[Type here]
UNIVERSITEIT VAN AMSTERDAM MA Thesis
Supervisor Prof. V.V. Stissi
KASTRAKI: A POOR PICK OF POTTERY?
The Middle Helladic Problem – Reassessing Thessaly’s ‘Dark Age’
Table of Contents
List of Figures 2 List of Appendix Material 3 Abstract 5 Introduction 6 (i) Introducing Kastraki- Between the Almiros and Sourpi Plains 9 Chapter One: 9 Excavation and Scholarship on Prehistoric Thessaly: Cultural Context Chapter Two: 15 The Middle Helladic Problem: Ceramics and Chronology Chapter Three: 24 A Thessalian Study: Researching Kastraki Chapter Four: 30 Results of 2016 Study Season: Fabric Groups and Parallels Conclusion 45 Appendix 45 (i) Catalogue 45 (ii) Illustrations 63 (iii) Photographs of Diagnostic Sherds 68 Bibliography 85
1 | P a g e
List of Figures
Figure 1: Google earth image showing the location of Kastraki, and its surrounding region. 4 Source: Map data 2016 Google Maps 2016 TerraMetrics
Figure 2: Hand-drawn map of the Almiros/Sourpi region and surrounding landscape. 9 Source: Wace and Thompson (1912).
Figure 1: Computational map of Kastraki (2000/48) and surrounding areas showing elevation. 11 Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).
Figure 4: Mycenaean pottery illustrations from Mycenae. 17 Source: Mountjoy (1990), 247.
Figure 5: The terrain of Kastraki (2000/48). 29 Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).
Figure 6: Finds from the Kastraki excavation. 32 Source: Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 300.
Figure 7: Computational Map of the Kastraki survey area 36 Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).
Figure 8: Basic hand-drawn map of survey area. 45 Source: Author (2016).
2 | P a g e
List of Appendix Material
(i) Catalogue 42 Section A: Photographs of Find-Spot Groupings 43 Section B: Part I 49 Part II 55
(ii) Illustrations 60 Illu. 1 60 Illu. 2 61 Illu. 3 62 Illu. 4 63 Illu. 5 64
(iii) Photographs of Diagnostic Sherds 65
3 | P a g e
Kastraki
Figure 2: Google earth image showing the location of Kastraki, and its surrounding region.
4 | P a g e
Abstract
Carol Zerner in the concluding statements of her publication “New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland” highlighted the many enduring questions regarding regional variation, local production and changes in technology (or lack thereof) in Middle Helladic pottery on the mainland. She pointed out the lack of answers for these questions reflects the ‘general characterisation of the Middle Helladic as a culturally backward period in the literature’, whilst simultaneously providing the scope for future study to challenge this concept. The use of the term ‘Dark Ages’ in the title of this paper is controversial- as it is intended to be.
The current view of Middle Helladic pottery often circles around the dispersal, consumption and local variations of popular wares such as Minyan, Matt-Painted and Lustrous Decorated ware. The work of Jeremy Rutter in 2007, ‘Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic Type Site’, addresses the fact that research so far has been dominated by considerations mainly from large, multi-component coastal sites. This means when less significant sites (in terms of production and trade) are discovered, they are often dismissed as ‘poor assemblages’. Rutter states that ‘we need to study small, inland and single component sites’. Only in this way will complications arising from large quantities of imports be removed. Following a discussion on the Middle Helladic problem, this thesis will attempt to address some of the material from the site of Kastraki on the border of the Sourpi and Almiros Plains in Thessaly from this theoretical approach.
5 | P a g e
Introduction
The Middle Helladic Bronze Age is an under explored and marginally understood phase in Greece’s history1. Thessaly in particular is often considered a peripheral and border area in the Middle Helladic period, and frequently is skimmed over in wider narratives due to a lack of well excavated and clearly stratified sites, and associated diagnostic material. Currently, the evidence which has been gathered from this region has not provided a clear picture of the historical narrative of Thessaly in the Middle Bronze Age. The transitional period from the Early Helladic (EH) into the Middle Helladic (MH) was one which saw significant cultural and economic changes- which have often been considered as a deterioration in cultural progression2. In early publications on the Thessalian region, such as that of Wace and Thompson in 1912, local production was generally characterised as ‘limited’ or ‘bad quality’ in the MH. In fact, the introduction to the principal classes of pottery from Prehistoric Thessaly in Wace and Thompson bluntly stated that “the development or rather degeneration of culture in Thessaly went on gradually without any violent break till the close of the Third Late Minoan period"3. However, modern excavations such as those carried out at Mitrou4 and Pefkakia5 have shown that there is evidence in some areas of Greece, including Thessaly, for a vivid and thriving culture during the MH. With these modern excavations, academic opinion regarding the quality of material culture produced during the Middle Helladic is slowly changing. Nonetheless, Rutter has warned against using evidence only from large centres of habitation like Mitrou and Pefkakia to further develop this opinion, fearing the presence of large quantities of imports at these kinds of sites will obscure the reality of local and regional production6. He suggests that using evidence from these large sites in combination with evidence from small, remote and rural sites will provide a more detailed and complete picture of Middle Helladic Greece. This thesis is an attempt to contribute the material from the site of Kastraki, a small hilltop site which sits on the border between the Almiros and Sourpi plains in Thessaly, to that conversation.
Since the early publications of Wace and Thompson, there has been ongoing debate in scholarship regarding the cause of this ‘decline’ of the Middle Bronze Age, considering factors like war, invasion and natural disaster which have been used explained abrupt cultural changes in other periods of history7. However, modern research approaches such as those expressed in the 2004 conference papers “Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms” have begun to recognise that cross cultural and cross period comparison of evidence often yields problematic conclusions for the Middle Helladic period8. This conference and the subsequent publication addressed these abrupt cultural changes, exploring the possibility of more niched explanations for this region. For example, the concept of ‘colonisation’ is often considered as an extreme and all-encompassing cultural phenomenon. Whilst colonisation can often be attributed to large scale cultural developments, Rutter has posited that a small scale occurrence of colonisation may then be harder to detect in the material evidence9.
1 Buck (1966), 193. 2 Buck (1966); Nordquist (1987); Touchais (1989); Zerner (1993), 51-56. 3 Wace and Thompson (1912), 23; NB- the Late Minoan III period roughly corresponds to the Late Helladic III period. 4 Hale (2016). 5 Maran (1992). 6 Rutter (2007), 36. 7 Wace and Thompson (1912); Buck (1966); Dietz (1988); Felten et al. (2007); Zerner (1993); Rutter (2007); Sarri (2010); Choleva (2012); Hale (2016). 8 Felten et al. (2007), 9. 9 Rutter (2007), 43.
6 | P a g e
Kastraki is an interesting example through which to examine this concept. Whilst located in Thessaly, which has been recognised since the era of Wace and Thompson as a crossroad of communication in the Bronze Age, Kastraki is situated in the hinterlands of the region, located in a degree of isolation on a steep hilltop10. This may remove, as Rutter expressed, some of the complications that would arrive from significant percentages of imports that would arise in large centres. Additionally, comparison to local material may also illuminate on small scale connections (or perhaps differences) between Kastraki and nearby centres- such as Pefkakia11. The material study of this thesis will therefore address material of local production at the site and comparisons with nearby centres of habitation, whilst the conclusion hopes to delve into this question of regional cultural changes and colonisation.
Alongside questioning the cause of cultural changes in the region, modern scholarship (such as Jeremy Rutter’s 2007 ‘Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic Type-site’) has begun to consider if the impression of technological frugality in MH Thessaly is really an accurate conclusion, or perhaps a biased result of the past research approaches12. Current investigation on the concept of regionalism in the Bronze Age recognises that this area maintains a strongly unique cultural independence during in the late Middle Helladic13. Thessaly becomes a haven for pottery production in the following Mycenaean period with several workshops currently recognised and the potential for other centres to be discovered, considering the range of wares which originate in this period14. The early stages of the Late Helladic period managed to maintain this unique regionalism. The idea that this kind of industry came out of what has historically been considered a technological vacuum during the Middle Helladic is untenable15. There is unfortunately little comparative evidence through which to establish a wide database of ceramics for the Middle Helladic of this region, because much research has been focused on material such as ‘Minyan’, ‘Matt-Painted’ and ‘Lustrous Decorated’ wares, which constitute large percentages of imports during this time in Thessaly. However, if these fine wares are not present in a significant quantity at a site, does this automatically mean limitations in the quality of manufacturing? Or could it more so indicate isolation from large scale trade?16 The general impression from the material17 collected from the area discussed in the following analysis (the coastal Almiros and Sourpi plains), is not indicative of a particularly busy trade and exchange network. These areas do however occupy a strategic position in Thessaly, the thoroughfare between southern and central Greece, and the Northern regions. Understanding of local production centres and wares of a local and regional character in the Middle Helladic are only beginning to come to light in recent scholarship18. The connection between this strategic position, and the idiosyncrasy of locally made pottery may have a significance that comparisons and connections between large sites such as Pefkakia, and small sites such as Kastraki, may illuminate on.
It is possible that material from small scale and rural Thessalian sites have been skimmed over as components in a wider consideration of the region and the period generally. Buck in 1966 concluded that because of the limited amount of small rural settlements discovered at the time, habitation in
10 Wace and Thompson (1912), 23. 11 Maran (1992). 12 Hale (2016), 243-244; Zerner (1993), 51; Rutter (2007). 13 Zerner (1993), 39. 14 Mountjoy (1990), 245. 15 Wace and Thompson (1912), 23. 16 Rutter (2007), 37. 17 See Appendix for photographs, descriptions and illustrations of the material; Stissi et al. (Forthcoming) for a discussion of material from the area generally. 18 Hale (2016); Maran (1992).
7 | P a g e the region must have been concentrated in urban groupings19. He posited a ‘village model’ for MH Thessaly, where people would have travelled from their villages to farm in the countryside. Evidence from Kastraki does not however support this claim, as several houses were discovered at this small- scale site dating to the Middle Helladic20. It appears that small-scale rural sites have something to contribute towards a more nuanced understanding of the settlement patterns of Middle Helladic Thessaly. However, if evidence discovered from rural areas is consistently considered against material from larger centres of production and trade networks, the evidence may continue to be dismissed as poor quality. The problem of low quality or low percentages of evidence from rural Thessalian sites may potentially lie in the research approach, rather than the material itself. To study material from sites such as Kastraki, is to offer an additional narrative to add to the story of Middle Helladic Thessaly.
During the course of investigating the above issues, the hope is to contribute to a general reconsideration of how to address material which appears on the surface poor and undiagnostic. Middle Helladic pottery does not have a wide typological shape repertoire to consider21. Zerner has highlighted that much of the confusion thus far in the study of this material lies in basic terminology, a lack of consistency in vocabulary and regional variation of names, stating that “Blanket stylistic terms…are superficial”22. Many Middle Helladic scholars have found that attempting to maintain terminologies (applied initially when investigations begin) throughout years of study and refinement is impossible without skimming past important minutiae, chronological distinctions and, to quote MacGillivray, “drawing arbitrary divisions cutting across the stratigraphic sequences which are the foundation of the archaeological discipline23”. Following the suggested approach of Carol Zerner, the evidence considered in the latter half of this study will be referred to on the simplified basis of clay, fabric and production methods. The macroscopic research method which was carried out in 2016 addressed the material on three levels. Firstly, the material was grouped based on fabric colour. Secondly, the sherds were analysed based on fabric type (Appendix (i) Section B Part I) - ware (coarse/medium/fine), surface treatment, and inclusions. Lastly the material was studied according to diagnostic features (Appendix (i) Section B Part II) - shapes and decoration (See chapter four for further detail). With the above considerations, the research questions of this thesis are thus- What does the material from Kastraki tell us about this site? Does a site of the scale and ‘frugality’ of Kastraki have anything to add to current research on Middle Helladic ceramics? And finally, if so, how can this evidence be used to better understand the idiosyncrasies of Thessalian culture during the Middle Bronze Age?
19 Goldman (1931), 50; Buck (1966), 197. 20 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 21 Rutter (2007), 35; the repertoire that does exist will be discussed in the following chapters. 22 Zerner (1993), 40. 23 MacGillivray (1983), 81.
8 | P a g e
Case Study: Introducing Kastraki- Between the Almiros and Sourpi Plains
The region to be discussed is located on the coastline of the Pagasaean Gulf. The Almiros and Sourpi plains lie within the district of Magnisía, which features the Óthris Mountain range. The later settlement areas of the Classical/Hellenistic cities of Halos lie between the mountain, beach ridges towards the coast and a back swamp. Much has been published on the history of these sites in both ancient and modern times24. Less, however, has been said about the earlier settlements which scatter throughout the hinterlands.
Figure 3: Hand-drawn map of the Almiros/Sourpi region and surrounding landscape from Wace and Thompson (1912).
The area was investigated in 1912 by Wace and Thompson, who established the geographical significance of the eastern edge of Thessaly- particular import placed on the natural boundaries created by the landscape25. “Great, parallel ranges starting at right-angles from Pindus run eastward to the sea and divide the land into a series of plains, in which the prehistoric settlements are found. In spite of these passes the mountains seem always to have been a formidable barrier”26. These ranges dominate the landscape of eastern Thessaly, and the areas between create the plains that
24 Wace and Thompson (1912); Milojčić (1974); Theocharis (1973); Tsountas, C. (1908), Reinders (2004); Stissi et al. (forthcoming). Ancient works include: Hdt. VII, 197-198; Dem. De Fals Leg, 163; Thuc. IV, 78; Xen. Hell. IV, 3., amongst others. 25 Wace and Thompson (1912), 3. 26 Ibid.
9 | P a g e run towards the coast, where Wace and Thompson identified the first prehistoric settlements. The ‘formidable barrier’ they spoke of made access to the region difficult in antiquity and the Pierian plain, shut off by the precipitous ranges of Pelion and Ossa on the coastline, did not offer Wace and Thompson any material remains at all in 1912. However, immediately south of this area lies the easy sea access of the Pagasaean Gulf. The mountain range which descends from Mt. Othris curves northwards and forms a convenient boundary around the fertile lands which run to the sea, well irrigated by a river network – the Almiros Plain. The fact that this southern region had a favourable landscape for settlement, particularly within Thessaly, is integral to note. Several notable routes passed through these plains, which were a strategic crossing point to accessing Northern Greece, and provided an alternative to the bigger challenge of the wooded and mountainous terrains to the west27. Since the early 1990s, systematic and experimental surveys have been carried out on these plains in order to establish some kind of settlement pattern for the area28. The idea of this project was to map the progress of human occupation in the area from Palaeolithic times onwards, in order to aid and improve future archaeological study in the area. From the offset, general knowledge of the area had several restrictions. Maps of the area before 1940 were rare and little was known of land cultivation previous to this which could seriously affect the preservation of remains. Also, soil maps of the area were lacking when the study began29. However, since this time, study of the area has been systematic and extensive. The findings and evidence which emerged as a result of this investigation (amongst others) allow the discussion featured in the case study section of this paper.
Figure 4: Computational map of Kastraki (2000/48) and surrounding areas showing elevation (copyright Jitte Waagen 2016).
