MANUSCRIT ACCEPTAT

The South-eastern Aegean

Mercourios Georgiadis

Lemos, I.; Kotsonas, A. (eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Llibre and the Mediterranean. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2020

ISBN 978-1-118-77019-1

Disponible Data de publicació 2020 en línia

Per citar aquest document:

Mercourios Georgiadis, "The Southeastern Aegean" a Lemos, I.; Kotsonas, A. (eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Early Greece and the Mediterranean, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, p. 985-1006.

Aquest arxiu PDF conté el manuscrit acceptat per a la seva publicació.

The South-eastern Aegean

Keywords: South-eastern Aegean, , , burials, graves, pottery, sanctuary, cremation, inhumation, past

Introduction

The area of the South-eastern Aegean is defined here as the region known today as the and parts of Anatolia on the opposite coast, like the Halicarnassos peninsula. This area of the Aegean had been under the Minoan cultural influence from as early as the Middle Bronze Age in terms of its material culture and architecture (Georgiadis 2003). The South-eastern Aegean has yielded many remains of the LH III and the EIA, whilst it possesses a strategic position in the Aegean Sea in relation to its contacts and interactions with the Eastern Mediterranean. The traditional forms of explanation for culturalACCEPTAT development and change in this region have focused on migration and the presence of newcomers. In fact, this has been a common denominator in the understanding of the Southern-eastern Aegean equally for the Late Helladic III period and the Early Iron Age. The thorough and up-to-date presentation of the different cultural aspects and periods from this area will demonstrate the regional character and the idiosyncrasies that are visible already from the LH III phase. The rich local cultural assemblages provide the basis for assessing the shared and divergent cultural elements on a regional level. Thus, the role of the local population can be highlighted through their practices and preferences, identifiable in the archaeological record through an idiosyncratic flair. Furthermore, the available data from this area allow a better understanding of how these communities responded to the various social, economic and political challenges the LH III and EIA phases posed. In this context, the character of cultural influence from outsideMANUSCRIT this region can be viewed and understood. At the same time the active participation of the South-eastern Aegean within the exchange networks that were developed in the Aegean and the broader Eastern Mediterranean during the LH III and EIA will be presented and assessed.

1 The LH IIIA-B period (14th and 13th centuries BC)

The LH III period is well-represented mainly through the numerous tombs and cemeteries found across this region. The first chamber tombs appeared in the South-eastern Aegean during the LH IIB and IIIA1 phase, following the shapes and the burial practices attested in mainland Greece (Mee 1982; Benzi 1992; Georgiadis 2003). The importance of the new tradition marked two changes in the local cultural practices. The first was spatial in the sense that the earliest cemeteries i.e. in Rhodes and Eleona and Langada in Kos were founded in new burial locations not used before. This practice appears to suggest a break with the past and the establishment of a new burial tradition, which is recovered in all Mycenaean cemeteries of this region. The second was the form of the tomb; multiple rather than single as in the previous periods. The emphasis in this new period was on the family and kin group rather than the achievements of the individual during their lifetime. This aspect meant that there was a radical reshuffling of the socio-political order of each settlement, as seen from the progressive adoption of the new burial style in the whole region. The explanation offered for these new cultural elements had been that newcomers from the Greek mainland, the Argolid in particular, brought the Mycenaean culture to this ACCEPTATregion when the earliest chamber tombs appeared in the LH IIB/IIIA1 phase (Georgiadis 2003, 68, 73). However, the same hypothesis has been proposed for the appearance of chamber and tholos tombs in the Cyclades, Crete and the South-eastern Aegean in the same period. This would rely on an influx of people from a single mainland region, which is not supported by the available evidence. Thus, it is more pertinent to propose that there was an important cultural influence from the Greek mainland rather than the migration of people out of the Argolid into the rest of the Aegean islands in order to explain the appearance of the chamber tombs. This hypothesis can be supported in the case of the South-eastern Aegean by the development of distinct local characteristics that the Mycenaean elements had in this region (Georgiadis 2003). The new burial practices are found across the South-Eastern Aegean by the LH IIIA2, from which period numerous cemeteries have been identified in Karpathos, Rhodes, Kos, Astypalaia,MANUSCRIT Kalymnos, as well as the site of Müskebi on the Anatolian coast opposite Kos (Mee 1982; Dietz 1984; Melas 1985; Benzi 1992; Özgünel 1996; Karantzali 2001; Georgiadis 2003). The number of cemeteries, tombs and offerings within allow a better assessment of each island and the region as a whole. Already in this period a local idiosyncrasy can be recognised in the burial practices and a new tradition was formed (Georgiadis 2003). The tombs within a cemetery had the same orientation, looking towards

2 specific landscape elements. In Rhodes, it was the valley and a close by stream, while in Kos, towards the valley and the sea. This suggests different types of symbolism; for Rhodes a protection and fertility of the arable land of the valley nourished by water brought from streams, for Kos the fertility of the land and perhaps protection from the sea (Georgiadis 2003, 47-48). Their symbolic significance is related to the burial rituals and beliefs that elevated the status of the deceased to an anonymous guardian ancestor (Georgiadis 2003, 107). Symbolically the ancestor would be reactivated since he or she could protect and fertilise the land of his descendants/kin members or of the whole community. This was achieved through the regular and widespread practice of the secondary burial, which predominates in all cemeteries with the exception of Ialysos, and was more commonly attested than in the Greek mainland (Georgiadis 2003, 79-80). There are several objects deposited in the tombs that strongly suggest social differentiation within the local society. This was expressed through the deposition of weapons, metal jewellery, metal vessels, semi-precious stones, exotica from Syria-Palestine and Egypt, and items of lesser value such as tinned ceramics. The mortuary context was a multilevel arena of symbolism underlining the individual, their wealth, which also reflected on their family/kin group during the burial and a shortACCEPTAT period after. However, in a later phase the deceased ritually became an anonymous ancestor protecting the whole community and to whom the claims of land and belonging could be arbitrated on behalf of their family/kin group. There are a few cases (the two tholos tombs in Kos and the shaft and cist graves at Ialysos) that structural differentiation in tomb types may also have been used as status indicators for the deceased within. In the case of the tholoi, the family/kin group was also highlighted, whilst in single graves individuality and personal achievements were emphasised. The same picture can be seen in the LH IIIB period except there is a divergence in the islands of this area. In Rhodes there is a general decrease in the number of cemeteries as well as the active tombs and internments within. This decline is followed by the deposition of lesser quality objects to accompany the deceased to the underworld. In Kos there is a quite differentMANUSCRIT image, with a steady increase of tombs, burials, and their offerings. The lack of uniformity in the South-eastern Aegean argues for diverse social, economic and possibly political conditions among these islands. A special reference should be made to the appearance of cremations within chamber tombs during this period. They are very few in number and their contexts are not always clear, but the earliest seem to appear in the LH

