HESPERIA 75 (2006) THE EASTERN Pages 453S23 KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Integrated Methods for a

Dynamic Landscape

abstract

From 1997 to 2003, the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (EKAS) a investigated 350-km2 region east of the ancient city of Corinth, focusing on an primarily the northern Corinthian plain. EKAS developed interdis sci ciplinary methodology that emphasizes novel applications of geological ence, computer-based knowledge systems, and strategies for fieldwork and collaboration among experts. In this article, the research philosophies and methods are presented and their application illustrated with results from the one survey. The historical development of settlement, Kromna in the north ern Corinthian plain, is examined in detail to demonstrate the interpretive potential of data collected by these methods.

INTRODUCTION

measure Corinth was one of the great cities of the ancient world, in large near because of its location strategic crossroads to the east.1 The Isthmus to of Corinth provided overland passage from southern central Greece, and linked the Corinthian Gulf, leading to Italy and the west, with the access to to Saronic Gulf, giving the Aegean Sea, Anatolia, and the Levant more the east (Fig. 1). The site of ancient Corinth has been excavated for at than 100 years by the American School of Classical Studies Athens.2 Much archaeological and topographic work has been undertaken in the at city's eastern hinterland, including excavations the Panhellenic Sanctuary

1. The Eastern Korinthia Archaeo and Frederick Hemans; and in 2000 Tartaron, with advice from his co two Pullen. the based logical Survey (EKAS) began with 2003 by Gregory andDaniel authors, generated drawings seasons to on the Information of environmental work in 1997 The project operated from 1999 2003 Geographic Sys a tems database. For the and 1998, directed by JayNoller, under permit granted by the Hellenic (GIS) recogni Hellenic of Culture to the American tion of and under permits granted by the Ministry helpful suggestions gener at ous financial from several Institute of Geology and Mineral School of Classical Studies Athens. support see Exploration (IGME). In 1999 EKAS All of the photographs reproduced here sources, below, Acknowledgments. was are from the archives. Thomas 2. Corinth with references. codirected by Timothy Gregory project XX,

? The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 454 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

-^ ^iriza "on??* Examilia ^^^v\ ? 'V? Rachi Boska {/ r-^f i^yyAcrocormth f.. ^S^ ?0/ v Oil) VTV H.

Athikiaj fi

r-? ov c^ Vrk ^^.^ piO^C o^. ^iX

0 10 Km S

1. of the eastern Corin Figure Map of Poseidon at Isthmia,3 the Saronic port at Kenchreai,4 and the two major thia, sites mentioned in the sites of Korakou and as well as extensive studies of the showing prehistoric Gonia,5 text built environment as it relates to historical sources.6 A few unsystematic were the most reconnaissance surveys also undertaken, thorough being James Wiseman's walking survey of the entire Corinthia in the 1960s.7 Between 1997 and 2003, the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey a east (EKAS) investigated 350-km2 region of the ancient city of Corinth; are the underlying methodology of the project and preliminary findings detailed below. For two decades prior to the survey, Timothy Gregory and a on other EKAS archaeologists produced large body of work the Corin on thia, focused particularly but not exclusively the Roman, Byzantine, and Frankish periods.8 With this extensive archaeological and historical

3. Isthmia II;Gebhard 1993; Greg 7.Wiseman 1963,1978; Biegen 2002, and Bynum 1995, respectively. ory 1993b; Hemans 1994; Isthmia VIII. 1920,1921,1930; Sakellariou and 8. Gregory 1985a, 1985b, 1990, 4. Kenchreai I. Faraklas 1971; Hope Simpson 1981, 1993a, 1993b, 1994; Isthmia V; Kar 5. Biegen 1921,1930; Rutter 1974. pp. 33-35. For similar kinds of topo dulias, Gregory, and Sawmiller 1995; at studies of the and Dann Renewed excavations Gonia by the graphic neighboring Kardulias, Gregory, 1997; are cur and Rife also Dann and Yerkes Greek Archaeological Service regions around Sikyon, Kleonai, 1999; see Lolos 1994. rently under way. the southwestern Corinthia, 6. Doukellis 1994; Romano 1993. 1998 and forthcoming, Marchand THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 455