27 Ibid. 28 Reinders (2004), 3. 29 Reinders (2004), 5.
10 | P a g e
Kastraki The site of Kastraki is located on the border of the north-west side of the Sourpi plain, on the southern edge of the Almiros plain, along a route which leads deep into the range of Mt. Othris. It has to date seen one official period of excavation alongside one survey campaign30, the results of which will be discussed in the latter half of this paper. It is a steep hilltop site, occupying a strategically elevated location with a view of the plain, which begins below the southeast slopes (see Figure 3). In fact, the summit provides a clear view of the coastline. The hill is known locally as ‘Kastraki’ as historically it housed a fortified settlement, of which only a scanty amount of ruins remains today. The hilltop has had sporadic occupation dating back to prehistoric times, but also has remains of more modern buildings, such as the monastery which the name ‘Kato Xenias’ is attributed to. The original monastery building was located south west of the area focused on in this paper, but this structure was destroyed by earthquakes. The monastery was rebuilt in a new location on the east of the hill, and in the process of this construction the ancient remains were discovered31.The new monastery needed a better access route through the hill, so an old path was widened into a road, which dug into archaeological remains. A rescue excavation was carried out to attempt to preserve some of this material, and gather as much information as possible from the site. In the course of this brief campaign, five stratigraphic layers were identified and dated preliminarily: 4th century BC Classical remains, Late Helladic IIIC, Middle Helladic III, Middle Helladic II, and Middle Helladic I32. Further, and certainly more complete and comprehensive excavation will be necessary to sharpen and securely identify these stratigraphic distinctions. The thesis is therefore additionally an attempt to lay the foundations for such future research, combining the evidence from the excavation with the more recent survey material.
30 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008); Stissi et al. (forthcoming). 31 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 32 All descriptive information on the site from Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292.
11 | P a g e
Chapter One
Excavation and Scholarship on Prehistoric Thessaly: Cultural Context
"It may seem unusual to start an article dealing with Middle Helladic pottery by referring to the Mycenaean period. Nevertheless, I do this, because in my opinion certain aspects of MH pottery can only be set in proper perspective if we take the later development into consideration." Maran (2007).
Maran’s viewpoint shows the careful regard for contextual perspective of Middle Helladic evidence which has been advocated in the introductory chapter of this paper. The current limitations in comprehensively stratified pottery sequences for this period means a close understanding of the development of settlement both following and also, it is here posited, previous to the Middle Helladic period in Thessaly (namely, the Neolithic-Early Helladic and Late Helladic) is paramount to gaining a true insight into cultural evolution at this time. The problem with much scholarship up until recent times has been a disregard for the regionalism identified by Zerner in 1993, and furthermore, what has been described as the internal “latent variability” within prehistoric regions and even specific sites33. Therefore, before considering the Middle Helladic material discussed in the next chapter, an historical overview of research on prehistoric Thessaly thus far will be provided.
From the beginning of the 20th century onwards work began on establishing the chronological order of prehistoric Thessaly. The work of Wace and Thompson mentioned previously was complemented by the intensive studies carried out by C. Tsountas whose discoveries, particularly at Sesklo and Dimini, brought Thessaly to the fore of Greek Neolithic studies. Vast amounts of finds were unearthed during in these early years, and subsequently, focus quickly turned from excavation to material study, to try and grapple with ever complicating series of evidence34. In the course of these campaigns, the area around the hub of Volos and the coastal plain of the Pagasaean Gulf experienced the most extensive excavation for eastern Thessaly. From the Neolithic into the Early Helladic period, dubbed a ‘transitional period’, a fairly comprehensive excavation record and chronological sequence began to emerge. Certain sites played important roles in this investigation, and an occupation model began to emerge for this early era. In particular, it was found that the repeated pattern of cemeteries which were built over earlier habitation layers would be an important feature for understanding cultural changes during this time35. Whilst the early excavations of this region themselves do not fit the archetype of extensive or fully investigated campaigns, nonetheless, the work that was done was often carried out meticulously enough to establish substantial occupation in the region. This is attested by a wide variety of sites that have been located with traces of reoccupation and complex habitation sequences. What was less clear were the pottery sequences that emerged from these sites. Ceramic finds were abundant but did not yield an easy chronological typology. A brief summary of some of the main sites in the
33 Andreou et al. (1996), 542. 34 Andreou et al. (1996), 539. 35 Ibid.
12 | P a g e region will now be given which helped facilitate a deeper understanding of prehistoric Thessaly, with a detailed description of some of the integral sites and their finds. Those sites with the best published evidence and best understood stratigraphic sequence will be discussed. The focus will be on burial evidence, architecture and of course ceramics to correspond to the material which will be discussed from Kastraki. In the course of this discussion it is hoped that an overview of important cultural changes and diagnostic evidence patterns, both ceramic and architectural, will be established for the prehistoric period generally, and especially those which are important to understanding the Middle Helladic culture specifically.
Neolithic and Early Helladic Period Ceramics A game changer in the study of prehistoric Thessaly was the extensive campaigns which took place at the Neolithic site of Sesklo, first discovered by Christos Tsountas at the close of the 19th century36. Tsountas’ work at this site was pioneering in recognising the features of settlements typical of this period- particularly the concept of an acropolis tell site which occurs frequently in this region. The settlement description was expanded upon by Dr. Theocharis whose work at the site focused beyond the acropolis itself and down into the slopes, creating one of the first models for studying settlement structure and urban dispersal in the region- the tell site with lower slopes of sprawling polis37. The nuanced stratigraphic divisions established by Theocharis rested on improving understanding of subtle changes in the pottery within the layers already established by his predecessors. It was recognised at this point in the investigation that there were two diverging settlement sequences at Sesklo- the tell (A) and the slopes (B). This arbitrary division can also be seen in the pottery remains, which generally sees more fine painted sherds at Sesklo A than B. From there, it was possible to study these two habitation records contextually- in isolation and in correspondence with one another. "An interesting methodological lesson can be learned from Sesklo. The complex intrasite variability of the archaeological features shows clearly that comparisons between sites are potentially misleading38". The mound of Sesklo is a famous site in the history of Greek Neolithic studies which was crucial to establishing the chronological analysis of the period generally.
Architecture Dimini is another important prehistoric site in Thessaly, situated in its most western vicinity. In the transitional period from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age at Dimini there are several notable features that have been recognised as a pattern in settlements that endure through this period of change. Over eight intramural child burials have also been recognised at Dimini dating from the Late Neolithic period39. Following this, in the transitional period the practice of turning old settlement tells into cemeteries becomes common, which may denote a changing funerary and subsequently cultural tradition. At Dimini, it has been suggested that this phenomenon represents a changing emphasis on burying the dead, and the importance of creating a boundary between the deceased and the living, prior to the incoming practice of tholoi and chamber tomb burials. Halstead posited in 1984 that the development may have functioned as a way of delineating elite areas for restricted use, which may further support the concept of changing cultural practices40. The amount and variety of finds dating from the period suggests that Dimini was an active player in trade networks during
36 Tsountas (1908). 37 Theocharis (1973); Andreou et al. (1996), 540. 38 Andreou et al. (1996), 542. 39 Halstead (1984), (supra n.30) 33. 40 Halstead (1984); Bailey (2000), 171.
13 | P a g e this period41. Following the Late Neolithic period, the preservation quality at Dimini declines, meaning that it is more difficult to analyse the architectural remains, and to interpret exactly what is happening within the community during this time. The occupation sequence becomes less clear, and scholarship is divided on the issue of whether the remains reflect some kind of social crisis, or whether it represents a centralised authority attempting to create a more hierarchical social organisation42. In the transitional period from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze age the use of perimeter walls and ditches become commonplace throughout Greece43.In the transitional period Dimini is particularly remarkable in its practice of this tradition, with six concentric perimeter walls discovered at the site dating from the Neolithic period onwards. During the Early Bronze Age, a central court is built at Dimini, surrounded by four main habitation areas centred which were divided by the perimeter walls. Hourmouziadis, who excavated at the site, posited that the construction of the walls was evidence of a continuously developing and expanding community making a conscious decision to divide up their territory, rather than any kind of defensive structure which is the most obvious conclusion jumped to in such cases44. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Dimini is surrounded by a mudbrick wall. Whilst the evidence of the use of the site at this time is limited to the burials mentioned previously, nonetheless there is no break in the use of this site from the MBA to the LBA. In the LBA, the most prominent settlement is located on the lowest slopes of the mound. The oldest surviving architectural remains date from c. LHIIIB/C, and are substantial enough to provide a comprehensive overview of what the building complex would have looked like45. Whilst there is no break in occupation, the ‘Mycenaeanisation’ of this site is fairly abrupt. The important lesson taken from Dimini for the period is the need to interpret architectural remains in the context of their specific socio-economic situation, which may result in a very different story than what one might expect. The site develops into what is commonly referred to as a ‘megaron’ type structure which is a typical Mycenaean architectural feature. However, whilst it is not stratigraphically clear how this structure developed, Hourmouziadis claimed it was a natural development from the earlier EH central court structure. When Hourmouziadis wrote in 1979, the core of the Mycenaean settlement, including the probable Mycenaean palace, was not excavated yet. The locus of Mycenaean habitation is on the lower slope which has the EH court on top, and the ‘palatial’ building has drawn comparison to the settlement at Pylos. Whilst modern scholarship has not come to a conclusive decision regarding the formation of this structure, it is generally regarded as a probable Mycenaean ‘palace’. The complexity of the development of the walls and boundary divisions at Dimini serve only to exacerbate the socio-cultural narrative which emerges from the site. The nearby settlement of Pyrgos also follows the recognised trend of the early prehistoric period of building on an elevation. Though not a large mound, it nonetheless has a clear view of the Gulf of Volos, situated just north of the city. This site has evidence dating from the Late Neolithic, with some early Dimini pottery attested, and also a stratigraphical layer featuring pottery of the Rachmani culture46. The layer between the evidence of these two shows burning, though excavators concluded that the site represents a fairly permanent Neolithic settlement, perhaps with strong links to nearby Sesklo47. Two other Neolithic sites in the region, Spartia and Palaikastron have evidence of an even longer period of occupation, which show use right through until the Hellenistic period, occupying a strategic point along the main access route from Thessaly to the coast.
41 Andreou et al. (1996), 544. 42 Andreou et al. (1996), 545. 43 Bailey (2000), 171. 44 Hourmouziadis (1979), 110-140. 45 Andreou et al. (1996), 545. 46 See Wace and Thompson (1912) for discussion on the Rachmani culture. 47 Andreou et al. (1996), 542.
14 | P a g e
What quickly becomes clear from the overview of habitation in this early era is that the cultural narrative created by the evidence they offer is not homogeneous, and should not be treated as such. The most crucial lesson that emerges is perhaps recognising the complexity of their stratigraphic sequences, and the unpredictability of the material record. A more detailed picture of this region may help to tackle the current impression of a Middle Helladic ‘Dark Age’. The cultural, economic and potentially political situation from the end of the Neolithic, entering into and lasting throughout the Helladic period was much more complex than previously thought this in the region. It is also interesting to note that Dimini, currently located 3 kilometers from Volos today, during the Neolithic period sat on the coast, but was affected by landscape changes caused by alluviation in the coastal plain since prehistoric times48. Significantly, aspects of the environment which would have attracted settlement and habitation such as the fertility this coastal river plain, may be contributing to the obscurity of the archaeological record. Other sites maintained their location on the shoreline and position of import through multi-occupational layers, such as Pefkakia.
Late Helladic Period During the Late Bronze Age, the Almiros and Sourpi plains appear to feature mostly small, scattered sites. Current evidence has indicated human activity was concentrated in the south western area known locally as the ‘Voulokalíva’49. Though reoccupation of sites from the Early and Middle Helladic is attested in this area, the continuity is not always self-evident in the material and the record is complex, adding to the challenge of understanding the historical narrative of the region. Mountjoy’s seminal work “Regional Mycenaean Pottery” is one of the only comprehensive works published which relates directly to Thessaly. She credits the work of Wace and Blegen in their 1939 publication with recognising from an early period the importance of regional styles and wares for the Late Helladic50. Thessaly, however, has not been subject to such focus which centres on such areas as Attica and Laconia which currently yield a more complete excavation record. Thus, habitation in Eastern Thessaly during this time at first glance appears more ‘scattered’, compared to other regions in Greece. Eventually, in the later stages of the Late Helladic, Thessaly is absorbed into the Mycenaean koine and produces similar material to the rest of the Greek world51. But for a time, namely the transition from the Middle Helladic culture, into and enduring through the initial stages of the Late Helladic, Thessaly maintains a uniquely regionalised culture. This makes it both intriguing and challenging to study.
48 Andreou et al. (1996), 544. 49 Stissi (2004), 91. 50 Mountjoy (1990), 245. 51 Batziou-Efstathiou (2012).
15 | P a g e
Figure 4: Mycenaean pottery illustrations from Mycenae (Mountjoy (1990), 247).
At this point it becomes clear why Thessaly was initially labelled a ‘peripheral’ area in past scholarship. In a period where mass production of pottery and period defining styles began to be consolidated (the beginnings of the LHIII Mycenaean ‘koine’- see Figure 4), Thessaly stubbornly held on to its regional preferences. Mountjoy noted that the Thessalian predilection for their local variations was not simply isolated to certain motifs or slight adaptations in shape. Instead, while much of the rest of Greece was adopting a uniform ceramic tradition Thessaly persisted in maintaining their local styles52. “In the early Mycenaean phases, LHIIA and LHIIB, Mycenaean pottery was already becoming standardised in the central area of Mycenaean Greece; only in outlying areas, such as Thessaly, where the Mycenaean ware was adopted more slowly, do regional styles…exist”53. That this phenomenon can be linked to social and economic administration structures is supported by the fact that following the fall of the palatial society in the Late Helladic LHIIIB, regional differences once again began to emerge across Greece54. Whilst there is evidence that around the beginning of LHIII Thessaly too began to submit to the popularity of the ceramics within the Mycenaean koine, when the centralised authority of Hellenic political organisation and administration focused in regions such as Laconia and Attica collapsed, it is certainly important to note that niche differences in production and exchange again being to emerge. It would perhaps more useful to consider the region of Thessaly as consisting of several individual yet interconnected cultures during the Bronze Age.