3 IIIA2 phase in Karpathos. Perhaps this is the first part of the Mycenaean world that adopted this tradition, possibly an influence from Anatolian practices (Georgiadis 2003, 60). Most of the available settlement evidence comes from excavations conducted at the two largest sites of this region, which appear to be the social, economic and political capitals of Rhodes and Kos respectively. The first is at Trianda in Rhodes, which yielded mainly sherds of LH IIIA and B phases as well as a number of unconnected walls belonging to this period (Mee 1982; Benzi 1988; Karantzali 2003, 514-5; 2005, 143). Unfortunately, erosion processes in this area aided by possible flooding event(s) have largely destroyed most of the Mycenaean strata of the settlement (Karantzali 2003, 515-6; 2005, 142-3), in contrast to the better preserved lower ones that belonged to the Minoan period. The second is Serrayia in Kos where the whole LH III pottery sequence has been recovered at the settlement (Morricone 1972-3). The almost unbroken re-building of this part of the settlement in later phases has not allowed a good understanding of individual buildings or the detailed stratigraphy of the whole site. The presence of a fortification wall of Mycenaean period has been identified in the north-western edge of Serrayia, protecting the settlement (Skerlou 2001-4a, 298-9). The same trend can be seen in the contemporary walls erected in some of the Cycladic islands. ACCEPTAT Outside these two settlements there are only a few sites where sherds have been found during unsystematic surveys, suggesting the presence of settlements of various sizes (Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970; 1973; Melas 1985; 1988; Georgiadis 2003; 2008; 2012, 5-10). Although the overall image of the settlement patterns of these islands was fragmentary and unclear, it seems that there was a large central site, usually coastal, in each island such as Trianda for Rhodes, Serrayia for Kos and Pigadia for Karpathos, with smaller sites scattered across the islands. This pattern cannot be applied to Rhodes, where larger cemeteries have been found in the northern and southern parts of the island. The size of Rhodes may explain a further hierarchy among settlements, including the main island settlement, the regional centres, villages and smaller sites/farmsteads. Two other sites appear to have a distinct character; Aspri Petra cave in Kos and DaskaleioMANUSCRIT cave in Kalymnos (Levi 1925-6; Benzi 1993). The finds have not been fully studied and the stratigraphy has not been very helpful, but their location and the character of the finds suggest that they may have acted as sanctuaries. The existence of sacred caves in the Mycenaean Dodecanese could be proposed more forcefully when considering that they appear to have had the same function already from the previous period of their use.

4 Early Mycenaean pottery imported from the mainland is known in this region from the LB I-II period. However, a significant increase in the quantity of LH IIB pottery has been identified at Trianda and Serrayia, both imported and locally produced. This suggests that the LH mainland ceramic style was well known and imported to this region, whilst in the latter part of this phase they were locally produced also. Rhodes has proved to be a special case since the preference was different in the pottery used in the settlements and those employed in the tombs. Their main divergence is their provenance since chemical analyses have shown that in the tombs vases from the Greek mainland, the Argolid and Central Greece, were favoured during the LH IIIA and B phases (Jones and Mee 1978; Karantzali and Ponting 1999). Only a small proportion of the ceramic offerings deposited in the tombs were the produce of local workshops, which exhibited local characteristics (Mountjoy 1999). This possibly suggests that the mainland imports were valued more and they were reserved as burial offerings to the deceased. The pottery consumed within the LH IIIA-B settlement of Trianda was primarily locally produced with Mycenaean inspirations in the shapes while some had been imported as well (Karantzali 2003; 2005, 143-8; 2009, 359-65; Marketou et al. 2006). Interestingly some of the imported pottery had a Koan provenance during the LH IIIA2-B period and a few came from Cyprus (KarantzaliACCEPTAT 2005, 146; 2009, 358-9; Marketou et al. 2006). Kos provided a different picture from Rhodes in relation to the local pottery workshops. The analyses have suggested that most of the settlement and tomb vases were locally made and only a few were imported (Jones 1986). A similar image is attested in the pottery recovered from Astypalaia, Kalymnos and Müskebi (Mountjoy 1999; Georgiadis 2003). The most hybrid style of pottery production in this area can be found in Karpathos, which appears to combine Greek mainland, Cretan and local elements (Melas 1985; Mountjoy 1999). The pottery of the island was made on Karpathos and exclusively from the LH IIIA and B phases. The South-eastern Aegean had already developed unique cultural characteristics by the LH IIIA-B period. The burial practices, rituals and beliefs suggest a divergence from the mainland Greek traditions. Furthermore, the pottery production and consumption varied withinMANUSCRIT this area, suggesting different social trends and conditions. However, there is a clear Mycenaean cultural character found in this region coming as a contrast to the neighbouring Hittite controlled region. Perhaps these Mycenaean cultural elements acted as a background and helped in the formation of the Hellenic identity during the Geometric and Archaic period. At the same time the contacts and exchanges with the rest of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean were more intense than ever before.

