A Comparative Survey of Uninhabited Landscapes Near Paros, Greece
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Small Cycladic Islands Project (2019): a comparative survey of uninhabited landscapes near Paros, Greece Alex R. Knodell1,*, Zarko Tankosic2, & Dimitris Athanasoulis3 The Small Cycladic Islands Project is a diachronic archaeological survey of several small, currently uninhabited islands, located in the Cyclades, Greece. In 2019 surface investigations focused on the multi-method, comparative documentation of 10 islets surrounding Paros, revealing oscillating patterns of use and non-use from prehistory to the present. Keywords: Greece, Cyclades, island archaeology, diachronic survey Introduction The Small Cycladic Islands Project is a new archaeological survey targeting the very smallest of the Aegean Islands. As a collaboration between the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades, the Norwegian Institute in Athens, and Carleton College, this three-year project (2019-2021) is undertaking archaeological surveys of several uninhabited islands in the vicinity of Paros and Antiparos; Sifnos, Serifos, Kythnos; and Mykonos, Syros, Tinos, and Andros. Human presence has been documented in the Cyclades as early as the Middle Paleolithic period (Carter et al. 2017). Permanent populations have been present since the Neolithic, and intense inter-island relations from the Early Bronze Age (Berg 2019). These relationships have been studied extensively with respect to prehistory, and increasingly for the Classical period and Byzantine times (e.g., Constantakopoulou 2007; Crow and Hill 2018). Yet the smallest islands in this network are little understood. Such places have much potential for the study of early seafaring and the connectivity of island life, as well as in developing an archaeology of marginal places and uninhabited spaces (e.g., Fitzpatrick et al. 2016). 1 Department of Classics, Carleton College, 1 N College St, Northfield, MN 55057, USA 2 Norwegian Institute at Athens, Tsami Karatasou 5, 117 42 Athens, Greece 3 Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades, Hellenic Ministry of Culture, Epanminonda 10, Athens, Greece * Author for correspondence (email: [email protected]) SCIP aims to better understand the role of small, uninhabited islands in the long-term history and archaeology of the Cyclades. While all target islands are currently uninhabited, such places would have played a variety of roles at different points in the past. In the initial colonization of the Aegean Basin, tiny islands provided important stepping stones on the way to more sizable landforms. Small islands also served as cemeteries, maritime strongholds, sanctuaries, pirate hideaways, or goat islands (e.g., Hood 1970; Kardulias et al. 1995; Kourayos 2012; Kardulias 2015). In July of 2019, SCIP began by documenting 10 small islands around Paros using a variety of multi-disciplinary survey techniques (Figure 1). A variety of human activity was recorded on these islands, ranging in date from prehistory to the present. Methods There is a rich history of archaeological survey and comparative island archaeology in the Aegean (e.g., Bevan and Connoly 2014). SCIP’s contribution is to narrow the territorial remit of an individual island survey, and at the same time expand the conceptual and comparative scope. Each island in the study area was the subject of an individual survey, which in most cases was carried out in 1-2 days. In practical terms, this meant traveling by boat to each islet to conduct a thorough and efficient archaeological prospection, involving fieldwalking, artifact collection, feature documentation, and site-based gridded survey (Table 1). Fieldwalking methods are drawn from the well-established tradition of Mediterranean intensive survey, in which a team of archaeologists walks systematically through the landscape, divided into survey units, counting and collecting artifacts as they go (Figure 2). While fieldwalking is underway, a separate team mapped, drew, and photographed archaeological features, such as terraces, buildings, cisterns, quarries, and fortification walls. In addition, the team recorded detailed notes on the natural environment of each island. Areas of particular interest were singled out for gridded collection in 10x10 m grid squares. Results of the Comparative Island Survey around Paros In 2019 SCIP surveyed some 10 small islands surrounding Paros and Antiparos (Figure 3; Table 1). The project began at Dryonisi, across from the town of Dryos, in the vicinity of which Tsountas and others have documented a variety of prehistoric and other antiquities. A range of past activity was documented on Dryonisi, most notably from the Early Bronze Age, Classical, and Byzantine periods. Finds included lithics and ceramics, as well as numerous archaeological features (Figure 4). The next target area was the Panteronisia island group between Paros and Antiparos, a popular destination for boaters. This group includes the islands of Panteronisi, Tigani, and Glaropounta. Artiface counts here were much lower than on other islands, although Tigani has an impressive sandstone quarry and pottery from Geometric and Late Roman times. Farther north in the strait separating Paros and Antiparos, the islands of Mikronisi, Tourna, and Kampana were almost entirely devoid of evidence for human activity, except for a small church on Kampana. The final group of islands surveyed is located northeast of Paros, including Evriokastro, Gaidouronisi, and Filizi. Architecture and artifactual material was documented on Evriokastro and Filizi by earlier surveys focused on the island of Paros (Rubensohn 1901; Schilardi 1975: 95-96; Vionis 2012). However, the more detailed work carried out by SCIP led to several new discoveries concerning these islands. Evriokastro is steep and difficult to access, and is protected by an impressive fortification of the Byzantine period (Figure 5). A drone-based aerial survey allowed for the production of a high-definition orthophoto, which, combined with DGPS mapping, provided a full map of the fortification. Nearly all pottery collected from Evriokastro dates to the Byzantine period, with the largest quantities coming from later Byzantine times. While the earlier study of Vionis (2012) dated most diagnostic material encountered to the eighth century, a more detailed survey of the entire island revealed that the vast majority of the material was considerably later. Filizi (Figure 6) is home to an extensive site – probably a proper settlement – ranging in date from Geometric to Classical times, with especially interesting pottery from the seventh century. The ceramic distribution documented in the fieldwalking survey showed a clear correlation between the presence of architectural features and finds of these periods, most notably demarcated by a long ditch and wall. This was previously identified by Schilardi (1975: 95-96) and Rubensohn (1901) as a fortification wall, though examples of such interventions on other nearby islands, most notably Fira, have been identified as agricultural trenches (Papadopoulou 2017: 367). Our work here clearly associates these interventions with an ancient settlement, though dating the feature itself is not possible without excavation. Diachronic Trends of Incidental Occupation We can already draw a few preliminary conclusions from this work. (1) Patterns of occupation or use on these islands are limited to particular periods, which are not consistent across different islands. Continuous occupation across several time periods seems not to happen in these places. Where multi-period occupation does exist (as on Drionisi, for example), there are often large gaps during which the island appears to have been abandoned. (2) The pattern of use of these places is inevitably linked to available resources. Access to water is important, of course, but some places were also important for their mineral resources (e.g., stone quarries on Drionisi and Tigani) and in certain periods may have been occupied primarily for the exploitation of these resources. There is also a clear correlation between soil depth and quality and amount of evidence for human activity. While Panteronisi has a central location and easy landing, its shallow, rocky soils are not conducive to agriculture. Filizi, on the other hand, has quite rich and deep soils. (3) In the island archaeology spectrum of isolation to connectivity, both are clearly important in different situations. For example, the accessibility of Dryonisi via a south-facing beach was clearly important for Early Bronze Age habitation and Late Roman mineral exploitation. Evriokastro, however, is extremely difficult to access, being heavily fortified and with no natural harbor anywhere on the island. These different situations signal divergent attitudes toward the exploitation of these marginal environments in different periods. (4) Finally, detailed, systematic methods of team-based intensive survey have much to offer in small island theaters, especially when applied in a comparative fashion. While certain of these islands had been documented before, a wealth of new information was revealed through more detailed survey, artifact collection, and study. More detailed information about the nature of human activity in all of these islands will come from further study, but already we can tell that there is a rich and varied, if incidental, history of engagement with these diverse island landscapes. Acknowledgements We thank the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades, the Norwegian Institute at Athens, and Carleton College for their sponsorship and institutional support. Funding was provided