52 Maran (1992), 285. 53 Mountjoy (1990), 245. 54 Ibid.
16 | P a g e
Mountjoy states that small scale regional studies should subsequently be compared to wider regional units in order to apply some kind of framework of analysis to Mycenaean pottery, before trying to consider it as a cohesive whole. The approach of this study tends to agree- before attempting to study the macrocosm of ‘Mycenaean pottery’ or even ‘Thessalian pottery’ one must first understand the microcosms of smaller networks of production and exchange. In this way, scholarship can begin to recognise when these networks cross paths and build up an understanding of how knowledge or materials are exchanged. This approach can then attempt to improve upon the general historical picture of Mycenaean Greece during this time, but more specifically of the areas from which the pottery is not well known, for as Mountjoy puts it, "Indeed, until recently [1990] all well-made Mycenaean pottery found in other regions was often thought to come from the Argolid." This is a misconception that needs to be tackled from a twofold approach- firstly, better understanding of regional variation, and secondly, the application of these studies onto wider implications55. In very broad terms, two ‘types’ of Mycenaean pottery have been isolated for these localised centres56. The first group includes carefully rendered fine ware pottery of which one finds published in reports of the period. The second group refers to the more roughly rendered local type, which is much less understood. Overall, most pottery of the period that has thus far been studied tends to be painted pottery. The cohesive style and production of Mycenaean ware and its blatant connections to the Minoan culture of Crete points to a single origin point, from which the style was developed and then spread and exchanged throughout the Greek world. This origin spot has been highly debated in Mycenaean scholarship, and while a consensus has yet to be reached, the Peloponnese has emerged as a strong candidate57. The earliest evidence of Mycenaean ware currently comes from the southern Peloponnese of the LHI phase, which is considered to have a strategic position within the LH trade network. However, it is important to note that although this change is initiated early into the LH period, Mycenaean pottery constitutes only a minor percentage of Late Helladic I pottery. Throughout this period, Grey Burnished, Yellow Burnished and Matt- Painted wares endure at the most popular wares in use- wares that gained prominence in the Middle Helladic and even originated in the Early Helladic58. When the southern region enters into the Late Helladic II period, the repertoire becomes more homogenous and by the time the hallmark LHIIB comes around the fine painted pottery style of the Mycenaean koine is well established. Thessaly however, like other peripheral regions such as Crete, was maintaining a degree of cultural and stylistic independence during this time. How, and why? At this point in time the Pagasitic Gulf was part of an important sea route connecting the southern mainland and the islands to Northern Greece and Macedonia59. The unique combination of this thoroughfare combined with the relative isolation of the ring of mountains bordering the plains created a position of independence combined with strategic connectivity at this time60. The sites which mirror this route inland show evidence of this connectivity, offering material recognised as LHI and LHIIA imported ware61. The Late Helladic Thessalian community had access to modern production methods and techniques that had been producing the high quality pottery of Grey Burnished ware and Lustrous Decorated for generations. It had enough independence, self- sustainability and distance from the locus of the rise of Mycenaean culture to maintain local
55 Mountjoy (1990), 246. 56 Mountjoy (1968). 57 Rutter (1983), 328. 58 Rutter (1983), 353. 59 Mountjoy (1990), 248. 60 Reinders (2004), 3. 61 Mountjoy (1990), 252.
17 | P a g e preferences for a significant period before the Mycenaean koine took over. And take over it did- by the LHIIB period Mycenaean pottery was not only being imported from the south, it was being produced locally also. The local version featured Thessalian orange clay matrix which was typically covered in a white slip to mimic the standard Mycenaean tradition. The adoption of the Mycenaean style and production method did not only take place at coastal sites, but also further inland and eventually throughout the Thessalian plains. The traditional land route between the North and the South through the plains had continued to be in use from the Early Helladic period right through this time62. The integration of the Mycenaean koine into the Thessalian repertoire in the Late Helladic is an interesting phenomenon. Whilst the Thessalians maintained local styles for some time and certain shapes and motifs even survive throughout the Mycenaean period, there was not actually a huge time gap between the rise of Mycenaean ceramic culture in the southern mainland and these northern regions. This is because when the cultural adaptations did begin to spread, they did so widely and rapidly. Presumably this spread happened through the Thessalian communication networks. Furthermore, the adaptation to Mycenaean traditions in the Volos region was so drastic that if not considered a colony or immigrant settlement, it must be accepted that the local rulers made a quick and conscious decision to integrate into proper Mycenaean culture. If so, it appears the Thessalians were ready and well-equipped to adapt to the influx of new technologies. This does not support the concept of a culturally depleted or barren region, or a technologically inferior population. Regionalism has been recognised as an integral aspect of Thessalian Bronze prehistoric culture, but much more study is needed to establish the extent of these local traditions, and importantly, how they interact with each other, and within the wider network of Greek trade63. The implications of understanding the intricacies of local and regional production on future understanding of the idiosyncrasies of Middle Helladic culture are paramount.
62 Mountjoy (1990), 256. 63 Maran (2007), 176.
18 | P a g e
Chapter Two
The Middle Helladic Problem Ceramics and Chronology
In 1921 Carl Blegen published “Korakou: A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth”. His work at this site was the first to fully establish a Middle Helladic chronology64. Other early excavations which followed at sites like Lerna, Argos, and Kirrha contributed to understanding of life and society on the mainland during this time65. Lerna in the Argolid was particularly influential in creating the pottery sequence which was to dominate Middle Helladic scholarship, reconfirming Schliemann’s Minyan Ware and additionally establishing Matt-Painted as the primary wares of the period66. However, chronology and ceramics went hand in hand in such early investigations and the lack of a complete unbroken ceramic sequence for the period meant results were often inconclusive. In the weeks preceding the completion of this thesis Christopher Hale published the current findings of the Mitrou project in East Lokris67. Claiming for itself the ‘first pottery chronology of its kind for Middle Helladic central Greece’, this publication is set to revolutionise current chronological understanding of the ceramic tradition, and subsequently enlighten on socio-economic synchronisms and diachronic patterns which evolved through cultural interactions on the mainland at this time68. Other recent publications, such as those presented in the Mesoelladika conference on the period in 2006, have expanded upon early study into the chronological and ceramic record of Middle Helladic Thessaly, and begun applying the findings to wider cultural issues such as burial, architecture and settlement, economy, subsistence and modes of life, and social structure69. The following section provides a summary of this research to provide contextual background for Bronze Age Thessalian material culture. In order to do so, research has honed in especially on some of the best published sites of the Middle Helladic period.
Modern ceramic studies, like those views mentioned by Zerner and Rutter in the initial stages of this thesis about reconceptualising what is expected from the evidence of Middle Helladic sites, have resulted in a re-evaluation of the quality of Middle Helladic material. However, even the most recent of publications recognise that the absence of a solid ceramic sequence left full comprehension of the period and its place in the wider Greek narrative a challenge70. Thessaly occupies a strategic position as a terrestrial crossroads of mainland Greece and both the eastern world, and the Northern region of the Balkans71. When the material cultural of the Middle Helladic was first discovered during Schliemann’s excavations at Orchomenos, it was thought the Minyan ware heralded ‘the coming of the Greeks’, a new cultural invasion from the North72. This view has since been dismissed and it is now recognised that Minyan ware has firm ancestry in the Early Helladic period, supported by material from Lerna, and also confirmed by material from newly
64 Blegen, (1921). 65 Caskey & Blackburn (1997); Waldstein (1982); Dor et al. (1960). 66 Caskey (1960); Caskey & Blackburn (1997), 22; see also Rutter (1983). 67 Hale (2016). 68 Hale (2016), 291. 69 Philippa-Touchais et al. (2006), 1038. 70 Hale (2016), 243. 71 Buck (1966), 193. 72 Hale (2016), 248.
19 | P a g e excavated sites such as Pefkakia and Mitrou73. However, the realisation that some of the defining ceramic traditions of this period have in fact beginnings in an earlier period, has meant that the Thessalian Middle Helladic is a period of cultural development which demands further investigation to achieve a deeper understanding of the regionalism of its material culture. One of the problems Buck refers to is the lack of published evidence. Since the early investigations of Wace and Blegen, a significant number of Middle Helladic sites have been discovered across Greece. Yet whilst many sites have been recognised, many remain unpublished and most of the in-depth publications that do exist come from large multi-component sites74. Many of the inferences made in the 20th century about the Middle Helladic were therefore gathered from such large sites, or surmised from the remains of scantily excavated sites75. There is a design flaw in this kind of evidence, which Rutter has recognised and challenged in his paper ‘Reconceptualising the Middle Helladic Type-site’76. The conclusions reached from large sites often resulted in a kind of ‘tunnel vision’ approach in scholarship, which presumes similar evidence would arise from smaller, more isolated sites of the same cultural background77. In Thessaly, it has been recognised that settlement during this time tended to be focused on small river plains, with a large amount of habitation in scattered rural sites, additional to the major coastal loci. Many of these scattered rural sites have yet to be fully investigated and may contribute to current understanding of this time period. Eastern Thessaly is one such region that has recently been considered by scholars that recognise the idiosyncrasies of regional sites and their material.
Ceramics The regionalism of Middle Helladic pottery means material from any location is therefore not an easy subject to tackle. There are three main wares that were established for the period, Burnished Ware (including Minyan as the prime type), Matt Painted and domestic cook ware78. Anything beyond these three categories has historically been dismissed as imports, or simply ‘poor quality’ material. In Boeotia, for example, the ‘Minyan’ or Burnished ware of the period is so well made and so common that early scholarship considered all other wares (apart from basic coarse-ware) to be imported79. The shape repertoire of Middle Helladic pottery is also notoriously limited, and the developments that do take place in the vessel types throughout the period are relatively slow,
73 Rutter (1983), 342. 74 Buck notes the following sites These include: Orchomenos (H. Schliemann, Orchomenos, Leipzig 1881) Argissa (Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa - Magula in Thessalien-several volumes) Asea (E. J. Holmberg, Asea [Lund 1944]); Asine (0. Fr6din and A. W. Persson, Asine [Stockholm 1938]); Eleusis (G. Mylonas, pIIo'oropuL) 'EXeuats [Athens 1932]); Eutresis (H. Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia [Cambridge, Mass. 1931]); Gonia (C. W. Blegen in MMS 3 [1930-1931] 55-80); Kirrha (L. Dor, J. Jannoray, H. and M. van Effenterre, Kirrha [Paris 1960]); Korakou (see above, n. 1); Krisa (J. Jannoray and H. van Effenterre in BCH 61 [1937] 299-326 and 62 [1938] 110-148); Lerna (preliminary publications by J. L. Caskey in Hesperia 23 [1954] 3-30; 24 [1955] 25-49; 25 [1956] 147-173; 26 [1957] 142-162; 27 [1958] 125-144; 28 [1959] 202-207); Lianokladhi (A. J. B. Wace and M. S. Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly [Cambridge 1912] 180-187); Malthi (N. Valmin, The Swedish Messenia Expedition [Lund 1938]); Zygouries (C. W. Blegen, Zygouries [Cambridge, Mass. 1928]). In addition several other sites, though not as yet fully published or not yet completely excavated, provide some stratigraphical information. These include: Aegina (G. Welter, Aigina2 [Athens 1962] 44-46; AA 40 [1925] 1-12, 317-321; ArchEph 1895, 235-254); Agia Marina (REG 25 [1912] 270-271; 7HS 25 [1915] 196-199); Agios Stephanos (BSA 55 [1960] 97-100; ArchRep 1959, 9-10; 1960, 32- 34; BCH 85 [1961] 691-692). 75 Rutter (2007), 37. 76 Rutter (2007). 77 Buck (1966), 194. 78 Rutter (2007), 35. 79 Sarri (2007).
20 | P a g e resulting in a difference in the shapes typically produced in the early period and the later period80. This contributes to the difficulty of addressing ceramics of this period as a general concept. Additionally, Rutter made the observation that perhaps the most striking development that takes place in the ceramic record, the advent of ‘Yellow Minyan’ pottery, had the interesting effect of blurring the lines between the two types of tableware of the time, Burnished and Matt-Painted, and further obscuring distinctions between fine-ware and plain domestic ware81. This has meant there may have been a misrepresentation in previous scholarship of what can be regarded ‘fine- ware’ in the Middle Helladic. When Yellow Minyan took its place as the most popular pottery type in the latter half of the period, the pale clay surfaces of Minyan ware and Matt Painted pottery were very similar, and not remarkably dissimilar to the domestic wares of the period. Many scholars began to recognise the problems and confusion that arose from the use of the term Minyan, and the limitations it places on the evidence in order to fit into a specific ware distinction82. While the term was established on a historical basis with allusions to the mythical origins of the Greek people83, its use in today’s ceramic studies is questionable. Rutter therefore applied the term ‘Burnished ware’ to the pottery to avoid placing presumptions on any ware that resembles this category, whilst maintaining the colour distinctions84.
Burnished ware consists of hard fired, often wheel thrown pottery85 made from fine clay. The monochrome finish is distinctively recognisable and has led many to draw potential comparisons to metal vessels, due to a combination of fabric, colour and shapes. The shape repertoire features mostly open shapes, small drinking and pouring vessels, and fine tableware. Common vessels include the kantharos, small two handled bowls, and the ‘Lianokhladi’ pedestal goblet86. Distinctive characteristics include sharp carinations and prominent everted rims. The decoration repertoire is fairly limited, featuring mostly ribbing, grooves and incision in the form of zigzags, lines, wavy lines and loops87. The distinguishing grey colour of early examples was created in a reduced environment in the kiln88. As the ware develops colour variations begin to appear, created by different firing methods. Since study of this ware has begun, four distinct colour categories have emerged; Grey, Black, Yellow and Red89. Black versions are created by uneven heating methods. Red and yellow variants which appear later in the period are created by a high temperature environment that does not include any reducing atmosphere. Colour preferences do develop chronologically to an extent, but also vary on a regional basis. This geographical variation can help to explain why this ware would not necessarily appear in rural and regional sites, which is a possibility for the case study of Kastraki. Matt-Painted pottery is the other major ware popular during the Middle Helladic. It is the main handmade ware used during the period. Towards the latter half of the Middle Helladic, a wheel-made variety of this ware is also developed and increases in quantity as the period continues. Common coarse ware shapes include storage jars, basins and pitchers. The term comes in this case from the decorative elements rather than the material itself. A manganese based paint was typically applied to the light surfaces of domestic and storage pottery90. The flat ‘matt’ sheen of the paint is
80 Hale (2016), 250. 81 Rutter (2007), 35. 82 Sarri (2010), 604. 83 Drews (1994), 12. 84 Rutter (1983). 85 See following discussion on manufacturing techniques. 86 Hale (2016), 250; see also Childe (1915) for discussion on the Lianokhladi excavations in the Spercheios valley. 87 Buck (1966), 200. 88 Hale (2016), 247- see for further elaboration on the complexities of this process. 89 Sarri (2010). 90 Lindblom (2011), 88.
21 | P a g e created by leaving out alkaline agents in the mixture, such as ash, which was used at this time to create glossy finishes in paint91. The ware was first established at Lerna from the fourth/fifth phase which is attributed to the transitional EHIII and MHI period. However, though Matt-Painted ware existed early in the Middle Helladic period the ware becomes most popular during the era of ‘Yellow Minyan’ ware. The third category of material from the Middle Helladic remains descriptively obscure, despite its abundance in material evidence. Lindblom in 2011 noted that Bronze Age ‘locally or regionally produced cooking vessels…very difficult to attribute with any confidence to any single period’92. He acknowledges that even material from his own site publications that have been attributed to the early Late Helladic could easily belong in the last stages of the Middle Helladic93. The regional variation of ceramic material during this time, and furthermore the diversity within localities and sites themselves which has been discussed in the chapters previous to this, makes Thessaly a considerable challenge for this kind of research. One of the most complete Middle Helladic assemblages published comes from a valley in the Argolid. The excavations of the multi occupational site of Mastos has produced a multi-authored publication which allowed each specialist to produce an in-depth study of their allocated time period at the site94. Published in 2011, Lindblom’s section of the paper has produced one of the highest quality and recent Middle Helladic assemblages to date. Whilst geographically not comparable to the material from Thessaly, methodological lessons can be learned from his approach to the material. Of particular importance to this thesis is his treatment of the coarse ware material. He notes that most sherds of large and rough material seem to be from shapes designed for storage or food preparation, with exceptions of small jars and goblet forms, or pedestal cups. He notes that the coarse ware sometimes features hasty burnishing, but overall tend to be undecorated. Large grained fabric is also a recurrent feature that is observed at Mastos95. Lindblom compares cooking ware he identifies with Adriatic ware from the southern Peloponnese, in terms of the crumbly reddish yellow fabric and the limited incised decoration.