5 The LH IIIC and Submycenaean period (12th and 11th centuries BC)

The LH IIIC witnessed a significant increase in tombs and deposited offerings. This phenomenon was attributed to newcomers from the Greek mainland in this period after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces. However, the burial practices and the symbolisms remained as idiosyncratic as before, indicating little change from the previous period (Georgiadis 2003; 2009). Even the tradition of breaking vessels at the dromos is well recorded in this phase in Rhodes (Georgiadis 2003, 106), unlike most parts of mainland Greece (Cavanagh and Mee 1998, 111), revealing the degree of continuity with earlier local practices. However, there was an important diversity in this image within the South-eastern Aegean, especially in Rhodes and Kos. In the first case, the number of cemeteries, tombs and offerings in the southern part of the island was stable from the LH IIIB to the LH IIIC phase. At the same time in northern Rhodes there was a decrease in the number of LH IIIC cemeteries used and a nucleation is seen mainly centred at Ialysos. The eclipse of the smaller peripheral cemeteries in this part of the island is attested in the same phase that Ialysos witnessed a very significant expansion in the number of tombs and related offerings. Thus, an internal localised migration in the northern part can be proposed in order to explainACCEPTAT this increase recovered from Ialysos (Georgiadis 2003, 105; 2009, 98). In Kos a similar increase is attested between the LH IIIB and C phases at Eleona and Langada cemetery. The decrease of LH IIIC cemeteries across the island including the Müskebi cemetery on the Halicarnassos peninsula indicates that a similar nucleation to northern Rhodes took place in this phase at Kos as well. The reuse of abandoned LH IIIA2 chamber tombs in this phase is a relatively common phenomenon at Ialysos, (northern Rhodes), Eleona and Langada (Cavanagh and Mee 1978; Benzi 1982; 1992; Georgiadis 2003; 2009, 98); they were possibly claimed by the internal migrant family/kin groups. However, apart from the practical issues for their reuse, a more symbolic explanation can be proposed; namely a conscious attempt to draw a connection with, and descent from, the past members of the specific community. The new kin groups were seeking to associate themselves with the earlier tomb owners, claiming theirMANUSCRIT memory and past as well as a legitimacy of the burial ground and perhaps even land rights. There were also many rich offerings dated to the LH IIIC period deposited in the larger cemeteries revealing an economic prosperity. A large number of objects made out of precious metals, especially the popular silver rings, belong to this phase, highlighting the wealth of these sites. Rhodes and Kos had become an important nexus in the exchange network that was reordered in this phase after the fall of the palaces, showing frequent

6 contacts with mainland Greece, Crete and the Eastern Mediterranean. More cremations were also recovered during the LH IIIC phase both in Rhodes and Kos, but still in limited numbers, following a trend also attested in contemporary cemeteries in mainland Greece such as Perati (Georgiadis 2003, 60, 77-79, 81-84). At the end of the LH IIIC period the chamber tomb cemeteries were abandoned throughout the South-eastern Aegean. Two cemeteries have been found that belong to this short period bridging the hiatus from the LH IIIC phase to the Middle-Late Protogeometric. The first is recovered in Asarlik in the Halicarnassos peninsula opposite Kos where a possible Submycenaean tholos tomb and a cist grave with a cremation in an urn has been identified (Paton 1887; Paton and Myres 1896; Lemos 2002, 182-183; Georgiadis 2003). The case of the tholos tomb is not chronologically clear, but there is a clear attempt to imitate the nearby LH III Koan prototypes. The latter cemetery example comes from Ayia Agathi in the south- eastern coastal area of Rhodes (Zervaki 2011, 769). It consisted of late LH IIIC and Submycenaean single inhumations, primarily in pit graves and secondarily in pit caves (Zervaki 2011, 771). The single burial character and the pit graves are closer to the Greek mainland tradition, the pit caves are a Cretan phenomenon, while a number of Cypriot objects have been found in graves as offerings. The site’s coastalACCEPTAT location argues that it participated in the route between Crete and Cyprus and possibly Syria-Palestine, which therefore would still have been active during this phase (Crielaard 1998, 187-91). The eastern part of Rhodes especially can only be part of a network that served Crete rather the Greek mainland due to its orientation and position in the Aegean. Despite the fact that the local interaction can be identified primarily with Crete and secondarily with Cyprus, the burial practices at Ayia Agathi, and at least partly at Asarlik, did not follow either of these two islands’ contemporary tradition of chamber tombs or the earlier regional custom. The appearance of pit caves suggests a Cretan influence, which was limited in numbers of graves and in chronological use. The introduction of single graves appears to be an influence of a new mainland Greek phenomenon. This process argues that Rhodes and more broadly the South-eastern Aegean retained close ties and there was a significant cultural interaction with the Greek mainland duringMANUSCRIT the SM phase. The establishment of a new cemetery location in this region argues for a shift in the settlement pattern on Rhodes and in the Halicarnassos area along with the introduction of a new mortuary tradition. The multiple burials in the chamber tombs of the LH III period became less meaningful in the new social and economic conditions of this period in the South-eastern Aegean. The single grave form placed a new emphasis on the individual, on their status and social standing. The SM appears to be a phase of both

7 experimentation with the pit caves and single graves, and continuation of the older tradition with the hybrid tholos tomb. A process of nucleation of settlements outlined for the previous period could be proposed to have taken place to some extent during the LH IIIC as the finds from this region appear to suggest, supporting the hypothesis based on cemetery observations for Kos and the northern part of Rhodes mentioned earlier (Georgiadis 2003, 105; 2009, 98). Special reference should be made to a few particular sites, one of which is Kastro Palaiopyli (Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970). It is located in the southern mountainous part of Kos, where a strong cyclopean wall had been constructed to offer protection. The site offers natural fortification and a view over the lowland part of the island, providing confirmation of the threats of sea battles in the local LH IIIC Koan pictorial pottery. The presence of LH III sherds and figurines at Iraklis in the eastern part of Kos may suggest a cultic activity taking place at this site, possibly from the LH IIIC phase, if not earlier (Skerlou 2001-4b, 313-4). Some SM sherds from the settlement of Serrayia may also belong to this phase, suggesting continuity of occupation from the LH IIIC period rather than a hiatus (Lemos 2002, 211). On Rhodes the production and consumption of ceramic vessels radically changed during the LH IIIC period when the vast majority of ACCEPTATpots deposited in the tombs were locally made as the analyses from the cemeteries of Ialysos and Aspropilia-Pylona demonstrate (Jones and Mee 1978; Karantzali and Ponting 1999; Ponting and Karantzali 2001; Georgiadis 2003). A new trend of shapes and decorations were attested in this phase at the cemetery of Ialysos, i.e. the offering of amphoriskoi, octopus-style stirrup jars and strainer jugs. The latter two wares appear to be a common Aegean style recovered in contemporary Crete, the Cyclades and some eastern coastal mainland sites. At Kos the LH IIIA-B local style became more idiosyncratic in decoration during the LH IIIC period (Morricone 1972-3; Mountjoy 1999). In the latter phase wavy lines became popular and at the same time a very limited number of locally-made pictorial pots appeared, whose main theme were battle scenes, especially sea-battles. The appeal of this decoration may be associated with contemporary stories and/or concerns of uncertain times as they were believedMANUSCRIT to be during the 12th century BC. It seems that during the LH IIIC period there was continuation of the earlier burial tradition, but as far as the settlements were concerned different patterns of continuity and nucleation are observed in different parts of this area. The locally-produced pottery became more idiosyncratic in character, but close ties existed with shapes and some decorative motifs with the rest of the Aegean. The 12th century BC was a period of prosperity for the South-