TABLE 1. CHRONOLOGY FOR THE EASTERN CORINTHIA

Period Dates*

Early Neolithic 6500-5800 b.c. Middle Neolithic 5800-5300 Late Neolithic 5300-4500 Final Neolithic 4500-3100 Early Bronze Age 3100-2000 Middle Bronze Age 2000-1680 Late Bronze Age (Mycenaean) 1680-1065 Submycenaean 1065-1000 Protogeometric 1000-800 Geometric 800-700 Archaic 700-480 Classical 480-323 Hellenistic 323-31 b.c.-a.d. Early Roman 31 250 Late Roman 250-700 Early Medieval (Byzantine) 700-1200 Late Medieval (Byzantine) 1200-1537 Ottoman/Venetian 1537-1827

Modern 1827-present

are *Dates given in approximate calendar years.

we our a sequence, have been able to firmly affix study to chronological more framework covering than 8,000 years, from the establishment of Early re Neolithic communities to the present (Table 1). Nevertheless, previous search has offered only limited understanding of the territory inwhich these were sites found, including the locations of habitation and nonhabitation resource sites, road networks, and patterns of distribution and exploitation.9 a a EKAS has thus been both natural outgrowth of ongoing research and means to specific address these gaps in knowledge, using modern survey methods unavailable to previous investigators. or The eastern Corinthia, the territory lying east of ancient Corinth, offers a to the unique opportunity investigate changing relationships among urban, "sub-urban," and rural entities from prehistory to the present. Prior to a EKAS's work, number of settlements, industrial and exploitative areas, and other sites were already known outside Corinth's urban zone in the area was eastern Corinthia. The heavily traveled in antiquity, providing access sea Corinth life-sustaining to land and connections at the heart of mainland Greece. The fertile coastal plain of the eastern Corinthia was a source as major of agricultural commodities for Corinth and, just a important, for time provided high-quality architectural building stone was not at was that employed just Corinth and Isthmia, but also exported 9.E.g.,Rutter2003. for construction at the sanctuaries of and The 10.Tod Wise temple Epidauros Delphi.10 1985, pp. 200-205; can seen principal quarries still be today at Examilia and Kenchreai, and man 1978, p. 68; Burford 1969. smaller ones abound.11 11.Hayward 1996,2003. 12. The human of the eastern Corinthia reflects the E.g., Gregory 1993b; Isthmia long-term history Kardulias Rothaus 2000. VIII; 1999; interplay of local, regional, and supraregional interactions.12 A principal 456 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL. aim of EKAS has been to explore the way these relationships developed at and changed diverse spatial and temporal scales. In the prehistoric and eastern was not protohistoric periods, the Corinthia dominated by Corinth itself, and the questions surrounding the Corinthia tend to emphasize were regional contrasts within the entire northeastern P?loponn?se. Why Korakou and Gonia seemingly not abandoned during theMiddle Helladic was period, in contrast toTsoungiza and Zygouries? Why there apparently no Mycenaean palace center in the Corinthia? It seemed likely that intensive as survey might clarify these and other poorly documented patterns, such an to apparent change from nucleated dispersed settlement at the end of the Mycenaean period.13 The sub-urban and rural eastern Corinthia becomes less distinct ar

chaeologically once Corinth came to dominate the region, and our questions more on s center agency in the hinterland. Was the trajectory of Corinth were eastern hinterland inextricably tied to that of the Corinthian state? Or residents in the hinterland able to pursue independent relations within the a region and with the outside world? Thus, primary focus of EKAS has center at been the changing relationship between the urban Corinth and we its hinterland in historical times. More broadly, hoped that the survey data would contextualize known sites through the discovery and study of new sites and off-site material, reveal intraregional variability in human activity upon the diverse coastal, lowland, and upland landscapes of the over eastern Corinthia time, and illuminate the interactions of the people area of the eastern Corinthia with other parts of the Aegean and beyond.