It is interesting that Rutter notes that the development of Yellow Minyan, perhaps the final phase of development in the Burnished ware repertoire, does not distinguish it as aesthetically different from other categories of pottery, but instead appears to further associate it with its plainer ware counterparts96. The potential implications of this will be expanded upon in the concluding section of this paper. Another interesting discovery is the refinement of current understanding of production methods of Burnished ware by Choleva through her work on Fine Grey Burnished pottery in Lerna, from the Early Helladic III period. Through a detailed study on the technological process of manufacturing Burnished ware and in particular the criteria of marks and striations currently used to determine this, she concluded that many if not all of the vessels she placed under scrutiny were not in fact wheel thrown. Instead the vessels appear to be wheel finished, and assembled initially through a coil building technique97. The implications that would be associated with confirmation of her theory from other sites may lead to a complete reassessment of Burnished ware production methods, and further understanding of the complexities of the category historically termed ‘Minyan ware’. It also could have interesting collateral implications for the concept of regionalism in the Middle Helladic, and the ‘quality’ of locally made pottery. If correct, Choleva’s findings would
91 Buck (1966), 200. 92 Lindblom (2011), 90. 93 Lindblom (2011), 90 (note 38). 94 Lindblom (2011). 95 Lindblom (2011), 84. 96 Rutter (1983), 353. 97 Choleva (2012), 359.
22 | P a g e support the concept of a “slow, conservative adoption of the potter’s wheel” on the mainland98, or more specifically a localised adaptation of the technology to suit specific needs, social contexts or categories of pottery.
Middle Helladic Life: Eutresis, Pefkakia, and Mastos While large multicomponent sites may have drawbacks in terms of the hierarchy of evidence they portray, it is possible to observe patterns in evidence of day to day activities and traditions of Middle Helladic settlements. As a result of the campaigns of the early 20th century an overview of basic information such as subsistence, habitation and burial tradition was established for the period. Excavations such as that carried out on the settlement of Eutresis on Boeotia, Mastos in the Berbati Valley of the Argolid which has been studied by Lindblom, and publications by Jeremy Rutter on Pefkakia in Thessaly contributed a significant amount of evidence of the socio-economic background of the period99. The preliminary evidence of Middle Helladic material from Kastraki currently gives the general impression of a small, self-contained agrarian site. The hope is that further excavations at the site will result in a more detailed and descriptive narrative of the occupational sequence. However, before this is possible, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the trends and traditions characteristic of the period. Any future attempt to contextualise the material from Kastraki would benefit from understanding the cultural background to the evidence. Several notable features have been observed from the remains at Kastraki that deserve further investigation. Firstly, the ceramic material as it stands appears to give an overall domestic impression for the site, but there is limited diagnostic or decorated ware. Secondly, architectural remains of several houses have been observed from numerous levels. Thirdly, cist graves and burial evidence have been discovered in the layers. Eutresis, Pefkakia and Mastos have been chosen for the following discussion because they have yielded evidence of these aspects of Middle Helladic culture- ceramics, architecture and burial.
Northeast of the Almiros plain exists one of the best excavated and thoroughly discussed Thessalian regions of the Bronze Age; Magoula Pefkakia. The area features evidence of settlement from the Final Neolithic through to the end of the Mycenaean period. Excavations in the early 2000s have shown that habitation flourished in the Mycenaean settlement particularly in terms of ceramic production. However, the early excavations of Theocharis and Milojčić in the mid-20th century identified several older phases in a settlement in the region which has numerous occupation layers throughout the Bronze Age100. Pefkakia occupies a strategic position on the Gulf of Volos, just south of the modern city. Material from the site shows it was not only a strong pottery production centre, but also had connections within and outside Thessaly101. The evidence of manufacturing technologies has been influential in establishing the EHIII material from the site as a predecessor of Middle Helladic Burnished ware, consolidating theories of the multi-period continuation of ceramic tradition in this region, and across Greece generally102. Within the Middle Helladic layers at Pefkakia, 7 layers of habitation have been recognised. The material culture of the Middle Helladic really emerges at Pefkakia after the phase 2 habitation layer. Changes from the Early Helladic are more obvious, particularly in terms of the ceramic evidence. The introduction of the popular decorated wares becomes apparent- Grey Burnished ware appears, followed by colour variations of Burnished ware103. The fine ware appears to increase in popularity and use as the settlement develops. In the fourth phase of occupation, Grey Burnished is
98 Hale (2016), 248. 99 Maran (1992); Lindblom (2011); Goldman (1931). 100 Theocharis (1973); Milojčić (1974). 101 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 102 Maran (1992). 103 Rutter (1983), 340.
23 | P a g e the dominant ware in use, with Matt-painted ware as the equivalent hand-made ware. It first makes an appearance in the transitional phase from Early Helladic, popularity grows alongside the Burnished ware, though the handmade ware appears reaches its hallmark period in the fifth phase of occupation at the site. An intriguing comparison arises when the material from Mastos is then considered. Whilst Burnished ware is a popular ware at this site also, Lindblom also notes the lack of wheel thrown pottery emerging from the site104. Intriguingly, an additional observation that he makes is that “not a single sherd from a wheel-thrown vessel decorated with matt, manganese- based paint could be identified” from a survey of nearly 13,000 sherds105. The ceramic finds of Pefkakia have begun to be used to trace connectivity between this region and internal and external contacts106. The plain domestic ware from connected the site mostly with regional neighbours such as Argissa, further supporting the concept of a localised ceramic tradition. However, the decorated wares from this site paint a more complex picture. Pefkakia lends support to the concept of settlements in this period developing as a result of their geographical location107. Situated on the coast, it has significant evidence for the importation of various goods including obsidian and flint108. The ceramics also show signs of influence from the external contacts the site would have had with Southern Greece and the Near East, particularly in terms of the time frame taken to adopt new ceramic techniques and traditions. Overall, the ceramic record that emerges for the period is one of a strongly regionalised nature, which is confirmed by the recent findings at Mitrou in East Lokris109.
Pefkakia is both a well-documented site, and a consistent site in terms of successive habitation. This has led many to deem it a suitable ‘type-site’ for the Middle Helladic, and many consider it the most complete stratigraphical ceramic record published for the period110. Within the Middle Helladic stratigraphical sequence, phase 2 to phase 6 show a fairly consistent record of occupation, featuring densely packed habitation quarters. The houses that have been excavated at this site conform to what has come to be known as the ‘standard’ Middle Helladic house- oblong in shape, consisting of several rooms with basic stone foundations. While specific functions were not always directly obvious, the excavators recognised several domestic, utilitarian and storage facilities present111. This ‘typical’ Middle Helladic house appears also at Eutresis112. The interior of these houses are usually divided into three sections; the porch entrance, main central room and then a smaller room at the back which has a rounded rear wall and often features a hearth. Walls are typically made of mudbrick, and the tendency was to lay uncut stone foundations before building. It has been suggested that this building represents the precursor to the Mycenaean megaron113. As these houses develop, the rounded end is often sharpened out to a rectangle in latter half of the Middle Helladic period, so it is easy to see where such an inference would arise from114. Buck in 1966 saw an ‘obvious’ connection to the later Mycenaean palaces. Modern scholarship has acknowledged that the development of the habitation sequence from the Middle Helladic to the Late Helladic is much more complex than this, as discussed in the previous chapter. However, what can be derived from this observation is that the inhabitants of such a house probably may not necessarily represent the
104 Lindblom (2011), 81. 105 Lindblom (2011), 77. 106 Maran (2007). 107 Karimali (2000). 108 Reinders (2004), 64-65. 109 Hale (2016), 291. 110 Hale (2016), 250. 111 Maran (1992), 7-33. 112 Caskey and Caskey (1960). 113 Buck (1966), 197. 114 Goldman (1931), 37.
24 | P a g e majority of the population, the ‘typical’ Middle Helladic individual. While recognising characteristic features of these buildings is useful in terms of locating Middle Helladic sites, considering this type of building as a ‘typical’ Middle Helladic house may project the assumption that any standard Middle Helladic site should produce similar material. Additionally, the typology of the houses should only be considered alongside a consideration of dimensions. Kastraki, itself a small, rural site features some considerable architectural remains. However, it will take excavation of many more rural sites to prove or disprove this theory. A similar lack of evidence caused Buck to claim an ‘argument from silence’ that settlement during this period was concentrated in small urban groupings, since the majority of settlements excavated at that point were villages and small towns. He inferred that the lack of rural homestead-type structures at that time suggested the habitation pattern of rural Middle Helladic populations fit the village model, with inhabitants who would have gone out daily into the countryside to farm115. It is here posited that modern excavations and sites such as the case study of Kastraki will challenge this theory and lead to a more elaborate understanding of settlement patterns during this time. Currently, different types of settlement appear at Kastraki. Small houses are present in the layer MHIII, yet intriguing evidence emerges from the MHI level which features a large ‘apsidal’ building. Another past conception of habitation pattern which deserves reassessment is the concept of Middle Helladic towns as ‘disordered’, which is based on the observations of town planning at Eutresis116. Overall, the evidence from Eutresis gives the impression of individual households functioning within the close quarters of a wider community117. This is further supported by the several instances child burials within households, which is a repeated pattern in this period, and in the case of the burials from Pefkakia, several of these graves were marked by stone slabs. Pefkakia also appears to have been constructed to facilitate self-sufficient households118. This community was able to build downwards on the slopes due to a system of terracing still evident from the architectural remains. They used this space optimally for habitation, leaving very little space in between houses. This is typical of the ‘disorder’ noted by Buck in 1966. For something to be considered disordered it must be held up against a model of order, to which it falls short. It is here posited, particularly for the region of Thessaly, that understanding of Middle Helladic settlement patterns is thus far too limited to consider any sites lacking order or layout. This concept of disorder arises from comparisons to larger, multi-occupational settlements which would have had a more numerous population and presumably longer and premeditated construction period. It will be interesting to bear this in mind during future excavations at Kastraki.
In the 7th stratigraphical phase at Dimini, a significant change occurs in the settlement remains, not unlike what was observed in the developments of the layout at Dimini. Cist graves appear at the southern region of the tell, in what previously functioned as a habitation area. The burials mostly are infants with few adults present119. Middle Helladic graves located at the southern slope of a hilltop settlement is a pattern which also presents itself at Mastos, where burial evidence was one of the first traces of human occupation to be discovered at the site120. A range of burial traditions exist at Dimini, all apparently within the boundaries of habitation. Simple cist graves most frequently occur, but there are also remains of cemeteries and as the period progresses, intramural burials underneath houses also become common121. A variation of this type is
115 Goldman (1931), 50; Buck (1966), 197. 116 Goldman (1931), 50. 117 Andreou et al. (1996), 548. 118 Maran (1992), 51-55. 119 Maran (1992), 7-33, 51-55, 61-64. 120 Lindblom (2011), 77. 121 Buck (1966), 198.
25 | P a g e seen in the simple pot burial in small vessels. Evidence for this type of burial exists at Mastos, seen in the remains of “a matt painted barrel jar, covered by a Grey Minyan basin”122. This type of burial- within habitation boundaries- may be further evidence for settlements becoming increasingly independent and self-contained during the Middle Helladic. The concept of intramural burials underneath houses, of cemetery burials outside of settlement boundaries and indeed of cemeteries built over older habitation areas all existing during the same period indicates diverging and possibly changing burial practices. However, they all also have something in common- an increasing spatial awareness in the burial process. Buck in 1966 created a 4-part typology for graves and burial practices which encompasses each type currently discovered for the Middle Helladic123. The types are significantly varied (pit, cist, shaft, tholos), but do show developments that reveal a progressing burial tradition. Generally, the groups develop in a chronological fashion, however there is often overlap and the appearance of one type of grave does not negate the possibility of another. Buck’s grave classifications are useful for organising data gathered from burial sites in the Middle Helladic period. However, similar to evidence already discussed regarding ceramic and architectural evidence there are lessons to be learned from his approach to studying the graves of this period. Many of the graves of this period feature multiple burials, with remains often added at a later date. Buck remarks that the treatment of the remains shows a ‘lack of respect’ for the deceased and that after a certain amount of time the Middle Helladic people appear to treat their dead ‘carelessly’124. He is referring to the practice of moving older bones aside in order to make room for new additions. This view is however untenable, and based on an assumption that the Middle Helladic people has similar views on death and the afterlife that are held today. It is also clear that the treatment of the remains in this fashion after a certain amount of time was within acceptable behaviour of their burial tradition. It is possible that moving human remains was not a taboo action during this time, and the addition of new remains to familial or even ancestral burials may have been a sign of respect rather than necessarily ‘carelessness’; indeed, the overall effort expenditure the Middle Helladic people placed on burial does not support this concept. Again, further evidence from excavation will presumably illuminate on this issue. Despite only survey investigation and a brief excavation campaign, burial evidence has already presented itself at Kastraki.
Why is important to have an understanding of the cultural background of the Middle Helladic, and indeed the earlier and later periods? When Grey Minyan was first discovered, it was considered a hallmark of the Middle Helladic alone. As scholarship and understanding progressed, it was realised that this ware not only continued into the Mycenaean period, but had its origins in the Early Helladic. Säflund in 1965 dubbed the transitional material that straddled to two periods ‘Minyan I’125. Rutter then expanded on this concept, applying a looser and more inclusive term ‘Fine Grey Burnished’, to classify early material126. This approach simplified a typologically complex ceramic development sequence without restricting the material to a strict chronological boundary. Hale and the Mitrou project have further developed this approach to completely revolutionise how scholarship addresses the chronological sequence of Middle Helladic material and the implication of this on the interregional interactions of the period127.
122 Lindblom (2011), 77. 123 Buck (1966), 199. 124 Ibid. 125 Säflund (1965), 158f; Lindblom (2011), 89. 126 Lindblom (2011), 89. 127 Hale (2016).
26 | P a g e
It is here posited that the Mitrou approach would do justice to rural regional material that comes from sites such as that featured in the case study of Kastraki. It is widely acknowledged that Middle Helladic decorative elements in pottery are limited and pot shape development during this period is slow even in large urban areas. Beyond that it must be accounted for that in different regions, adaptations will progress at different rates128. When the material which is present in the next chapter is considered, not only is a full understanding of the variety of Middle Helladic culture necessary, but it is essential that the reader is aware of the regionalism and idiosyncrasy that is associated with such a rural site. Finally, as advocated from the initial stages of this study, it is important to bear in mind the potential contribution that small scale, agrarian settlements can make to studying the wider narrative of Greek prehistory; despite what may appear ‘poor quality’ material evidence. If this ‘poor quality’ material can be allowed the potential to expand in the future as a concept, as the material now known as Burnished ware did, a more open minded approach could be applied to material from rural sites and subsequently a more in depth comprehension of the peripheral regions may be possible.