8 eastern Aegean as the rich burial offerings suggest, participating in the exchange networks that were active during this period within the Aegean and with the Eastern Mediterranean. A big change is seen during the SM period when there was abandonment of the older settlement pattern and the LH III burial practices. The new sites, practices and objects of this period argue that contacts were still active in a smaller scale with the Greek mainland, Crete and Cyprus.

The 10th and 9th centuries BC

In Rhodes the LPG cemeteries established at Ialysos and were situated in a different location from the earlier LH III ones and were used until the Archaic period. The first cemetery has produced more graves in numbers, and they were more dispersed in the landscape during the 10th and 9th centuries BC, suggesting that there was possibly no nucleation in the settlement (D’Agostino 2006, 57-9). Single graves were the only burial type, which mainly consisted of pithos burials for children or infants, in one case at Kameiros a child in a stone larnax was found, and cremated adultsACCEPTAT (Jacopi 1932-3, 118, 126-7; Lemos 2002, 182; Coldstream 2003, 23; D’Agostino 2006, 57-9). Single graves were already the norm in much of the contemporary southern mainland Greece and the rest of the Aegean islands, excluding Crete. Ceramic vases were the commonest offering within the graves, among which a few Cypriot ones, while the askoi from Kameiros were imitating Cypriot prototypes (Lemos 2002, 18; Bourogiannis 2013, 148). Three male warrior graves stand out at Ialysos where weapons have been deposited, emphasising the social status and identity of the deceased (D’Agostino 2006, 58-59). In one female burial from the same site fibulae and a faience figurine of god Bes and a faience seal have been recovered, suggesting that imports from Egypt either directly or indirectly through Cyprus and/or Syria-Palestine were available to Ialysos during this period (Lemos 2002, 182). A new cemetery was established at Serrayia in Kos during the MPG and LPG phases, locatedMANUSCRIT in one part of the earlier LH III settlement (Morricone 1978). This is a different practice from the ones seen on Rhodes and finds a contemporary parallel in the PG burial ground founded in the part of the LH III settlement of Grotta on Naxos (Lambrinoudakis 1988). This act is believed to be a conscious symbolic association between the PG population with the LH III remains at the site. This could be considered as a claim of legitimisation and/or continuity with the Mycenaean past, acknowledging a hiatus or a form of change in

9 the occupation of the specific settlement. Serrayia and Grotta were among the earlier examples in the Aegean islands of a trend that symbolically and practically connected the EIA with the LH III. At the end of the PG phase other burial areas have been identified at Halvagia (Morricone 1978, 1-16; Kantzia 1987; Marketou 1987; Bosnakis 1990, 496; 2001, 223), arguing that, as in the case of contemporary Ialysos, the burials were dispersed and no nucleation of the main settlement had taken place at Kos yet. Single graves were preferred where primarily burials of adults and children were the dominant tradition, but a few cremations have been recovered too. The main grave type was the cist and pithos burial for children and secondarily adults, while pits are also attested in some cases (Bosnakis 1990, 495-6). Pottery as well as small finds had been placed as offerings including items made of precious metals as well as iron and bronze (Bosnakis 1990, 495-6; 2001, 223-7; Lemos 2002, 181-2). Grave 10 from Serrayia was particularly rich in ceramic vessels and jewellery, while a LH IIIB vase had been either redeposited in this burial from an earlier Mycenaean tomb or was an heirloom (Lemos 2002, 181-2). The close symbolic and practical links between the EIA with the LH III period is further emphasised as discussed before. An interesting development in the burial practices occurred in the EG period with the appearance of a unique local type. It was found at Kos where a squareACCEPTAT pit had been dug, with four short extensions at its corners forming roughly an X-shape, into which the cremated remains of an adult were placed without an urn (Bosnakis 2001, 223-49, 251). The Assarlik cemetery on the Halicarnassos peninsula continued to be used as the PG vases recovered from this site suggest. The remains of cremations have been noted in rectangular and round enclosures, but it is unclear if this was the only or dominant burial practice (Paton 1887; Lemos 2002, 182). Furthermore, at Dirmil, in the same region, a LH III chamber tomb was reused in the LPG phase (Bass 1963; Lemos 2002, 182). In this period the emphasis is clearly on the individual and his/her status, while children were socially valued and were represented in the funerary context. An emerging warrior class is emphasised more clearly on Rhodes, while exotica are used for promoting the statusMANUSCRIT of women. Regional differences can be seen in the South-eastern Aegean during this period with cremation chosen for the adults on Rhodes, while on Kos inhumations and cremations were equally practiced. In the latter case, in PG and G burials there was a choice between the cheaper burial type of inhumation or the more expensive cremation. The latter needed more resources, wood collection, and it is a more time-consuming practice, suggesting that more investment was provided for the specific burial. Thus, cremation on Kos