RESEARCH COMPONENTS

Numerous research components were included under the EKAS umbrella are as an to (Table 2). They described briefly here introduction the detailed a treatments of methods and results below. EKAS created precise terminol to a ogy to define specific methodological concepts, giving rise number of terms and associated acronyms (Table 3). These terms and acronyms are used throughout the discussion that follows.

TABLE 2. PRINCIPAL EKAS RESEARCH COMPONENTS

Years Component

Geomorphological survey 1997-2001 Geographic Information System 1997-2002 Systematic archaeological survey Intensive (off-site) mode survey 1999-2002 Extensive mode survey 2000-2002 LOCA (on-site) mode survey 2000-2002

Experimental survey 1999,2001 Modern survey 1999-2002

Coasts and harbors survey 1999-2001 2000-2002 Mortuary survey Geophysical survey 2002 13. Rutter 2003, pp. 80-81. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 457

TABLE 3. GLOSSARY OF EKAS ACRONYMS

Term Acronym Meaning

Basic unit of intensive mode DiscoveryDU Unit survey discovery survey extensive EDU Extensive Discovery Unit Basic survey unit of discovery mode survey Individual of formed under the influence of a or GeomorphicGU Unit piece landscape specific geological a time. a cultural process during discrete period of Normally subset of the MU, concerns the the the GU explicitly formation of archaeological record. or scatter or LOCA Localized Cultural Anomaly Term for "site" anomalous feature or a class the MortuaryML LOCA Term for burial funerary feature, of LOCA designated by mortuary survey of distinct surface MorphostratigraphicMU Unit Geomorphic entity form, shaped by tectonic, alluvial, colluvial, or littoral processes of variable magnitude and frequency SIASpecial Interest Area Term for concentrations of LOCAs that form interpretable foci of human activity

Geomorphological Survey

was our Geomorphology fundamental to nearly every aspect of work. At a we as basic level, defined the archaeological survey universe geomorpho as logical space, emphasizing the notion that artifacts behave sediments. are are Their movements and the condition in which they found strongly are influenced by postdepositional processes (cultural and natural) that best studied using geomorphological techniques. Well in advance of the archaeological survey, teams of geologists mapped soils, sediments, faults, coarse and other features at scales ranging from (drainage basins) to fine a (localized geomorphic units). This information formed basis for the long-term environmental context of the eastern Corinthia, and supplied as many derived characteristics such coastline change, availability of fresh water, distribution of arable soils, and stability/instability of archaeological were landscapes. Geomorphologists intimately involved in the daily survey were effort: archaeological survey units placed by teams of archaeologists and geomorphologists to respect geomorphic boundaries, and geomorphol teams to ogy interns accompanied survey provide guidance and observations on fine-scale processes affecting the surface archaeological record.

Geographic Information System

are now a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) regular feature of archaeological projects,14 but until recently GIS had been used in survey to archaeology mainly analyze retroactively data that had already been col we a lected.15 Before the survey commenced, developed multifunctional GIS into our that has been integrated every phase of research.16 Topographic environmental 14.Wescott and Brandon 2000; (contours, landforms), (vegetation), geomorphological et and cultural land Levy al. 2001. (geology, hydrology, tectonics), (sites, burials, roads, use) sets were course 15.Gillings2000,p.l09. data created and continuously updated during the of the 16. Our GIS is based on the ESRI project. Aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and topographic, geological, software Arc suite, including VIEW, as sets and geomorphological maps served the principal data for locating ArcINFO, and more ArcGIS. recently, and the environmental and cultural data obtained The GIS database was designed and georeferencing through and teams and sur generated by Richard Rothaus and his survey. Archaeological geological navigated mapped students at St. Cloud State units aerial University. vey using georeferenced photographs and topographic maps 458 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