128 Lindblom (2011), 89.
27 | P a g e
Chapter Three
A Thessalian Study: Researching Kastraki
Figure 5: The terrain of Kastraki 2000/48 (Source Jitte Waagen)
Over the course of two weeks spent in the Halos Project storage depot in Almiros in January 2016, an examination of the 2012 survey material from the hilltop site of Kastraki was carried out. The next two chapters and the material presented in the appendix ((i) catalogue, (ii) illustrations and (iii) photographs) are the findings of that study season and research on the region that was carried out as a result. The aim of this chapter is to gather and summarise all research relevant to the Kastraki material specifically, before placing it in the wider context of Middle Helladic Thessaly.
The Site Kastraki fits fairly well (despite a lack of extensive excavation campaigns) to Rutter’s description of the kind of material needed for ‘reconceptualising the type-site’ - it is primarily a Middle Helladic site
28 | P a g e which survives into the Late Helladic but is then abandoned after a brief occupation period129. The magoula is not particularly large, and the material collected from the site so far is not yet extensive which allows a focused analysis. It also fits the character of a Jeremy Rutter’s small scale rural site, which removes the complications which would subsequently arise from a large percentage of imports at a large urban centre130. As if often the case with remote and rural ancient Greek sites, it is referred to by several toponyms, which often makes establishing the facts in the literature a considerable challenge. The following local names have also been used for the site, which should be kept in mind when reading any secondary literature: Kastrouli and Nea Xenias. During the survey campaigns of 2012 in which the material was gathered, this site was allotted the label code: (2000/48). The small survey collection which is presented in the appendix consists mostly of pottery which despite a lack of preservation or particularly diagnostic features, remains dateable. Decorated pottery does not make up a large part of the collection. The lack of painted or decorated ceramics may not accurately represent the quality of material, as it could also reflect the extent of wearing and erosion at the hilltop site131. The shape repertoire is also (as is typical of the period) limited. However, the small range of shapes can allow an estimation of basic functions which contributes to the general characterisation of the site. Overall, the material is challenging to study, but can offer information which can be considered against material from nearby sites.
Soil Analysis Detailed analysis has been carried on the soil type in the area Kastraki is situated in by Floras & Sgouras132. Generally, the region features clayey soil. For material which is to a degree undiagnostic and challenging to date, fabric analysis becomes important. To have an in-depth understanding of the fabric is indispensable when other types of evidence or support is lacking, particularly for locally produced material. For example, when the soil sources endure through several occupation periods, changes can be observed in firing and tempering processes. Whilst the catalogue descriptions feature only macroscopic observations, it is hope that they will provide a springboard for further microscopic and petrographic evidence- the beginnings of a database of material for this region.
Sand Silt Clay133 % 23-25 18-22 55-57
It features vertisol clay which is highly expansive and during hot seasons forms deep fissures, and when moistened experiences self-mixing from continuous shrinking and swelling134. It is a marly soil which is moderately alkaline and has a high content of calcium carbonate. Generally, it has a low organic matter content. The PH averages between 8.0-8.1. It has an inherent soil characteristic where it has a high capacity to hold exchangeable cations (CEC)135. This means it is well equipped to maintain essential nutrients, and defends against soil acidification.
129 Rutter (2007), 37. 130 Ibid. 131 Rutter (2007), 38. 132 Reinders (2004), chapter 2. 133 Data from Floras & Sgouras (chapter 2), in: Reinders (2004), presented in graphs created by the author. 134http://web.archive.org/web/20030828181022/http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/orders/vertisols.html 135 A cation is an ion with fewer electrons than protons, giving it a positive charge.
29 | P a g e
Element Low Low-Med Medium Med-High High Very High Phosphorus x Calcium X Sodium x Potassium X Magnesium X
Overall, what can be gathered from these observations is that the area is fertile, and it would have been ideal for habitation, and suitable for farming. Southwest of the site there are water sources which means the area is also well irrigated136.
Excavation Summary137
Figure 6: Finds from the Kastraki excavation (Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 300):
No.3 BE 20420; No.4 BE 20423; No.5 BE 20424; No. 6 BE 13042; No. 7 BE 24117; No. 8 Stone polisher BE 13083. No. 9 Tools of obsidian BE 13063, 13069, 13062, 13059.
136 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 137 All information from the excavation report of Batziou-Efstathiou (2008).
30 | P a g e
The official excavation carried out at the site was published in 2008138. As it was a rescue excavation the campaign from the 1990s was brief and the results preliminary. The material was not immediately published, which has left some details of the publication unclear-including the exact date of excavation. However, the stratigraphic sequence that did emerge was nonetheless observable, and it is evident from the excavation report that the main phase of occupation was concentrated in the Middle Helladic period. The Classical layer consisted mostly of architectural remains of a building. Other late material also appeared further down the slope of the hill due to soil washing. The Late Helladic phase from the excavation did not have any architecture, at least in the area the trenches were placed. This may however change in future excavations, as the areas surrounding the grounds of the monastery and the road have surviving remains. The Middle Helladic III layer, however, had numerous remains of houses and probably was, as the evidence currently stands, the most densely populated phase of occupation. Remains of houses were found featuring two walls and a pebble floor. It was within this complex graves were found- 5 child-sized cist graves exist below the architectural remains. The excavators concluded that these burials were of an earlier date than the MH III architecture, and were also likely to have been placed on top of a previous settlement which is a trend in Bronze Age burial tradition, corroborated by evidence from sites such as Dimini and Mastos139. Whether this is a trend in this area specifically however is not clear and would demand comparative evidence from more small scale rural sites. Two more graves (which appeared in the surveyed area) on the other side of the hill currently seem to be connected to the lower of the two habitation layers, and do not cut into earlier layers. They appear however to be significantly older than the earliest floor on top of them. The stratigraphic sequence of the late Middle Helladic occupation at this site is therefore complex. MHII layers also yielded a significant amount of material evidence and architectural remains, as well as traces of burning - presumably a destruction horizon. The excavation report notes that whilst the layer directly below the MHII layers, which represents the MHI period, has pottery of a significantly ‘poorer’ quality, it in fact has yielded probably the most remarkable architectural evidence in the form of the wall of what appears to be a large apsidal building. Whilst not yet fully excavated, this building is remarkable in that the wall seems to be built in a ‘herring-bone style’, which has caused the excavators to compare it to contemporaneous buildings in other sites of mainland Greece, notably Pefkakia. Ceramic evidence from this layer has drawn comparisons to EHIII material from Lianokladhi and further afield Urfirnis ware (found at Thebes among other places). Understandably, the conclusion was that the most important period of occupation for the site of Kastraki was the Middle Helladic. However, the extent of building remains as early as MHI in the form of this apsidal building, alongside this ceramic material, has caused the excavators to posit that the site initially came into use during the end of the Early Helladic period140. Further excavation is necessary to corroborate this claim.
Halos Survey Project141 Between 2011 and 2013 a survey project was carried out to readdress the inconsistency of the settlement pattern in the Almiros/Sourpi region. Overall, the survey found that multi-period sites are common in the area. The survey also yielded many new sites, as a result of both methodological and environmental factors. Flooding and the impact of river plains has meant there has been significant
138 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008). 139 Lindblom (2011), 77; Buck (1966), 199. 140 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 141 All information from Stissi et al. (forthcoming).
31 | P a g e changes in the landscape since the prehistoric period which resulted in sites being partially obscured142. The aim of this survey project was to reassess the entire region using new experimental survey techniques to revisit and readdress larger sites already established in the campaigns of the 1990s, and also consider the possibility of new sites yet undiscovered. The survey region was extensive, so collecting, processing and storing techniques varied and were decided upon a site by site basis. The survey was carried out in small grids, as the landscape made systematic field-walking difficult. Much pottery was collected during this campaign, brought to the storage depot and processed. When possible, the findings were mapped according to chronology or function. This meant for the first time some tentative conclusions were made regarding the habitation of the region. The main finding was a confirmation of something that was indicated by earlier evidence;- there is a diverse chronological range at most of the sites on the Almiros and Sourpi plains which suggests multi-occupational layers. The fortified hill top of Kastraki was readdressed during this period, to tackle problems with previous scholarship regarding limitations in evidence. While numerous architectural remains were partially documented in the publication of the excavation, it was clear from excavation report that very little ceramic evidence had been collected. This meant few conclusions had been made regarding the daily life of the historical inhabitants of the hill. The aim of the survey was to try and gain an overview of surviving material on the magoula, and what period(s) the material reflects. The survey was carried out on the hill in 2012, in an attempt to further clarify the habitation record of the area. Four sections were covered by this campaign, which are represented by the bags of material labelled 1-4 which are represented as Cat. 1-9 in the catalogue section of Appendix (i)- area 3 is subdivided into a, b, c, d143. Bag 1 was collected just below the monastery excavations. Alongside the ceramic remains, one bag of bones was also collected. Bag 4 was collected on the western tip of the hill. This area did not yield much prehistoric remains. The material from here was mostly classical. Most of the material gathered came from the eastern region, near the modern road. Bags 2, 3a-d were collected from along the side of modern road, an area which also features architectural structures and two graves.
142 Stissi et al. (forthcoming). 143 Please note that these subdivisions were created during the survey, not by the author. See figure 8 on p. 43 for a pictorial representation of the survey area.
32 | P a g e
Chapter Four
Results of 2016 Study Season: Fabric Groups and Parallels
With the cultural context of the Kastraki material now established, a discussion of the 2016 study season findings will now proceed (supplemented by the appendix material- (i) Catalogue, (ii) Illustrations and (iii) Photographs). First general observations will be made regarding the sherds, and then the fabric groupings of the material will be presented. This is followed by a comparative section which discusses the survey material in more detail, alongside the excavated material, and also material from nearby centres. The macroscopic research method was to first group the sherds according to fabric colour, according to the groupings detailed in this chapter. This was done in order to simplify the organisation of a large body of material. The sherds were however kept within in their original ‘find-spot’ groupings (Appendix (i) Cat. 1-9). They then were analysed based on fabric type (Appendix (i) Section B Part I) - ware (coarse/medium/fine), surface treatment, and inclusions. Finally, the sherds were studied according to diagnostic features (Appendix (i) Section B Part II) - shapes and decoration.
Figure 7: Computational Map of the Kastraki Survey area with Area 1 (176), Area 2 (177) and Area 3 (178), NB Area 4 is not pictured but is located West of Area 1 (176), see also figure 8 (Source: Jitte Waagen).
33 | P a g e
General Observations Overall, the material from the survey is mostly handmade. There are only perhaps 15 examples of ‘fine ware’ sherds, and particularly interesting are the 4 examples of what appears to be an imitation Grey Burnished ware. These sherds display an attempt to imitate wheel made techniques with sharp carinations and hard edges (See Phot. 32, Illu. 5 sherd 4.101144; Phot. 6, Illu. 3 sherd 3.100). It is possible that some of these sherds instead of being ‘wheel made’ were perhaps ‘wheel finished’. Though fabric colours vary throughout the assemblages, the source clays appear to be fairly consistent, which is in accordance with previous fabric analysis carried out at this site145. Most of the coarse ware is sturdy and heavy (Phot. 42-43), and what can be described as ‘fine ware’, which in this context must be used as a comparative term to the coarse ware, is also mostly of a solid make (Phot. 15, Phot. 2-3, Illu. 5 sherd 38-39.). It must be used as a comparative term because Kastraki’s ‘fine ware’ is by no means particularly fine, and while there are wheel marks evident on some of the sherds, they are quite roughly rendered- again perhaps ‘wheel finished’ rather than wheel made. Decoration is rare, and when it does occur it is not very detailed. There are a lot of tile fragments present in many of the groups. The tile would presumably also have been made locally, as it would be expensive to transport. It is interesting that the tiles found are of the same fabric as most of the pottery, because they are obviously of a classical date or later (Area 3b, Cat. 5). Overall, the impression is given of practical household wares, suitable for daily tasks of cooking and housekeeping.
Macroscopic fabric analysis Following are the preliminary fabric groupings which emerged as a result of the 2016 study season. They have been established on the basis of macroscopic observations of the 2012 survey material which can be seen in the illustrations and catalogue which comprises the appendix section of this paper. It is hoped however, that they will be used in future microscopic studies to aid the identification of more precise fabric groupings for the site146. It would also be useful to maintain the groupings during future excavations to see if they hold up as accurate and applicable, and to allow room for expansion on these preliminary descriptions. The 5 fabric groups will be summarised147, with a discussion of the specific material used to determine the groups and how the sherds fit into these divisions.
Fabric Groups
KKX MH 1 Phot. 10 Buff- Light Orange
Fabric: Fine Hard-fired. Powdery fabric.
144 Please note that individual sherd numbering applies to depot storage listing and was not created by the author, individual sherds mentioned in this text can be found according to phot. number or illu. number. This depot numbers are used to further indicate specific sherds within the illustrations. 145 Stissi, V.V. (2016), personal correspondence. 146 Hale (2016), 246. 147 Code: Kastraki Kato Xenias Middle Helladic (KKX MH) combined with fabric range 1-5 based on surface colour, fabric and inclusions.
34 | P a g e
Little to no inclusions. When inclusions present: -micaceous -calcareous
Shapes: Few sherds of this material diagnostic in shape. Mostly small body sherds.
Breaks: Smooth
KKX MH 2 Phot. 9 Orange
Fabric: Medium-fine Ranges from pale orange to reddish orange. Hard fired and mostly smooth material. Little to no inclusions. When inclusions are present: -micaceous -small white stones
Material tends to be thicker than KKX MH 1. Some decoration- washed/painted.
Shapes: Again do not appear very diagnostic. However, gives the impression use in basic domestic ware.
Breaks: Smooth Some examples of a reddish orange material with a grey core.
KKX MH 3 Phot. 34 Coarse Orange
Fabric: Coarse Rough material. Many inclusions. Regularly dispersed. When inclusions are present: -calcareous (many; small to medium in size) -light coloured stones (moderate amount; small in size) -voids (few; small in size and shallow)
Shapes: Appears to be used in a domestic/storage function.
Breaks: Hackled breaks Left coarse on the surface (not smoothed), sometimes grey core.
35 | P a g e
KKX MH 4 Phot. 24; Phot. 42-43 Coarse Red
Fabric: Coarse Rough material. Typically smoothed/scraped. Moderate amount of inclusions. When inclusions are present: -calcareous (few; small) -small stones (moderate amount; large-medium) -voids (few; moderate size)
*inclusions not always evenly dispersed. The small stones are often isolated occurrences. Some examples of a schist like material.
Red wash decoration common in this fabric.
Shapes: The coarse, rough material alongside the utilitarian appearance and apparent lack of regard for aesthetics combined with the fact that the vessels often featured burning would suggest that objects in this fabric were likely used as cook ware.
Breaks: Crumbly material causing hackled breaks.