10 appears to register a message of social differentiation conveyed both through the burial context and the richer offerings deposited in the graves. Rhodes and Kos shared the same grave types as well inhumation for children, arguing that the young had the same social value in both island societies. Experimentations can be seen in the case of the larnax used at LPG Kameiros and the EG pit with cremation on Kos. The connection with the Mycenaean past can be more clearly seen in the case of Kos as well as on the Halicarnassos peninsula with the re-use of a LH III chamber tomb. This relationship with the past found primarily on Kos and less conspicuously on Rhodes is different from the contemporary sites in Crete and mainland Greece, where heirlooms and antiques from the Eastern Mediterranean were deposited in burials as indicators of status and as evidence of active participation in elite exchange networks (Crielaard 1998, 189-91; Whitley 2002, 224-6). In this respect the EIA burial tradition in the South-Eastern Aegean seems to diverge ideologically and/or symbolically from Crete and mainland Greece. A new settlement pattern was established on Rhodes with the foundation of Ialysos and Kameiros during the 10th century BC in areas where an earlier Mycenaean cemetery had existed nearby (Georgiadis 2003, 37). At the PG settlement of LH III remains have been noted, suggesting continuity or a short hiatus beforeACCEPTAT renewed occupation, as in the case of contemporary Serrayia on Kos (Wriedt Sorensen and Pentz 1992, 25-57; Georgiadis 2003, 39). At Lindos remains of a possible cultic nature have been recovered as the figurines and some bronze finds suggest, while the same has been proposed for the sanctuaries of Athena at Kameiros and Ialysos already from the 9th century BC (Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 332; Kourou 2003, 250). The settlements and cemeteries at Kameiros and Ialysos as well as the settlement finds from Lindos suggest that a new settlement pattern with three important centres was developing already in the early part of the EIA with an emphasis in the north-western part of the island and on the Lindos area. At all three sites a Mycenaean background of different character existed, but the relationship of the PG settlements with their past remains unclear unlike Kos. The case of Serrayia has already been discussed, while the presence of LPG clay figurines at Iraklis may suggest a continuity or revival from earlier Mycenaean (LH IIIC) religiousMANUSCRIT practices at the same site (Skerlou 2001-4b, 313). Use and then re-use of a LH III cultic site can be seen in the case of Aspri Petra cave situated in the western part of the island, which was already visited again from the 9th century BC (Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 332; Coldstream 2003, 311).

11 In the new social, economic and political conditions formed from the 10th century BC, the three aforementioned sites on Rhodes became the dominant centres/city states of the island for several centuries until the synoecism of the island at the end of the 5th century BC. Serrayia remained the main centre of Kos, but after the Geometric period it declined and it was replaced by Astypalaia in the west as the capital of the island during the Archaic period. The regional LPG to MG I pottery styles on both Rhodes and Kos have close affinities mainly with the Attic pottery tradition and to a certain extent with the Ionian, whilst Cypriot elements were already present in some local produce (Coldstream 2008, 263-5; Lemos 2002, 209; Bourogiannis 2013, 141). From the MG phase some Corinthian elements can be traced in the local pottery production as well (Coldstream 2008, 265-74). Moreover, the shapes and the decoration of the local pottery followed contemporary trends seen in the Aegean, but at the same time there was a strong regional character (Lemos 2002, 208-9). The imported wares and other types of find point primarily towards Cyprus, suggesting continuity in the links between the two areas, possibly without hiatus, from the LH III period despite the changes that occurred in the exchange networks over such a long period of time. However, it is possible that these contacts were extended secondarily to the Levant and perhaps even Egypt directly or indirectly via Cyprus. ACCEPTAT The coming of the Dorians has been proposed for the South-eastern Aegean during this period. Nonetheless, the links with mainland Greece are not as close as one would have expected in order to support such a scenario. The warrior ethos appears to be a common phenomenon of this period across the Aegean, while the connection with the Mycenaean past appeared rather early on Kos, as on Naxos in comparison to the rest of the Aegean. This process suggests a different trend, a symbolic connection with the local non-Dorian past rather than with the Dorians. The burial practices suggest a regionalism even within this area when comparing Rhodes and Kos for example, rather than uniformity with the Greek mainland. Furthermore, the pottery affinities appear to be with Attica and Ionia, rather than with Doric areas as one would expect following the Dorian hypothesis.

MANUSCRIT The 8th and 7th centuries BC

The cemeteries at Ialysos and Kameiros continued to be active during this period, whilst new ones appeared across Rhodes at Massari-Malona, Vati, Siana and Exochi. Single inhumations were the dominant practice for children placed inside pithoi, pits or cist graves, whilst

12 cremations were preferred for the adults (Coldstream 2003, 23, 233; Bosnakis 2001, 252; D’Agostino 2006, 62-3). The form of the roughly X-shaped pits with cremated remains reported in the previous period on Kos has also been identified at Ialysos and belongs to the LG phase (Gregoriadou et al. 2001). Cremations remain the main burial norm for adults on Rhodes, with females receiving many pottery vessels and gold objects, while men a few vessels and weapons (D’Agostino 2006, 62-3). From Kameiros, two rare cases of chamber tombs have been recovered belonging to the first half of the 8th century BC, one smaller containing a child burial and one larger with multiple burials in pits, possibly re-using a Mycenaean tomb (Coldstream 2003, 74; D’Agostino 2006, 60-1, figs 3-5). In the latter a rich warrior burial was one of those buried, while a Mycenaean cup was included among its offerings (D’Agostino 2006, 66). The conscious association with the past is also recognised in this 8th century BC example from Rhodes, suggesting that similar concerns and symbolic attributes existed as in the previous period at Kos. Moreover, a regional burial tradition appears to have developed in part of Rhodes, as the cemeteries of Kameiros and Exochi suggest (D’Agostino 2006, 63). There is an emphasis on the significance of wine in either the performed burial rituals or its symbolic value during life. On Kos the inhumations of adults and childrenACCEPTAT in pithoi, cist and pit graves were poor in offerings (Coldstream 2003, 23), unlike the cremations which were richer. The co- existence of the two practices continued from the previous period unlike the conditions on earlier and contemporary Rhodes. In Kos the practice of the cremation and the burial gifts accompanying the deceased reveal an extra effort and more expenditure than the norm. Thus, cremation may have been on its own a special practice, underlining the social standing of the dead. In several locations, including the west side of the road connecting Antimachia with Kardamaina, closer to the latter in central-south Kos, and also at the area of Asklepieion LG I, graves with a roughly X-shaped pit containing cremations have been found (Skerlou 1995, 807; 2001; 2005, 1161). There was also an increase in weapons and jewellery deposited in the cremation graves on Kos, emphasising the status of the deceased and the role of the warrior in the local society. The symbolic significance attributed to the weapons, along with the riteMANUSCRIT process of cremation, show that there was an emerging social stratification in Geometric Kos. The local aristocracy expressed their wealth and social, if not political, power through these types of objects and practices in the mortuary context. Two important developments are seen in the burial context during the 8th century BC. The first is that infant and child burials became progressively less and less common in comparison to the previous centuries. The second is that the symbolic emphasis on the