2. Units on Figure Discovery mapped generated by the GIS, which locational and contextual information was before survey near the Relational Access and FileMaker prehistoric printed (Fig. 2). databases, using Pro, site of Gonia and on superimposed were for the environmental and data, and these developed archaeological an aerial photograph, with UTM were to to linked paper field forms and the GIS. coordinates and notable features teams At the end of each field day, survey digitized their archaeological indicated and geomorphic units into the GIS, and entered all data generated by survey, artifact processing, and geomorphic analysis in the appropriate database. were to These databases linked in the GIS the spatial information, making to on a it possible generate detailed reports and images daily basis. Once was to incorporated in the GIS, this information used analyze and interpret patterns of artifact distributions across the survey area. was GIS also used to develop spatial probability models for settlement patterns in targeted periods of the past, notably for the coasts and harbors survey (see below).

Systematic Archaeological Survey

Systematic archaeological survey operated in three modes: intensive (off site) mode, extensive mode, and LOCA (on-site) mode, reflecting different a scales of investigation of culturally and physically diverse landscape. The was discovery phase of the survey performed mainly in intensive survey tracts called Discovery Units (DUs). In these units, walkers at 10-m in tervals inspected 2-m swaths of the surface, counting artifacts and picking a up representative sample according to the "chronotype" collection system teams to (explained below). Artifact processing followed behind perform in-field analysis of the finds. Extensive mode survey included nonsystem areas atic advance scouting and systematic, nonintensive investigation of THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 459

falling outside the intensive survey transects. The small size of the extensive or survey teams (typically two three people) allowed them to range widely over the survey area. LOCA (on-site) mode survey involved intensive field investigation of anomalous concentrations encountered during the discovery were means a x m phase of survey. Many investigated by of grid of 10 10 we a sampling squares, but adopted flexible approach to accommodate the diverse nature of the anomalies. The specific methods and activities of each are of these survey modes described in detail below, with several examples.

Experimental Survey

a EKAS designed and carried out series of experiments to reflexively evalu to ate procedures and calibrate results against survey conditions. Methods were sources evaluated for their efficacy, with shortcomings exposed and of bias identified; the results could then be fed back into the process as we adjustments to field procedures. In calibrating the results, sought to identify the effects of variability in local field conditions, making it possible a to adjust quantitative and qualitative results, and providing meaningful basis for comparison among projects with disparate methods, aims, and local conditions.17

Modern Survey

to to EKAS aimed extend equal treatment the Modern period, defined as extending from the formation of the modern Greek state in 1827 until the present. Survey archaeologists have shown interest in modern Greece to extent serves the that it the purposes of ethnoarchaeology,18 but the a new archaeological investigation of this chronological period is relatively a phenomenon without methodological tradition.19 In order to augment on the typical emphasis "traditional" and recently abandoned settlements, seasonal and and industrial land EKAS term structures,20 agricultural use,21 17. The "experimental survey" the Modern into standard data collection may also refer to the use of excavated integrated period practices to in the teams.22 Modern were material evaluate the results of plow implemented part by regular survey features zone and Clark on were experiments surveys: recorded survey forms and modern artifacts counted and gathered; and Schofield 1991. this information was then incorporated into the project s GIS and data 18. E.g., Chang 1984,1992,1997; bases. For these purposes, theModern was divided into two histori Sutton 1988,1994; Whitelaw 1991; period defined Recent Modern (1827-1960) and Present Modern Forbes 1997;Murray and Kardulias cally phases: a 2000. (1960-present), the latter reflecting the postwar transition from largely 19. and Seretis to an one. Diacopoulos, Given, agrarian society affluent, modern, urban A ceramic typology 2003; 2004. was on Diacopoulos for Recent Modern established the basis of stratified samples from 20. Vroom 1993,1996,1998; Sutton are to a the Corinth Excavations,23 and efforts under way provide similar 2000; Lee 2001. for Present Modern. 21. typology Seretis and Diacopoulos 2003. This has been an investi 22. Diacopoulos 2004, pp. 186-190. archaeological approach complemented by 23. of the relevant written records?both historical and Courtesy of Guy Sanders, gation archival?as director of the Corinth as Excavations, well oral information from local inhabitants. For example, the Greek who kindly provided access to stratified to State Archive in New Corinth is expected yield important information modern pottery from the Panayia site about of subsistence, land use, and modernization in the eastern in Ancient Corinth. patterns Corinthia in theModern The modern survey also considered the 24. Courtesy of Adam Athousakis, period.24 director of the State Archive inNew human aspect of the present cultural landscape, including contemporary Corinth, and EKAS collaborator. indigenous perceptions of heritage, history, and national identity, and the 460 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