KKX MH 5 Phot. 8; Phot. 28 Grey
Fabric: Fine Hard fired. Ranges from dark blue-grey to a light whitish grey. Surface has a powdery consistency. No inclusions
Shapes: Fine ware, presumably used in ‘elite’ tableware.
Breaks: Smooth breaks.
Detailed Discussion and Parallels Firstly, the most obvious conclusion that can be drawn is the overall domestic character of the material. It appears to be a utilitarian collection of general household vessels that do not appear to indicate any other special function for the site. The coarse wares tend to appear in rough orange KKX MH 3 and reddish fabrics KKX MH 4 with many inclusions (Phot. 34, Illu. 1 sherd 4.100 and Phot. 42-43). Overall these coarse ware sherds are similar in composition, but, there are distinct differences in surface treatment. The examples in rough red fabric show a real attempt to ‘smooth’ the surface through burnishing. The reddish examples also are the sherds that show traces of burning, almost exclusively. Therefore, it could be
36 | P a g e tentatively posited that the heavy reddish coarse ware could have been the common choice for cooking ware, supported by the larger stoney inclusions which would be useful for high temperatures, whilst the orange coarse ware, particularly the KKX MH 2 examples, might have been a logical choice for storage and general domestic use. These jars in large grained fabric (Phot. 9) is a trend which was noted previously from Mastos in the Argolid148. KKX MH 4 appears to have some repeated patterns in the choice of shapes. The vessels on the whole are of a medium, chunky size and are often very flat bottomed in shape (Phot. 24). Large jars are a frequent occurrence, as are open vessels with a fan shaped projecting rim (Illu. 5 sherd 2.17). As the evidence stands, the red coarse ware sometimes features a red wash coverage (Phot. 42-43), which never appears on the orange examples. This however may be a result of the collection process rather than a reflection of the evidence itself. It is interesting to note the repeated occurrence of sherds of red and orange fabrics which are grey on one side. This could be a result of misfiring, or a deliberate firing technique, however several examples show an even coverage of the grey fabric section, which could indicate the material was used in cooking. Flat bottom jars/bowls are the predominate shape throughout the assemblages. Many of these may possibly represent ‘squat bellied jars’ which are a common shape in the Middle Helladic found also at Lerna149. KKX MH 5 (Phot. 32, Illu. 5 sherd 4.101) has some distinct decorative patterns such as sharp corners, carinations, and incised ‘ribbing’ decoration. As it is much more precisely rendered than the other material, it presents the most likely choice for ‘fine-ware’. It is therefore also important to note the scarcity of this material.
Most, if not all of the material found in the survey is handmade ware, and those which are more finely rendered such as KKX MH 5 could as easily be wheel finished as wheel made. If this is the case, the attempt to make the material appear wheel made is an intriguing aspect of the material. Though further investigation will be needed to test this specific theory, it appears that the manufacturing process here is of a similar level to what Choleva has observed at Lerna150. Lindblom noted a similar level of manufacturing taking place at Mastos, which also featured an absence of Matt-Painted ware151. Whilst the lack of painted ceramics at Kastraki may be a result of the limitations in the excavation record and survey material it would be interesting to if this impression of the material changes with future research. In terms of the small amount of decoration that can be seen in the material, it is remarkable that two features noted- rope moulded handles and finger impressed indents, are also features which presented themselves in the MHIII layer of the rescue excavation. Alongside the flat bottomed jars (Phot. 42-43), grey core and ‘Minyanesque’ burnished ware material, other features which arise from the survey material include the undecorated belly handled pots and pottery that appears with an everted ‘splayed’ rim type (Phot. 25-26, Illu. 1 sherd 1.9; Illu. 5 sherd 2.17). All of these features have been noted from nearby sites Pefkakia and Dimini152, however, it will take a much better excavated stratigraphic sequence to claim any direct connection. Finally, there is nothing in the survey material that would definitively indicate a Late Helladic date. A notable absence of material which was found in the Late Helladic layers from the excavations, such as pedestal foots, goblets or kraters, may not nullify the possibility of a later date, but leaves the current interpretation of a MHIII dating better supported153.
148 Lindblom (2011), 84. 149 Caskey & Blackburn (1997), 22 150 Choleva (2012), 359. 151 Lindblom (2011), 81. 152 Hourmouziadis (1979); Maran (1992). 153 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292.
37 | P a g e
Parallels The best quality ceramic evidence from the rescue excavation emerged from what appeared to be the later phases of the Middle Helladic period, featuring the burial material (see fig. 6). The occupational sequence for this period was compact and had a coherent body of material. The exact dating of these burials, however, remains unclear. The excavators have posited there is a possibility then that this phase may represent a transitional phase into the Late Helladic based on the currently equivocal nature of the evidence. Whilst Batziou-Efstathiou explicitly states that they are not to be considered intramural burials because they do not appear to be contemporaneous with the architectural remains “but placed upon the ruins of earlier houses”154, it is left ambiguous where in the sequence they then fit. All that is made clear is that they were discovered “under the pebble floor”155. A sharper chronological sequence for the late stages Middle Helladic at this site is then necessary to further contextualise these remains. However, the child remains that do survive (some have been destroyed) appear in a contracted position and are placed with the heads generally to the east/northeast and they were found with grave gifts. Burial offerings include a bronze spiral, a bone ring and a white bead. Sherds of rope decorated pithoi are mentioned with these offerings, as are vessels with fingerprints surviving under the rims. These are both features which were noted in the survey material, which means the dating of the survey material may have implications for the dating of these burials. Comparisons can also be seen with material from nearby sites of Pefkakia and Volos, particularly those sherds featuring Matt- painted decoration. However, the distinction between the MHIII material and that from the Late Helladic period is left unclear, as is often the case with material from these periods. Other material that is left in this ‘dual’ transitional phase between MHIII and LHI includes Yellow and Grey Burnished ware, stemmed goblets and undecorated pottery. Finally, in this level there is a direct parallel to the material of Middle Helladic phase 6 at Pefkakia, contemporaneous with Lerna VC, which presents in the form of coarse pithoi and amphorae, decorated in what is referred to as “Polychrome Mainland Type”156. There are some features of the survey material which become interesting when compared not only to the rescue excavation finds, but also to material which from other sites in the region. Particularly notable are parallels to Pefkakia and Dimini. Firstly, there are mentions of many sherds of coarse red material, which makes up a considerable percentage of the assemblage. However, it also mentions this material with a grey core, something that also appears in almost every bag collected from the survey. Other features which are noted in both the excavated material and the survey collection are vessels with extremely flat bottoms, undecorated belly handled pots and pottery that appears Minyanesque with sharp carinations and a ‘splayed’ rim type. Finally, whilst the distinction between the end of the Middle and the Late Helladic is still hazy, most of the pottery found from the LH consisted of pouring vessels, hydrias and kraters. Material of this nature is not evident in the survey assemblage. The Late Helladic pottery from the first excavations consisted of both decorated and undecorated pottery, with patterns in the decorated ware more detailed than anything that can be seen from the survey157. Whilst obviously an excavation campaign will be necessary to confirm comparisons, the evidence as it stands from the survey does not appear to be similar enough to claim a direct connection to Late Helladic material.
154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. 156 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 293. 157 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292.
38 | P a g e
Conclusion
The material from the 2012 survey is not a diagnostic assemblage and will require further excavation and analysis to reach firstly a more precise dating of the material, and secondly a clearer picture of the nature of the settlement it represents. The above discussion shows, however, that it is possible to glean some vital information from the material as it stands. It is here posited that the material from the 2012 survey represents primarily a MHIII phase from the site, and reflects the transitional period from the end of the Middle to the beginning of the Late Helladic. While the assemblage contains some material which possibly could be of a Late Helladic date (Phot. 8, Phot. 28) there is no definitive evidence of the LH. It does feature however many Middle Helladic elements which are also attested in the excavation material such as the characteristic splayed rims (Phot. 1, Illu. 3 sherd 3.18; Illu. 5 sherd 2.17), flat bottomed bowls and jars with a notable dominance of red coarse ware (Phot. 24, Phot. 42-43), alongside some material possibly surviving from MHI-II such as the squat belly handled jars (Phot. 36) and small bowls (Phot. 2-3, Illu. 5 sherd 38-39). Research such as that carried out at Pefkakia has shown that settlements in Thessaly often held on to traditions and preferences through transitional periods such as MH into LH, whilst simultaneously maintaining an innovative and developing technological tradition158. A lesson is here taken from the research carried out by Lindblom at Mastos in the Argolid, in which he admits much of the material placed in the LHI period for the site could easily belong in an earlier period, and in fact probably demarks an important phase of prehistoric cultural development159. Additionally, the domestic character of the material from Kastraki survey, coupled with the domestic architecture from the rescue excavation suggests that people were living on the magoula during the Middle Helladic period. This shows that a reassessment of the ‘village model’ settlement pattern that Buck proposed for MH Thessaly is in order, and that evidence from small-scale rural sites such as Kastraki are necessary to provide a more complete picture160. Furthermore, the material from Kastraki does not support the early theory of a cultural decline followed by the revival of the Mycenaean period. The Middle Helladic III phase from the rescue excavation may produce the most prolific material culture, but further research must be carried out on the apsidal structure of the MHI phase which currently represents the most significant architectural structure. It is likely the habitation narrative of this site will further complicate, before it elucidates on the matter. Occupying the thoroughfare between southern Greece, Macedonia, and the Aegean islands, it is entirely possible that the Middle Helladic Thessalians viewed themselves as a culturally distinct population, not merely a ‘marginal community’ to powers such as Attica or Laconia, but a locus of habitation in their own right.
The concluding statements from the Mesoelladika Conference (2006) on the current standing of research on Middle Helladic Greece are thus:
“a culture that is distinctly Middle Helladic, yet remains one without a strong center. In this regard the mosaic of regional and local forms that come into view is especially tantalizing as a picture of what we know was to come in the Late Bronze Age. Middle Helladic Greece is not merely an appendage of Early Helladic nor only a prelude to the Mycenaeans. It was a vigorous and dynamic
158 Batziou-Efstathiou (2012). 159 Lindblom (2011), 84-90. 160 Buck (1966), 197.
39 | P a g e interregional cultural phenomenon that established social and economic relations in a fashion that was different from the small centralized polities of the Early Bronze Age. At a time when new connections were forged and older ones re-established, it was a new beginning, but hardly the one of stagnant cultural practices and an immobilized and impoverished population that most of us have been taught.”161
Therefore, Thessaly should no longer be viewed as culturally depleted region during the Middle Helladic period. Whilst geographically outside the locus of Bronze Age urban activity in Greece, the above research from Kastraki and its surrounding regions contributes to the ever growing impression a vividly active, progressive and perhaps most importantly, independent culture during this time. The apparent frugality of the wares represented in the survey material from Kastraki could be seen as functioning on a very pragmatic and utilitarian level designed to fulfil a specific need, and perhaps to serve a society with a sure concept of what such needs were and how to satisfy them. As research establishing a Middle Helladic pottery sequence progresses with work such Choleva’s at Lerna162, the concept of ‘wheel-finished’ pottery further obscures what can be considered ‘fine-ware’ and ‘coarse- ware’. Several sherds from the Kastraki survey are possibly ‘wheel-finished’ and as understanding of regional and indeed local ceramic production in Middle Helladic Thessaly increases, sites such as Kastraki may not be considered quite so ‘frugal’ after all. A critical aspect of Hale’s Mitrou publication is that whilst his material generally refines the chronological sequence of Middle Helladic pottery and interregional interactions during this time, he recognises the “site-specific factors” associated with Mitrou, a coastal site163. Similarly, recognising the site-specific aspects that affect small, rural sites is integral to the correct interpretation of their remains. His anticipation for a comparatively stratified MH site for further research is understandable, as the Middle Helladic period is in need of chronological clarification164. However, the above study shows that the picture of Middle Helladic culture that Hale eagerly awaits could be an incomplete one- one that demands information from a wider scope of regional, rural and small scale sites alongside large sites to facilitate its completion. If it is possible to draw some of the focus away from some of the large urban centres, and begin to address the multitude of small scale sites in the hinterlands, the network of communication between these centres and the spread of technology through them may become better understood. The potential for this kind of research is twofold. Firstly, it does justice to the evidence at hand, and subsequently provides the opportunity to do justice to the society that it represents, and reassess the dismissal of rural regions as culturally poor. Secondly, it provides scope for a new perspective on the Middle Helladic period generally on the mainland. Peripheral studies not only provide in-depth analysis of a specific region but give a new insight into the overall historical narrative by fleshing out the story of what was going on outside the cultural and political centres, and how these relationships affected the development of both these kinds of societies.
Finally, a word on the implication of the now recognised regionalism of ceramic evidence in Middle Helladic Thessaly touched upon in the opening chapter of this paper. The result of this regionalism is a complex Middle Bronze Age ceramic sequence which must first be studied as a phenomenon within the region of Thessaly, and with regard to local idiosyncrasies, before placing the material into the wider Greek narrative. This ceramic sequence will continue to clarify as better stratified excavations are published, and understanding of local production and consumption improves. The
161 Philippa-Touchais et al. (2008), 1039. 162 Choleva (2012), 359. 163 Hale (2016), 291. 164 Ibid.
40 | P a g e diversity of evidence beyond the confines of historical fine wares such as “Minyan/Fine Burnished” and “Lustrous Decorated” is a continuously complicating state of affairs. The question now, however, is the cause of this regionalism, and the cultural implications of it. Was it simply a regional adherence to tradition, a stubborn and conscious decision to maintain long- practiced manufacturing techniques? Or was it as previously thought, an impact of the geographically ‘peripheral’ location of Thessaly, an isolation from mainstream trends that left the material appearing ‘second-rate’? How would either of these explanations then relate to the often abrupt appearance of Mycenaean culture in the Late Helladic period? A third option is to consider a combination of both explanations, considering old theories alongside modern research. Rutter suggests a need to readdress our concept of the term ‘colonisation’165. Perhaps the geographically strategic location of Thessaly is important after all. Whilst the ‘Coming of the Greeks’ is a theory no longer supported166, it could be that the exposure to numerous cultural influences resulted in a unique blend of traditions in this region, a cultural adaption functioning on a regional and ‘site- specific’ level. Application of diffusionist theory and concentrated excavation outside urban centres as advocated throughout this paper will help to test this hypothesis in the future. The Middle Helladic problem may not be one yet solved, but the potential for future discoveries is an intriguing and exciting prospect.
165 Rutter (2007), 43. 166 Zerner (1993); Sarri (2010).
41 | P a g e
Appendix
The appendix consists of a catalogue of the 2012 survey material from Kastraki, complete with photographs (Section A) grouped by find spot (Cat. 1-9) and descriptions (Section B), illustrations of diagnostic sherds (Illu. 1-5), and photographs of diagnostic sherds (Phot. 1-43). Please note individual sherd numbers are depot storage numbers and not created for this thesis.
Catalogue (Cat. 1-9)
Figure 8: Basic hand drawn map outlining the area surveyed, indicating areas 1-4 (Authors own, see also Figure 7 for a computational rendering of the survey area).
Catalogue groupings 1-9 correspond to Areas 1-4 respectively, as 3 features subdivision a-d167. Section A comprises of visual description (photographs) of the material collected from areas 1-4 (Cat.1-9).