13 warrior started to fade in the same period, and instead more expensive and higher quantities of offerings were preferred (D’Agostino 2006, 66). During the 8th and 7th century BC there is an increase in the number of sites identified on both Rhodes and Kos. Vroulia is a new site, possibly established during the late 8th century BC, which was protected by a fortification wall (Kourou 2003, 256-7), the earliest since the LH IIIB-C period. The main three centres of Rhodes, i.e. Ialysos, Kameiros and Lindos, appear to have been nucleated during the 8th century BC, as the burial evidence seems to suggest (Kourou 2013, 251; D’Agostino 2006, 64-5). The earlier developments and the process of nucleation established a geographical partition of Rhodes and the basis from which the city-states would emerge in the Archaic period. From the 8th century BC, and especially during the 7th century BC, the focus of cultural expenditure and display of the competing social groups moved from the burials to the sanctuaries. This is more clearly seen in the case of the four known sanctuaries that were active in the 8th and 7th centuries BC in the island, i.e. Ialysos, Kameiros, Lindos and Vroulia in the southern part of Rhodes (Jacopi 1932-3; Martelli 1988; Wriedt Sorensen and Pentz 1992; Kourou 2003). Numerous pottery vessels, ivories, metal and other types of small object have been recovered at these sanctuaries. It is believedACCEPTAT that already during the 8th century BC the veneration of Athena had started at these sites, where fibulae were a common offering, which appears to be the appropriate offering for a female deity related to textile production (Wriedt Sorensen and Pentz 1992, 25-57; Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, 332; Coldstream 2003, 310, 316). Clay and stone statuettes of Cypriot influence were attested in all four sanctuaries from the mid-7th until the early 6th century BC, one of which had a Phoenician inscription coming from Vroulia (Kourou 2003, 253-6). Some fragments of stone statuettes from Egypt have been attested at Kameiros as well (Jacopi 1932-3, 286-7). Metal figurines were rare, suggesting that they were mainly deposited in male deities as seen in other contemporary cases (Hermary 1998, 270). Moreover, in these Rhodian sites imported ivories have been recovered, imported from the Near East and Egypt, as well as amber and small numbers of Etruscan bucchero vases. Rhodes appears to have access to international offerings from long distances,MANUSCRIT both from the Eastern and the Central Mediterranean (Hermary 1998, 272). The main centres of the island participated actively in the exchange network and the circulation of various objects and materials. There was eclecticism in the choices and provenance of the items that became offerings to their major sanctuaries. In the 7th century BC this region expanded its horizon of interaction within the Aegean and beyond.

14 At Iraklis on Kos fragmentary walls, remains of fires and a large number of bovine and horse figurines made in clay can be dated in the 8th century BC (Skerlou 1999, 954; 2001-4b, 312). However, possibly during the late 7th BC, a temple was erected above the area where LH IIIC, PG and G remains of cult activity have been noted (Skerlou 1999, 954). The foundations of this large structure are preserved together with some metal offerings, including fibulae and parts of a dagger and a bronze vessel (Skerlou 2001-4b, 312). The Rhodian pottery workshops were still influenced by the Attic and Ionian traditions, while they also imitated Cypriot and Phoenician styles during the LG period; such as the employment of the Phoenician red slip, forming a local decorative tradition (Coldstream 2008, 274-87; 2003, 230-2; Bourogiannis 2013, 158-60, 165-8). The metal offerings from the graves, especially fibulae and gold bands, suggest an increased concentration of wealth within the mortuary context and the possible presence of local productions centres (Coldstream 2003, 233-4). The first Phoenician imports appeared in burials of the later 8th century BC on different cemeteries across Rhodes (Bourogiannis 2013, 152-8). From the beginning of the 7th century BC many more Phoenician imports are found on the island and more imitations of that style can be identified in the local pottery tradition (Bourogiannis 2013, 160-4). There were also strong influencesACCEPTAT of the dominant Aegean styles of this period; the Protocorinthian and the Ionian are both imported and imitated. The Koan pottery tradition was influenced to some extent by the Rhodian one, while some Cypriot and/or Phoenician elements were felt more strongly on some local shapes than before (Coldstream 2008, 287-8; 1998, 255-6; 2003, 46, 234-6). During the MG II and LG phases some of the local lekythoi were decorated in a manner following Cypriot prototypes (Bosnakis 2001, 242-4, 248). However, no imported wares from Phoenicia have been recovered on Kos during the 8th century BC, suggesting that the stylistic influences reaching the island were filtered through Rhodes (Bourogiannis 2013, 149). This trend of imitating Cypriot and Phoenician prototypes appears to have intensified during the 7th century BC on Kos, while some imports from Cyprus have been attested (Bourogiannis 2013, 151-2, 169). During the 8th and 7th centuries BC the increase of the contacts with the Eastern MediterraneanMANUSCRIT are more evident than before. This region had been central in the new exchange network that was formed within the Aegean and between the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean. In this context the Phoenician presence in this region has been proposed in the form of tradesmen as well as of migrants (Coldstream 1998; Kourou 2003, 257; Bourogiannis 2013, 140). The pottery imports and imitations as well as a number of imported objects found in the sanctuaries have been used to support this hypothesis.