on threat and impact of modern development the cultural landscape.25 were as as These issues explored with local residents, well with representa tives of the Greek Archaeological Service and administrators in local and state government. Fourteen modern sites (LOCAs), ranging from cemeteries to sub urban settlements, have been fully investigated. The example of Lakka a Skoutara, recently abandoned agricultural settlement (Fig. 1), shows how were investigations of theModern period integrated.26 The archaeological exploration of the settlement and its surroundings aimed at clarifying the relationship between isolated rural establishments and their surrounding a landscapes in the Modern period. Nestled in polje among steep hills and ravines, Lakka Skoutara consists of a number of scattered domestic a structures, recently refurbished church, agricultural features including threshing floors and terraced fields, and resin-producing pine forests. The investigation by EKAS included geomorphological analysis, intensive an pedestrian survey, architectural survey of the standing buildings, the search for archival records, and the collection of oral information from landowners. present-day con On the basis of archaeological evidence alone, Lakka Skoutara an forms to the conceptually rigid and static interpretation of isolated, or nucleated agricultural hamlet village. But information obtained from a former residents challenges this interpretation, revealing instead highly dynamic and flexible rural settlement and landscape. We conclude that Lakka Skoutara was neither a concentration of scattered seasonal farm nor an or most houses, isolated village hamlet. Rather, for of the 19th and was a 20th centuries it something in between, semipermanent settlement characterized by lengthy periods of habitation intimately linked with the inland town of Sophiko, and connected to the outside world through extensive road networks and exchange networks facilitated through the harbor town of Korphos.27 The study of Lakka Skoutara holds broad im to plications for conceptual and methodological approaches Greek rural settlement in the past, reinforcing current views that emphasize dynamism over a an static categories that give false impression of eternal, unchanging Greek rural village.28

Coasts and Harbors Survey

was as an The coasts and harbors survey constituted independent research endeavor under the EKAS umbrella to address the difficulties of identify ing prehistoric and early historical harbor sites in the Corinthia. A harbor a location model, embedded in broader probability model for the types us to of settings favored by prehistoric inhabitants, succeeded in guiding some cases several potential harbors and in associated settlements, including a a town. fortified Early Bronze Age settlement and Mycenaean harbor These results have been published in detail elsewhere.29

25. For the discussion of such issues, 26. Diacopoulos 2004, pp. 194-198. 29. Tartaron, Rothaus, and Pullen 2004. et see, e.g., Fotiadis 1993; Hamilakis 27. Caraher and Diacopoulos 2003; Rothaus al. 2003; Tartaron, 1998. 28. Sutton 1994,2000. Pullen, and Noller 2006. the eastern korinthia archaeological survey 461

