2009, 105-122. ZERNER, C. 2008. The Middle Helladic pottery. In: TAYLOUR & JANKO 2008, 177-298.

995715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd5715_Pharos_18/1_02.indd 5252 221/11/121/11/12 13:5113:51