15 However, a better understanding of the pottery suggests that the contacts with Cyprus were the most prominent element during this process, especially during the 8th century BC. The Phoenician cultural influence was filtered or came through Cyprus into the South-eastern Aegean in most cases. On Rhodes more direct contacts and cultural influences are recognised in the 7th century BC through imported wares and the imitation of specific Phoenician shapes, or the employment of certain decorative techniques, as well as by the import of numerous other objects from the Near East. However, this image does not apply for Kos, which does not appear to have had a direct contact with Phoenicia even during the 7th century BC. A clear regionalism is seen here with Rhodes being more active in the interactions with the Eastern Mediterranean. The character of these contacts between Phoenicia and Rhodes could support the presence of small groups of Phoenicians, perhaps mainly tradesmen and a few craftsmen, active on the island (Bourogiannis 2013, 172). Although it could be proposed that they added some new cultural elements on Rhodes, it cannot be maintained that they had changed the local culture in the overall pottery production, burial tradition or cult.

Conclusions ACCEPTAT

The thorough analyses of the LH III and EIA periods in the South-eastern Aegean reveal that interactions, contacts and exchanges were frequent and significant within the Aegean and between the Aegean and the East. There were external influences on the material culture that along with local trends and preferences formed the local styles, and often idiosyncrasies, in this region. The South-eastern Aegean remained an integral part in a network of moving people, craftsmen, ideas, practices and technologies despite the changes from the 14th to 7th centuries BC. These were important elements, but they were only a part of those that developed the local cultural character. Although some small groups of people may have migrated to the South-eastern Aegean from the Greek mainland in the LH III, and Phoenicians to Rhodes in the 7th century BC, the local cultural changes cannot be attributed to them.MANUSCRIT The character of the local styles, the idiosyncratic practices and beliefs, as well as the use of the past in the local traditions, is an amalgam of the local socio-political conditions and cultural traits with external influences through contacts and exchanges. In this process there were three important characteristics attested in both the LH III and the EIA in the Dodecanese. The first is the regionalism that can be identified through the burial traditions and practices within the South-eastern Aegean. The differences of Rhodes

16 and Kos from the LH III until the 7th century BC illustrate the degree of similarities and differences. The second is the connection with the past, even in the EIA despite the new socio-economic conditions, like the continuity of cremations and most importantly the (re- )invention of tradition. This process has been identified already in the re-use of the LH IIIA tombs during the LH IIIC phase, the PG and G burial ground at Kos above the Mycenaean settlement as well as the re-use of LH III chamber tombs in the 10th century BC at Dirmil in the Halicarnassos peninsula and the 8th century BC Kameiros. The use of the Mycenaean past was symbolically employed for promoting status, identity and/or family/personal links with the heroic/mythical past addressing their contemporary audience. It is possible that this process also helped in the crystallisation of the Hellenic identity during the Geometric and Archaic period. The third characteristic is the participation of this region in the exchange networks within the Aegean and with the Eastern Mediterranean, primarily with Cyprus and secondarily with the Levant. These characteristics combined formed the cultural character of the South-eastern Aegean during the LH III and the EIA.

References ACCEPTAT

Bass, G.F. (1963). “Mycenaean and Protogeometric tombs in the Halikarnassos peninsula.” AJA 67, 353-361. Benzi, M. (1982). “Tombe Micenee di Rodi riutilizzate nel TE III C.” SMEA 23, 323-335. Benzi, M. (1988). “Mycenaean pottery later than LH IIIA:1 from the Italian excavations at Trianda on Rhodes.” In S. Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou (eds.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese. Copenhagen, 39-55. Benzi, M. (1992). Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea, vol. 1-2. Rome. Benzi, M. (1993). “The Late Bronze Age pottery from Vathy cave, Kalymnos.” In C. Zerner, P. Zerner and J. Winder (eds.), Wace and Blegen. Amsterdam, 275-288. Bosnakis, D. (1990). “Γεωμετρικοί τάφοι και προϊστορικά λείψανα.” ΑΔ 45, 495-496. BosnakMANUSCRITis, D. (2001). “Καύσεις νεκρών από την πόλη της Κω.” N.C. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου. Athens, 223-257. Bourogiannis, G. (2013). Who hides behind the pots? A reassessment of the Phoenician presence in the Early Iron Age Cos and Rhodes.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 50, 139- 189.

17 Cavanagh, W. and Mee, C. (1978). “The re-use of earlier tombs in the LH IIIC period.” BSA 73, 31-44. Coldstream, J.N. (1998). “Crete and the Dodecanese: alternative eastern approaches to the Greek world during the Geometric period.” In V. Karageorghis, N.C. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th cent. BC. Athens, 255-263. Coldstream, J.N. (2003). Geometric Greece 900-700 BC. 2nd edition, London. Coldstream, J.N. (2008). Greek Geometric Pottery. 2nd edition, London. Crielaard, J.P. (1998). “Surfing on the Mediterranean web: Cypriot long-distance communications during the eleventh and tenth centuries BC.” In V. Karageorghis, N.C. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th cent. BC. Athens, 187-206. D’Agostino, B. (2006). “Funerary customs and society on Rhodes in the Geometric period, some observations.” In E. Herring, I. Lemos, F. Lo Schiavo, L. Vagnietti, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins (eds.), Across Frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians & Cypriots. London, 57-69. Dietz, S. (1984). Lindos IV, 1. Excavations and SurveysACCEPTAT in Southern Rhodes: The Mycenaean Period. Copenhagen. Georgiadis, M. (2003) . The South-eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean Period: Islands, landscape, death and ancestors. BAR International Series 1196, Oxford. Georgiadis, M. (2008). “Kos in the Bronze Age.” In C. Gallou, M. Georgiadis and G. Muskett (eds.), Dioskouroi. BAR International Series 1889, Oxford, 228-236. Georgiadis, M. (2009). “The South-eastern Aegean at the end of the Bronze Age: A crossroads of interaction.” In C. Bachhuber and R.G. Roberts (eds.), Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. BANEA Monographs 1, Oxford, 92-98. Georgiadis, M. (2012). Kos in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age: the Halasarna material and the settlement pattern in the Aegean islands. INSTAP Academic Press, Prehistory MANUSCRITMonographs 38, Philadelphia. Gregoriadou, A., Giannikouri, A. and Marketou, T. (2001). “Καύσεις νεκρών από την Ιαλυσό.” In N.C. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου. Athens, 373-403.