Mortuary Survey

The mortuary survey was constituted in recognition that proper documenta tion of the mortuary landscape required specialized skills and data collection beyond that carried out by survey teams. This study sought to document as and interpret the physical remains of burial indices of variability in settlement, land use, and sociocultural identity. The mortuary landscape or may illuminate reflect historical contingencies and processes, including the dynamic interaction between Corinth and its hinterland in ancient and medieval times and the evolution of settlement and the emergence of aHellenic identity in modern times. The systematic incorporation of the mortuary survey into the research strategy and field methods of EKAS is unprecedented inMediterranean landscape archaeology. Working in conjunction with the extensive and intensive survey teams, the mortuary survey team examined both previ ously known and newly discovered sites and recorded the essential material was components of mortuary behavior.30 Each site then dated by associ or ated finds formal typology, comparable evidence for Corinthian burial was evaluated, and locational data were entered into the EKAS GIS. The an mortuary survey also served important conservational purpose by docu numerous or were menting sites of ancient Byzantine date that endangered or by looting, vandalism, dumping, agriculture, construction. an This study revealed that the eastern Corinthia has been abundant and complex mortuary landscape throughout history.31 Survey directed by over Joseph Rife documented 47 discrete burial areas, representing well 1,000 single burial events dating from the Geometric through theMiddle or are near areas Late Byzantine periods. Most situated of dense settlement and coastal or inland routes of traffic on the Isthmus. The survey of modern as cemeteries, directed by Lita Tzortzopoulou-Gregory part of the broader modern survey (see above), recorded 10 sites containing 837 graves. These use or are sites, which have been in since the late 19th early 20th century, located throughout the survey region.

Geophysical Survey

a In 2002, geophysical survey using magnetic and soil resistance methods was conducted at several locations of interest identified during surface were survey.32 The results mixed, but at one location, Perdikaria (see Fig. 16, below), strong magnetic and soil resistance anomalies outline the plans of several large buildings in two principal orientations indicating a x m distinct chronological phases, including complex measuring 30 15 a rooms cor with number of internal (Fig. 3). These architectural features well to a dense scatter of artifacts and architectural of 30. Cf., e.g., O'Shea 1984, pp. 39 respond fragments 41, table 3.2; Carr 1995, pp. 129-132, Roman-Late Medieval date. table III; Parker Pearson 1999, pp. 5 near a At another location, Kesimia (Fig. 16, below), two anomalies 17. concentration of Classical material may represent kilns. The geophysical 31. 1992; Isthmia IX, forth Dickey us to a new survey allowed simultaneously evaluate the capabilities of coming. 32. Sarris 2003. generation of geophysical instruments for landscape-scale questions,33 our 33. Kvamme 2003. and to test the reliability of surface patterns. At the Kesimia location, 462 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

6 nT/m

-11 nT/m

16 nT/m

5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00

3. Processed of Figure image geo physical results from Perdikaria (above), with interpreted outlines of structures and other features 0.00u _ v (below). 35.00 50.00 55.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.0?T 20.00 25.00 30.00 40.00 45.00 Courtesy A. S arris we learned that a substantial surface concentration of architectural blocks no and fragments has corresponding subsurface foundations?at least not we to a where expected them be. This result is useful reminder of the complex transformational processes by which such material remains have been moved around the landscape. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 463

RESEARCH PHILOSOPHY AND INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES

concern in A persistent regional archaeology is the continuing inability of to survey data support increasingly sophisticated social questions. Because not archaeological survey permits in Greece typically do allow regional sets to or data be strengthened through complementary excavation, coring, long-term replication studies (see below), survey archaeologists have found most to that the effective response is improve the practices by which data are a collected and incorporated into project's "archaeological knowledge on system."34 EKAS focused data collection first through a series of "qual ity control" practices, and second by emphasizing the free and timely flow of information among project members at every stage of the research. In we our this section describe fundamental principles that guided collection and treatment of data.