Section B comprises of a verbal description of the material collected from areas 1-4. The colours identified in the fabric from the Kastraki survey range from: buff - orange – red – grey. These fabric colours have been used to further subdivide the material within the find-spot groups, in order to simplify the classification process. However, it is recognised that fabric groupings based on colour alone is problematic, because it cannot be established currently whether such colour is a result of soil type, firing technique, or both. Therefore, the following catalogue describes the survey assemblages first (Part I) from the areas in which they were gathered (see Figure 8) as unbiasedly as possible to create a record of the material
167 Cat. 1 - Area 1; Cat. 2 - Area 2; Cat. 3 - Area 3; Cat. 4 - Area 3a; Cat. 5 - Area 3b; Cat. 6 - Area 3c; Cat. 7 - Area 3d; Cat. 8 - Area 4; Cat. 9 - Administrative Error (see p54-55).
42 | P a g e without any prior assumptions. It features a more in-depth discussion of specific sherds, and hones in on particularly diagnostic examples photographed or illustrated in Appendix sections (ii) and (iii). Following this, the groups will be examined a second time (Part II), making observations on shapes, decoration and individual features that emerged as a result of such close analysis. This approach is based on Hales’ recent research method at Mitrou for the ceramic sequence of the Middle Helladic period168.
Section A Photographs of Find-Spot Grouping from Areas 1-4 (Cat. 1-9).
Cat. 1 : HAL '12 2000/48 Area 1
168 Hale (2016), 243.
43 | P a g e
Cat. 2: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 2
Cat. 3: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 3
44 | P a g e
Cat. 4: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 3a
Cat. 5: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 3b
45 | P a g e
Cat. 6: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 3c
46 | P a g e
Cat. 7: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 3d
Cat. 8: HAL '12 2000/48 Area 4
47 | P a g e
Cat. 9: HAL '12 2000/48 "Drawn and Photographed in January 2014”.
48 | P a g e
Section B Catalogue Part I:
Groupings by Find-Spot (Areas 1-4)
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 1) Cat. 1
This assemblage contains a significant amount of material evidence- both tiles and sherds.
Grey (15) Ranges in colour from light to almost black, and in material from hard fired blue-grey fabric to rough and often burned dark fabric (greyish black).
2 sherds potentially ‘Minyanesque’ Burnished ware (blue-grey examples). 2 very light coloured hard fired sherds with sharp carinations.
Coarse Red/Brown (c.19) Overall gives the appearance of cookware. Some smoothed (burnished?), many was traces of burning. Large amounts of inclusions of small stones/grit.
Orange (c.16) The fabric/shape range here is very varied. Some fine ware which is smoothed and features few inclusions can be identified, whilst at the other extreme there is thick and rough sherds of a shape that appears to be a wide lekanis-style vessel.
Buff Range from a light whitish colour to a darker orange buff. Generally, as is typical of this material, this ware tends to be finer. It features more smoothed material, some very smooth with no inclusions. One particularly diagnostic sherd was drawn and photographed (See Phot. 25-26, Illu. 1 sherd 1.9) with a fan shaped flaring lip, and featuring some black slipped linear decoration rendered roughly.
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 2) Cat. 2
This assemblage features c. 32 sherds. Generally medium/coarse ware. Ranges from orange to red/brown fabric. Mostly plain unpainted sherds. Few diagnostic examples- an estimate of 6 handles, 3 bases and 4 rims.
Miscellaneous red/brown
49 | P a g e
Some grey on one side. They are coarse ware but only of a medium roughness compared to some of their orange counterparts. Inclusions featured tend to be mostly small white (calcareous) temper. 2 of the sherds are smooth- One burnished fine rim, one with slightly incised lines on the interior.
Orange (2) 1 body sherd with the beginnings of a handle remaining. Inclusions featured are a medium amount of slightly micaceous and few tiny white (calcareous) stones. 1 handle fragment, with adjoining lip sherd. Incised linear decoration, with a trace of a black slipped band on the rim (Phot. 11-12, Illu. 4 sherd 2.29).
Grey/brown (5) One handle with impressed finger line. Little to no white inclusions. 2 sherds which are possibly examples of ‘Minyanesque’ Burnished ware, very grey and hard. Some slight incised lines/ridges. 2 which are smoothed or scraped.
Orange to red (19) Most of the sherds which make up this assemblage are undiagnostic medium to coarse wares, which range in colour from light orange, different shades of red, to brownish red rough surfaced ware. The coarser wares feature inclusions, including some large black stones.
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 3) Cat. 3
This group consists of mostly unpainted medium ware sherds. The assemblage is very undiagnostic. Therefore, a general summary will be provided rather than an in-depth description of individual sherds. One sherd features traces of black slip, whilst most are undecorated. There are around 8 base sherds, c. 10 rim sherds and 8 examples of what can be described as handles of vessels. From this evidence it can be concluded that the group features both closed and open shapes.
(26+ sherds) The material features a varied range of colours and consistencies, presumably as a result of both soil type and firing techniques. This ranges from: Medium fabric orange sherds Medium-fine buff sherds Fine grey sherd Coarse-medium reddish brown sherds Coarse red/brown sherds
The group also featured some sherds affected by burning. One particularly interesting fragment came in the form of a mended carinated bowl rim (Phot. 6, Illu. 3 sherd 3.100). The rim was protruding, with a projecting handle, and the remains of what appears to be a casserole dish shaped body. It consists of a fine grey ware- whether this is a regionalised form of Grey Burnished ware requires further investigation.
50 | P a g e
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 3a) Cat. 4
This large assemblage features c. 39 sherds.
This consists mostly of large, unpainted and undiagnostic body sherds of coarse ware (16). Overall the material appears undecorated, although there are two sherds which appear to have traces of black slip, and a few examples of basic incised linear decoration.
The material is majority KKX MH4. Within this fabric grouping the colour ranges from dark orange to red-brown. Much of the material features large grainy inclusions. There is also a small amount of KKX MH 1 medium buff ware (6).
One flattened ring base appears to have belonged to a large open bowl. There are no handles present, apart from one sherd which may be a flared lug handle or may be a worn everted rim (Phot. 39).
A significant amount of this material has experienced burning which suggests it could have been used as cookware.
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 3b) Cat. 5
This group consists mostly of a large assemblage of tiles. They are of varying materials, and also of shapes, and the material does not seem to differ wildly from the pottery, which is interesting to note since obviously the tiles are much later in date (presumably Classical period onwards).
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 3c) Cat. 6
This group features around 19 sherds, and also contains some tile fragments169.
Fine buff sherd (1) Rim fragment with an out turned lip, hard fired with no visible inclusions.
Orange buff sherds (3) 1 handle fragment med/fine, no visible inclusions 1 base fragment. Flat open bowl. Rough surface fabric with micaceous and tiny white inclusions (calcium?). 1 body sherd. No visible inclusions, but small voids.
Orange (6) 1 flattened ring base. Rough/coarse surface. Small white (calcareous) inclusions
169 Tile fragments are noted but not discussed here, as of yet no further analysis has been carried out on the tiles.
51 | P a g e
5 body sherds. Different fabrics. One with a grey core. Some featuring inclusions, micaceous and small stones/calcareous.
Coarse Orange (4) Chunky material, dark reddish orange. 4 sherds in nearly identical fabrics. Rough surface, with small white (calcareous) inclusions. 2 sherds with micaceous inclusions.
Red (2) One smoothed/scraped example with small-medium white (calcareous inclusions). One interesting sherd that was very hard and smoothed on one side, whilst the other side was a greyish material featuring some kind of pinkish wash? With no inclusions.
Coarse red (1) Features a grey/black core. Inclusions are medium-large, both calcareous and small stones in white and brown. Also some small black inclusions.
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 3d) Cat. 7
5/6 sherds. 3 tile fragments.
Buff (1) Medium to fine body sherd. Fairly smoothed but the surface material is slightly rough, featuring few inclusions, and some micaceous elements.
Red/Grey (1) Medium-coarse body sherd, inclusions featuring: medium-large amounts of small stones/grit, many small white inclusions. This sherd is difficult to classify without microscopic analysis as it features a reddish interior and a grey exterior.
Orange/Red (1) Medium body sherd with a grey core and few white calcareous inclusions and small stones/grit.
Light Orange (1) Medium neck/rim sherd. Handmade- 2 sections which were pressed together, join is visible in the material. Grey core. Inclusions include some slightly micaceous, some voids, few small/medium white inclusions (calcareous), few small stones/grit. Smoothed/scraped.
Orange (1) Very flat sherd, with few medium/large reddish inclusions, and few small white inclusions (calcareous). Possible tile.
52 | P a g e
Hal ’12 2000/48 (Area 4) Cat. 8
This assemblage has much intrusive material from other periods such as 1 animal figurine, 1 mould/model, some tiles, some sherds evidently from later periods e.g. Geometric, Classical.
Two sherds are of dubious dating; could be prehistoric but certainly could be later. One amphora(?) rim, one uneven ‘T-shaped’ rim, with a black slipped interior (this one is almost certainly later).
Inclusions common in this grouping are fabrics with micaceous elements and rough surfaces.
Grey (7) The occurrence of much more grey ware is an interesting observation for this assemblage.
Coarse Red (5) Nearly all of these examples feature burning. Many medium-large inclusions in white calcareous material, and grey/black/brown small stones/grit.
Coarse light red (4) Similar to above but distinctly lighter in colour.
Orange (5) Large white inclusions are common for this material. Some examples are very chalky in texture. 2-3 handle fragments.
Light orange-buff red (12) 3 handles, 5 rims, 1 base and 3 body sherds. Other notes: One pithos sherd featuring plastic ‘rope’ decoration (Phot. 34, Illu. 1 sherd 4.100). One rim sherd of this typical fan shaped flaring lip type.
Undiagnostic body sherds-orange/red grey/brown (11) One body sherd in ambiguous red/grey fabric (1).
Hal ’12 2000/48 “Drawn and Photographed in January 2014” Cat. 9
This group is a problematic one to the research approach to this paper. It resulted due to an administrative error. Because this material has not previously been studied in full, the sherds in this group had been removed from their original context for analysis and were not replaced into their specific grouping. However, they still can be considered within the context of the survey area and therefore the information currently remaining from these sherds will be summarised, in the hope
53 | P a g e that it can be used in combination with relative material, or even hopefully be returned to its appropriate context in the future.
Firstly, the material was selected and removed from its survey assemblage because it was thought to date from the Late Bronze Age/Mycenaean period. For this reason, during a 2014 study season they were drawn and photographed.
The 6 sherds were fine/fine-medium ware. The colour range was limited to a buff/buff-orange.
Some sherds feature small micaceous inclusions. Some sherds are slipped- one red fabric sherd appears in fact to be buff slipped.
There are 2-3 rim sherds present. There are 2-3 body sherds present. There is 1 spout fragment.
54 | P a g e
Catalogue Part II: Vessel Shapes and Feature Patterns
At this point, it is important to also establish the repertoire of shapes that are emerging from the evidence. Whilst the shape range is not large, nor is it easy to interpret considering the preservation standard, it is nonetheless necessary to identify general categories that do appear most frequently for future reference. The shapes, size and volume are important to consider alongside the fabric type, before attempting to draw any conclusion regarding the characteristics of the site based on ceramic evidence.
Middle Helladic pottery from Lerna was the first to provide a sequence of ceramic development for the period. Common shapes from the fourth ‘transitional’ phase of this included the globular bowls typically featured everted rims which in this transitional period developed into shorter more horizontal lips with the lower body becoming wider and flatter as the period progresses, and shoulders become straighter170. These evolutions are interesting to note as the material is examined- shoulders, protruding rims and the increasing diameter of the bases appear significant (see Phot. 20, Illu. 2 sherd 1.8/Phot. 1, Illu. 3 sherd 3.18 and Phot. 2-3, Illu. 5 sherd 38-39 respectively).
Area 1 Cat. 1
The range of wares and shapes in this group is significant.
Some very rough material coarse ware features some burning traces which may suggest it was used as cookware. There are also examples of sherds of the flat bottomed bowls that appear frequently, which also could represent jars attested by the occurrences of handles. One pointed lug handle is of the form that would suit a large open vessel. Flaring fan rims are also a component of this assemblage.
Shape VS Fabric Groupings Again the pattern appears to be that the finer ware is in buff and some grey fabrics. Some occurrences of small ring base sherds could represent small bowls.
One straight sided sherd is interesting because it features a rectangular plastic decoration, which does not have any parallels in the evidence as the situation stands. The coarse ware with a red wash is another trend which features in this assemblage.
Area 2 Cat. 2
More of a diverse range of shapes within this assemblage.
170 Lindblom (2011), 89.
55 | P a g e
Some very coarse and often quite large vessels which give the appearance of cookware or storage pots. Some enduring features from other assemblages- for example the flaring rims despite the size of the vessel, and the common occurrence of the flat bottomed bowl. Many handle sherds can be noted.
One open bowl features a ring base, with decoration rendered in the form of a red slip line where the ring base meets the bottom of the bowl. In this assemblage instances of the red wash orange material can be observed.
Shapes Vs Fabric Groupings: Once again a dominance of rough, coarse orange material. One large handle ‘nub’ may be a lug handle.
Area 3 Cat. 3
Medium to fine open bowls One rim potentially amphora (?) or simply large jar. Fan/conical shaped lip (Phot. 1, Illu. 3 sherd 3.18).
Projecting lips seem common in the rim sherds – one overhanging rim. Many straight sided vessels.
Shapes Vs Fabric Groupings Grey ware is very fine and hard fired. It therefore features ‘sharp’ shapes, with such features as carinations, and distinctly everted lips.
Orange fabric is coarse in this case (KKX MH 3), and the shapes are therefore of a chunkier type. This is supported by thick, durable handle sherd.
Contrasting to this is the buff material which features thinner flat handles (KKX MH 1).
Area 3a Cat. 4
Whilst this assemblage is quite large, it does not feature very many diagnostic sherds. There is much of what would simply be described as ‘coarse ware’. Again it is representative of what appears repeatedly through the samples; large pieces of red washed coarse ware, rims with flaring lips, flat bottomed base fragments and some handles; including another lug handle. Once again the majority of the coarse ware appears in the rough orange material of KKX MH 3. Shapes Vs Fabric Groupings: There are several fragments of what appear to be large squat bellied jars. Some of these feature many inclusions- including the white and small stone examples that are noticed in other evidence. Traces of burning again can be noted here, combined with the numerous inclusions may suggest deliberate manufacturing for cookware. At this point it is probably fair to say this is likely a common shape for the site, the shape appears frequently and seems to make sense in the context of the kind of material emerging from the site and the general characteristics which can be gleaned from this.
56 | P a g e
There is a small amount of KKX MH 5 grey ware (perhaps only 2 sherds). The material is fine-medium and again appears to be hard fired.
One ring base sherd has an interesting square shaped ring with doesn’t appear to have other parallels in the evidence.
Area 3b Cat. 5
This assemblage features only a group of tiles. The tiles vary in shapes and sizes, ranging from shades of grey, red and orange. There doesn’t appear to be a huge discrepancy between the soil used for tiles, and the soil used for pottery- however this observation would have to be tested by petrographic analysis. The shape range varies from curved tiles to very flat examples.