18 Hermary, A. (1998). “Votive offerings in the sanctuaries of Cyprus, Rhodes and Crete during the Late Geometric and Archaic periods.”, In V. Karageorghis, N.C. Stampolidis (eds.), Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th cent. BC. Athens, 265-276. Hope Simpson, R. and Lazenby, J.F. (1970). “Notes from the Dodecanese ii.” BSA 65, 47- 77. Hope Simpson, R. and Lazenby, J.F. (1973). “Notes from the Dodecanese iii.” BSA 68, 127- 179. Jacopi, G. (1932-1933). “La stipe votive.” Clara Rodos 6/7, 279-365. Jones, R.E. (1986). Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens. Jones, R.E. and Mee, C. (1978). “Spectrographic analyses of Mycenaean pottery from Ialysos on Rhodes: results and implications.” JFA 5, 461-470. Kantzia, C. (1987). “Γωνία οδών Π. Τσαλδάρη και 31ης Μαρτίου.” ΑΔ 42, 621-624. Karantzali, E. (2001). The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes. BAR International Series 988, Oxford. Karantzali, E. (2003). “Η Μυκηναϊκή εγκατάσταση στα Δωδεκάνησα: H περίπτωση της Ρόδου.”, In Ν. Kyparissi-Apostolika and M. Papakonstantinou (eds.), Η Περιφέρεια του Μυκηναϊκού Κόσμου. Athens, 513-534. ACCEPTAT Karantzali, E. (2005). “Mycenaeans at Ialysos: trading station or colony?.” In R. Laffineur and E. Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Aegaeum 25, Liège, 141-151. Karantzali, E. (2009). “Local and imported Late Bronze Age III pottery from Ialysos, Rhodes: tradition and innovations.” In D. Danielidou (ed.), Δώρον: Τιμητικός Τόμος για τον Καθηγητή Σπύρο Ιακωβίδη. Athens, 355-382. Karantzali, E. and Ponting, M.J. (2000). “ICP-AES analysis of some Mycenaean vases from the cemetery at Pylona, Rhodes.” BSA 95, 219-238. Kourou, N. (2003). “Rhodes: the Phoenician issue revisited, Phoenicians at Vroulia?.” In N.C. Stampolidis and V. Karageorghis (eds.), Πλόες Sea Routes, Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th – 6th centuries BC. Athens, 249-262. Lambrinoudakis,MANUSCRIT V.K. (1988). “Veneration of ancestors in Geometric Naxos.” In R. Hägg, N. Marinatos and G. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practices. Stockholm, 235-246. Lemos, I. (2002). The Protogeometric Aegean- The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford. Levi, D. (1925-1926). “La grotta di Aspripetra a Coo.” Annuario 8-9, 235-312. Marketou, T. (1987). “Προϊστορικά λείψανα στο οικόπεδο Ν. Μουζάκη.” ΑΔ 42, 620-61.

19 Marketou, T., Karantzali, E., Mommsen, H., Zacharias, N., Kilikoglou, V. and Schwedt, A. (2006), “Pottery wares from the prehistoric settlement at Ialysos (Trianda) in Rhodes.” BSA 101, 1-55. Martelli, M. (1988). “La stipe vitiva dell”Athenaion di Ialysos: un primo bilancio.” In S. Dietz and I. Papachristodoulou (eds.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese. Copenhagen, 104-120. Mazarakis-Ainian, A. (1997). From Ruler’s Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-70 B.C.). SIMA 121, Jonsered. Mee, C. (1982). Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An Archaeological Survey. Warminster. Melas E.M. (1985). The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. SIMA 68, Göteborg. Melas M. (1988). “Exploration in the Dodecanese: new prehistoric and Mycenaean finds.” BSA 83, 283-311. Morricone, L. (1972-1973). “Coo: scavi e scoperte nel “Serraglio” e in località minori (1935- 1943).” Annuario 50-51, 139-396. Morricone, L. (1978). “Sepolture della prima età del ferro a Coo.” Annuario 56, 9-427. Mountjoy, P.A. (1999). Regional Mycenaean DecoratedACCEPTAT Pottery, vol. 1-2. Rahden/Westf. Özgünel C. (1996). Mykenische Keramik in Anatolien. Asia Minor Studien 23, Bonn. Paton, W.R. (1887). “Excavations in Caria.” JHS 8, 64-82. Paton, W.R. and Myres J.L. (1896). “Karian sites and Inscriptions.” JHS 16, 188-271. Skerlou, E. (1995). “Ύπαιθρος.” ΑΔ 50, 806-807. Skerlou, E. (1999). “Ψαλίδι.” ΑΔ 54, 953-954. Skerlou, E. (2001). “Καύσεις νεκρών από την Καρδάμαινα της Κω.” In N.C. Stampolidis (ed.), Καύσεις στην Εποχή του Χαλκού και την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου. Athens, 259-283. Skerlou, E. (2001-2004a). “Πόλη Κω.” ΑΔ 56-59, 298-299. Skerlou, E. (2001-2004b). “Ηρακλής, Ψαλίδι.” ΑΔ 56-59, 312-314. Skerlou, E. (2005). “Περιοχή Ασκληπιείου.” ΑΔ 60, 1161. Whitley,MANUSCRIT J. (2002). “Objects with Attitude: Biographical Facts and Fallacies in the Study of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Warrior Graves.” CAJ 12.2, 217-232. Wriedt Sorensen, L. and Pentz, P. (1992). Lindos IV.2: Excavations and Surveys in Southern Rhodes: Post-Mycenaean Periods until Roman Times and Medieval Period. Copenhagen.

20 Zervaki, F. (2011). “Νεκροταφείο της ΥΕ ΙΙΙ Γ-Υπομυκηναϊκής περιόδου στην Αγία Αγάθη της Ρόδου.” In A. Mazarakis-Ainian (ed.), The Dark Ages Revisited, International Conference in Memory of W.D.E. Coulson. Volos, 769-784.

Biographical Note

Mercourios Georgiadis is a Teaching Associate at the Department of Archaeology in the University of Nottingham. His research focuses on burials, rituals, landscape, settlement patterns, surveys and pottery in the prehistoric Aegean. He is particularly interested in the prehistory of the South-eastern Aegean for which he has published two monographs and several articles.

ACCEPTAT

MANUSCRIT

21