Research Integration

to Modern survey projects tend be regional in scope and heavily multidis as van ciplinary, yet, Tjeerd Andel has noted, research agendas and inter are actions of experts from various disciplines often poorly coordinated.35 across seem Although close coordination disciplines would to constitute a common-sense to approach that ought be universal in multidisciplinary as projects, experts such natural scientists and pottery specialists continue to be marginalized in survey design and fieldwork.36 These experts often serve as independent consultants excluded from guiding the fieldwork, most in our contexts and detrimentally view, from the of archaeological discovery. EKAS tackled this problem by emphasizing close collaboration of experts from all participating with the 34. McGlade 1997, where he uses disciplines, beginning planning term more to an and of the and all the narrowly describe organization project, continuing through preliminary the and data interactive computer environment in studies, archaeological survey, subsequent recording, analysis, can which archaeologists define and and interpretation. GIS and explore problems through The fieldwork aspect of this philosophy entailed in-field collaboration other technical tools. New theoretical in the of data. For to acquisition primary example, archaeologists participated approaches landscape archaeology, seasons to com not to in and in the including but limited those geological geomorphological mapping prior in mencement of the surface and interns were attached advocated postmodern archaeologies survey, geomorphology Ashmore and are to teams on a (e.g., Knapp 1999), archaeological survey daily basis. The geoarchaeological rather in our to poorly developed Aegean program of EKAS exemplifies commitment true interdisciplinary survey archaeology. We expect that an research, explicit response to van Andel's call for communication fuller of these daily integration perspectives and "intensive of and from the in exchange information, ideas, procedures Aegean survey research design will be an in to final between and important development the planning stage through publication" archaeologists future. For initial on scientists.37 In the in artifacts of thoughts these geological field, specialists many periods see Terrenato 2004. prospects, formed processing teams, which followed the survey teams to examine the 35. van Andel 1994. contexts were finds in their of discovery. Survey team leaders assisted in 36. van Andel 1994, p. 28; Alcock decision-making by in-field consultation with experts in geomorphology, 2000, p. 265. and other The result was enhanced communication 37. van Andel 1994, p. 28; see archaeology, disciplines. also "contextual and of the data across Other of the approach" of Karl deeper understanding disciplines. examples are Butzer (1978,1982). this collaborative approach described in relevant sections below. 464 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

an This philosophy finds interesting parallel in the "reflexive archaeol new ogy" practiced at the excavations at Catalh?y?k.38 Ian Hodder and his to to colleagues brought specialists the trenches observe the recovery of to material "at the trowels edge" counteract the usual practice of removal no by excavators and subsequent analysis by others with experience of the a primary context.39 In similar way, the participation of specialists (both a archaeological and nonarchaeological) in EKAS field teams created "rich interactive matrix"40 between surveyors and specialists, who shared the experience of contexts of discovery and opportunities for mutually enlightening consultation.

Sampling, Survey Coverage, and Flexibility

EKAS is situated in theMediterranean tradition of systematic, nonsite (or "siteless"), intensive survey,41 in clear distinction to surveys that do not walk a or on the survey universe in systematic way, which focus the discovery and investigation of "sites," however defined, to the exclusion of other material a in the landscape. The nonsite, intensive approach implies commitment a un to landscape-based rather than site-based survey,42 distinction that derscores ontological problems with the concept of site.43 EKAS employed a an stratified sampling scheme in attempt to extract data that would be as as area. representative possible of the characteristics of the entire study We first divided the survey universe into environmental strata, or zones. A first stratum consisted of six major drainage systems encompassing the area 350-km2 survey (Fig. 4).Within each drainage, further stratification identified local environmental and ecological variability. Set in this broader environmental background, EKAS sought to area investigate selected parts of the between the ancient city of Corinth and the Saronic Gulf, in part to explore how ecological diversity may have affected life over the past 8,000 years. Long transects, made up of small, were across a we contiguous survey units, walked selection of the strata were defined (Fig. 4). These transects intended to be representative of the environmental and cultural diversity of the survey area, but their locations also reflected the limitations imposed by our annual permits. we were access sur Each season, denied to portions of the requested we no areas vey area, and had foreknowledge of which would be excised. was to The geographical extent of intensive survey limited primarily the northern Corinthian plain (the Examilia and Isthmia basins), with quite areas small approved for survey in other basins (Fig. 4). Total coverage in a survey units amounted to 3.85 km2, rather than projected 12 km2, in large our part because bureaucratic delays in issuing permits reduced total field over seasons to time for archaeological survey four nine of the planned was 16 weeks (Table 4). This modest coverage augmented by extensive