Area 3c Cat. 6
Very little diagnostic sherds in this assemblage. It consists mostly of worn body sherds. Open bowls again appear to be common. Some pouring vessels attested by handle sherds.
Shapes Vs Fabric Groupings: Buff coloured flat base sherd of a bowl. Orange medium/fine sherd, small ring base of a bowl. Features a rough surface, i.e. smooth but with many inclusions- small white and light coloured stones.
Flat handle sherd- small cup or jug?
Fine ware rim with projecting overhanging lip. Buff, thin with incised linear decoration.
Coarse ware of a thick heavy kind, mostly of orange fabric, many inclusions (KKX MH 3).
A thick oval handle (Phot. 16) which is comparable to the similar example in Area 4 Cat. 8. One badly rendered rope handle sherd.
Medium orange clay type of KKX MH2 appears in a Jug/Jar rim sherd with a lip handle featuring incised linear decoration running down the handle.
This assemblage also contains some of the KKX MH5 fine grey ware. This material is once again thinner and harder fired than the other sherds in the group. Interesting to note here is on sherd features a finger impressed indent. This could be seen as decorative, or perhaps simply as a result of the manufacturing process. It would be unfounded at this point to claim any attempt at maker’s marks, however it should be noted in case this phenomenon arises in future studies.
57 | P a g e
Area 3d Cat. 7
5/6 Sherds Mostly undiagnostic body sherds.
Shapes Vs Fabric Groupings: One probable neck sherd or potentially another example of a flaring rim.
One body sherd of the KKX MH 3 type, with a rough surface in an orange fabric.
One sherd showing traces of a red wash.
One fine ware sherd of a buff-light orange colour, showing similarities to KKX MH 1.
One rough coarse medium ware sherd featuring red wash, with a grey core. This sherd has some visible inclusions including calcareous white temper and small stones/grit.
Area 4 Cat. 8
This sherd grouping offers many diagnostic sherds, both in terms of the variety of shapes and the individual characteristic details offered by the evidence.
Generally, the assemblage contains much of the ware previously mentioned as typical for the coarse ware found at the site – KKX MH 3 and KKX MH 4 - coarse orange and red fabrics, with some examples of red washed ware. The flaring lip sherd is another repeated occurrence.
One sherd that immediately stands out is a large pithos fragment which features a rope moulded decoration, which presumably ran around the neck of the vessel (Phot. 34, Illu. 1 sherd 4.100).
Another notable piece is a Burnished Ware rim sherd. It is rendered in a fine to medium grey ware. There are examples of KKX MH 5, with some very hard fired examples.
Several pouring vessels are attested by handle sherds. There is a large oval handle sherd (Phot. 33, Illu. 3 sherd 4.31), which compares to the similar example present in Area 2 Cat. 2. One orange fabric rope handle sherd is present. There is also a lip-handled jug/jar fragment, which also could represent an amphora, though there is not enough evidence to say for sure.
‘Drawn and photographed in Jan 2014’ Cat. 9
58 | P a g e
Evidently this group of sherds has some very diagnostic features- hence they were subject to this selection process which removed them from their original context. It is important to record therefore the details about these sherds that caused them to be deemed important.
One body sherd of a squat jar, with a small upward pointed everted lip. The fabric features a buff slipped reddish clay.
One sherd is potential a spout fragment of a pouring vessel. This oddly shaped sherd is of a hard fired orange clay.
One everted rim sherd is potentially an example of the repeated pattern of fan shaped projecting lips.
Three of the sherds are simple body sherds in a buff clay, presumably selected because of their fabric.
59 | P a g e
Illustrations of Diagnostic Sherds (Illu. 1-5) Please note individual sherd numbers are depot storage numbers.
Illustration 1:
Featuring HAL '12 2000/48 4.100; 1.9.
60 | P a g e
Illustration 2:
Featuring HAL '12 2000/48 2.20; 1.8; 1.60; 1.24; 4.39
61 | P a g e
Illustration 3:
Featuring HAL '12 2000/48 4.99; 4.31; 3.100; 3.18
62 | P a g e
Illustration 4:
Featuring HAL '12 2000/48 3c; 2.29; 1.42
63 | P a g e
Illustration 5:
Featuring HAL ’12 2000/48 4.101; 3.38-39, 2.17
64 | P a g e
Photographs of Diagnostic Sherds Please note individual sherd numbers are depot storage numbers and do not apply to this text.
Photograph 1
65 | P a g e
Photograph 2
Photograph 3
66 | P a g e
Photograph 4
Photograph 5
67 | P a g e
Photograph 6
Photograph 7
68 | P a g e
Photograph 8
Photograph 9
69 | P a g e
Photograph 10
Photograph 11
70 | P a g e
Photograph 12
Photograph 13
71 | P a g e
Photograph 14
Photograph 15
72 | P a g e
Photograph 16
Photograph 17
73 | P a g e
Photograph 18
Photograph 19
74 | P a g e
Photograph 20
Photograph 21
75 | P a g e
Photograph 22
Photograph 23
76 | P a g e
Photograph 24
Photograph 25
77 | P a g e
Photograph 26
Photograph 27
78 | P a g e
Photograph 28
Photograph 29
79 | P a g e
Photograph 30
Photograph 31
80 | P a g e
Photograph 32
Photograph 33
81 | P a g e
Photograph 34
Photograph 35
82 | P a g e
Photograph 36
Photograph 37
83 | P a g e
Photograph 38
Photograph 39
84 | P a g e
Photograph 40
Photograph 41
85 | P a g e
Photograph 42
Photograph 43
86 | P a g e
Bibliography
Andreou, S., Fotiadis, M. and Kotsakis, K. (1996), “Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece”, American Journal of Archaeology 100: 3, 537-597.
Bailey, D. W. (2000), Balkan Prehistory: Exclusion, Incorporation and Identity, London and New York.
Batziou-Efstathiou, A. (2008), Kastraki-A New Bronze Age Settlement in Achaea Phthiotis, Ankara.
Batziou-Efstathiou, A. (2012), “The Mycenaean settlement at Pefkakia in Volos: the Iolcos harbour?”, Mycenaean Seminar.
Betancourt, P. P. (1985), The History of Minoan Pottery, Princeton.
Blegen, C. W. (1921), Korakou: A Prehistoric Settlement Near Corinth, Boston.
Buck, R. J. (1966), “The Middle Helladic Period”, Phoenix 20:3, 193-209.
Caskey, J. L. (1960), "The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid", Hesperia 29:3, 285–303.
Caskey, J. L. and Caskey, E. (1960), “The Earliest Settlements at Eutresis, Supplementary Excavations”, Hesperia 29:2, 126-167.
Caskey, J. L. and Blackburn, E. T. (1997), Lerna in the Argolid: A Short Guide, Athens.
Cavanagh W., J. Crouwel, R.W.V. Catling & G. Shipley (2002), “Continuity and change in a Greek rural landscape”, The Laconia survey. Vol. I Methodology and Interpretation, [BSA Suppl. 26] London.
Childe, V.G. (1915), On the Date and Origin of Minyan Ware, JHS 35, 196–207.
Choleva, M. (2012), “The First Wheel- made Pottery at Lerna: Wheel Thrown or Wheel-Fashioned?” Hesperia 81, 343–381.
Dawkins, R. M., and Droop, J. P. (1911) “The Excavations at Phylakopi.” BSA 17, 1–22.
Dietz, S. et al. (1988), “Concerning the Classification of Late Middle Helladic Wares in the Argolid.” Hydra 5, 15–16.
Drews, R. (1994), The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, Princeton.
Dor, L., Jannoray, J., Van Effenterre, H. and Van Effenterre, M. (1960), Kirrha: Etude de Prehistoire Phocidienne, Paris.
Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (2007) eds., Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna.
87 | P a g e
Feuer, B. and Schneider, G. (2003), “Chemical Analysis and Interpretation of Mycenaean Pottery from Thessaly”, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16.2, 217-247.
Goldman, H. (1931), Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia, conducted by the Fogg art museum of Harvard university in coöperation with the American school of classical studies at Athens, Greece, Cambridge.
Haagsma, B.J., Z. Malakasioti, H.R. Reinders & V. Rondiri (1993), “Between Karatsadagli and Baklali”, Pharos: Journal of the Netherlands Institute at Athens 1, 147-164.
Hale, C. M. (2016), “The Middle Helladic Fine Gray Burnished (Gray Minyan) Sequence at Mitrou, East Lokris”, Hesperia 85:2, 243-295.
Halstead, P. (1984), Strategies for Survival: An Ecological Approach to Social and Economic Change in the Early Farming Communities of Thessaly, Northern Greece, Cambridge.
Hourmouziadis, G. H. (1979), Neolithic Dimini, Volos.
Karimali, E. (2000), “Decoding Inferences in Models of Obsidian Exchange: Contexts of Value Transformation in the Neolithic Aegean”, in: C. Gillis, C. Risberg & B. Sjöberg (eds.): Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece. Acquisition and Distribution of Raw Materials and Finished Products, Jonsered, 9-27
Lindblom, M. (2001), Marks and Makers: Appearance, Distribution and Function of Middle Helladic and Late Helladic Manufacturers’ Marks on Aeginetan Pottery, Jonsered.
Lindblom, M. (2011), “The Middle Helladic period” in: Lindblom, M. & Wells, B. (eds.) Mastos in the Berbati Valley, Stockholm, 77-96.
Maran, J. (1992), Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Pevkakia-Magula in Thessalien III: Die mittlere Bronzezeit, Bonn.
Maran, J. (2007), “Emulation of Aeginetan Pottery in the Middle Bronze Age of Coastal Thessaly: Regional Context and Social Meaning”, in: Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna, 167-182.
MacGillivray, J.A. (1983), “On the Relative Chronologies of Early Cycladic IIIA and Early Helladic III”, American Journal of Archaeology 87: 1, 81-83.
MacGillivray, J.A. (1998), “Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period” BSA Studies 5, London.
Mountjoy, P.A. (1968), “Mycenaean Decorated Pottery: A Guide to Identification”, SIMA 73, Goteborg.
Mountjoy, P.A. (1990), “Regional Mycenaean Pottery”, The Annual of the British School at Athens 85, 245-270.
Mountjoy, P.A. (1993), Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction, Oxford.
88 | P a g e
Milojčić, V. (1974),“Bericht über die deutschen archäologischen Ausgrabungen in Thessalien. 1973”, AAA 7, 43-75.
Nordquist, G.C. (1987), A Middle Helladic Village: Asine in the Argolid, Uppsala.
Nordquist, G.C. (2002), “Pots, Prestige and People: Symbolic Action in Middle Helladic Burials.” Opuscula Atheniensia 27, 119–35.
Pavuk, P. (2007), “What Can Troia Tell Us About the MH Period in the Southern Aegean?,” in: Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna, 293-306.
Philippa-Touchais, A., Touchais, G., Voutsaki, S. and Wright, J. (2010) (eds.), Mesohelladika: The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age [BCH Supplement 52].
Reinders, H.R. (2004), Prehistoric sites at the Almirós and Soúrpi Plains (Thessaly, Greece), Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens 5, Assen.
Reinders, H.R. & Y. Aalders (2006), “The Medieval city of Almiros and its hinterland”, Pharos: Journal of the Netherlands Institute at Athens 14, 47-58.
Rutter, J.B. (1982), "A Group of Distinctive Pattern-decorated Early Helladic III Pottery from Lerna and its Implications," Hesperia 51, 459-488.
Rutter, J.B. (1983) “Fine Gray-Burnished Pottery Of The Early Helladic III Period The Ancestry Of Gray Minyan” Hesperia 52, 4.
Rutter, J.B. (1984) “The ‘Early Cycladic III Gap’: What It Is and How to Go About Filling It Without Making It Go Away” in: MacGillivray, J. A. and Barber, R.L.N., The Prehistoric Cyclades, Edinburgh 95– 107.
Rutter, J. B. (1995), Lerna. A Preclassical Site in the Argolid III: The Pottery of Lerna IV, Princeton.
Rutter, J.B. (2007), “Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic ‘Type Site’ from a Ceramic Perspective: Is ‘Bigger’ Really ‘Better’?,” in: Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna, 35-44.
Rutter, J.B., and Rutter, S.H. (1976), The Transition to Mycenaean: a Stratified Middle Helladic II to Late Helladic IIA Pottery Sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia, Los Angeles.
Sarri, K. (2007), “Aeginetan Matt-Painted Pottery in Boeotia,” in: Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna, 151-165.
Sarri, K. (2010), “Minyan and Minyanizing Pottery. Myth and Reality about a Middle Helladic Type Fossil,” in: Philippa-Touchais, A., Touchais, G., Voutsaki, S. and Wright, J. (2010) (eds.), Mesohelladika: The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age, 603-613.
89 | P a g e
Stissi, V. V. (2004), “Late Bronze Age”, in: Reinders, H.R. (ed) Prehistoric sites at the Almirós and Soúrpi Plains (Thessaly, Greece), Publications of the Netherlands Institute at Athens 5, Assen.
Stissi, V.V. (2012), “The countryside of Classical-Hellenistic Halos (and Tanagra): a comparative approach”, in: 3ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας, Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης Βόλος 12.3 – 15.Phot. 8009, Τόμος Ι: Θεσσαλία, Volos, 393-404.
Stissi, V., Waagen, J., Efstathiou, D., Reinders, R., Rondiri, V., Mamaloudi, I., Stamelou, E. (Forthcoming), Halos: Preliminary Report Of The 2011-2013 Field Survey Campaigns.
Theocharis, D. (1973), Neolithic Greece, Athens.
Tsountas, C. (1908), Ai Proistorikai Akropoleis Diminiou kai Sesklou, Athens.
Touchais, G. (1989), “Le passage du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Recent en Grece continentale: Etat de la question”, in: Laffineur, R. (ed.), Transition. Le monde en du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Recent, Aegaeum 3, 113-121.
Wace, A. J. B. & Blegen, C. W. (1918), “The Pre-Mycenaean Pottery of the Mainland”, The Annual of the British School at Athens 22, 175-189.
Wace, A. J. B. and Thompson, M. S. (1912), Prehistoric Thessaly: Being Some Account Of Recent Excavations And Explorations In North-Eastern Greece From Lake Kopais To The Borders Of Macedonia, London.
Waldstein, C. (1982), Excavations at the Heraion of Argos, Boston.
Warren, P. (2007), “General Discussion”, in: Felten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.), Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms, Vienna, 361-362.
Whibley, L. (1939), A Companion to Greek Studies, Cambridge.
Zerner, C.W. (1978), “The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna.” Ph.D. diss., University of Cincinnati.
Zerner, C.W. (1986), “Middle and Late Helladic I Pottery from Lerna.” Hydra 2:58–73.
Zerner, C.W. (1988), “Middle and Late Helladic I Pottery from Lerna: Part II: Shapes.” Hydra 4:1–10.
Zerner, C.W. (1993), “New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland.” in: Zerner, C. and P. and Winder, J. (eds.), Wace and Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean Bronze Age 1939-1989, Amsterdam, 39-56.
90 | P a g e