et 2003. 38. Hodder 1997,2000b. Thomas 1975; Foley 1981; Dunnell Cavanagh al. 2002; Tartaron 1983. In the 39. Hodder 2000a, pp. 5-6; Farid and Dancey Aegean area, 42. Bintliff, Kuna, and Venclov? 2000; Berggren andHodder 2003, see, e.g., Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, 2000, p. 1. et pp. 426-428. 1988;Wright al. 1990; Cherry, 43. As also discussed in, e.g., Gallant 40. Doonan 2002, p. 787. Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Wells 1986; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 41. see Runnels Davis et al. Dunnell 1992. For early approaches, and 1996; 1997; 1991, pp. 21-22; and THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 465

Corinthian Gulf^

Ayios Kosmas/Kyras Vrysi

Gonia/Yiriza ^

-KEnchr&ti S?ro?icGulf -AyiaParaskevi Kromna Xylokeriza

V&ia

*1'J /Y'-I ^ " M "?

Lakka 7W1 Skoutara^g 0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers

4. Figure Eastern Corinthia, show us to survey in nonsystematic (scouting) mode, which permitted examine the six basins that define the area ing a further 20 km2 or more within the zones under our of and environmental designated permits. archaeological was Coverage in survey units particularly restricted during the first season, interest, as well as the locations of when our was to mean that could not be transects permit interpreted objects moved, archaeological survey us use a compelling to cumbersome system of flagging artifacts for inspec remove tion. In subsequent seasons we were not permitted to artifacts from our was to survey units, although it acceptable collect artifacts from many we to "sites." Although would have preferred make targeted collections from off-site units, the material we retrieved under a liberal designation of sites is preserved for future examination by specialists. our we While sample did not much resemble the plan drew up ini tially, the losses were to an extent offset by the project's other components a (Table 2), several of which operated in broader geographic framework without the same restrictions on field schedules, and which together an formed illuminating context for the natural and cultural history of the area. two full study To cite examples, the geomorphological component area and the coasts and harbors survey operated throughout the study under geological permits. Certain archaeological sites encountered outside were the Examilia and Isthmia basins during this work later approved for archaeological investigation. to on An unexpectedly positive response the restriction nonsite col was teams lections found in the creation of in-field artifact-processing 466 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF SURVEY COVERAGE IN DISCOVERY UNITS

1999 2000 2001 2002 Total

Discovery Units 256 600 392 88 1336 (DUs) Extensive Discovery Units 0 20 62 0 82 (EDUs) Coverage (km2) 0.97 1.87 0.79 0.22 3.85

that examined the finds in their contexts of discovery. In-field processing a our ser became fundamental component of integrative philosophy, and our to endipitously enforced inclination limit artifact collections for other reasons: on the negative impact the surface archaeological record and the crisis of storage space in Greek museums.44 The issues that engender conflict between the goals of survey archae are ologists and those of the Greek archaeological establishment complex,45 we and beyond the scope of this article. Certainly, do not pretend that were our or conditions optimal for survey, that unencumbered by these we same restrictions would have done everything the way. Yet the important point about the EKAS research model is that the presence of experts from all relevant disciplines in the field afforded unusual flexibility, enabling us as to undertake the necessary redesigns unpredictable circumstances demanded. These adversities tested, and ultimately validated, the flexibil ity we built into research design, staffing, and logistical capability. In the currently uncertain climate of survey archaeology in Greece, adaptability is essential.

The Survey Universe as Geomorphological Space

The landscapes of the eastern Corinthia preserve pervasive evidence of natural (e.g., alluvial, colluvial, tectonic) and anthropogenic (e.g., plowing, bulldozing, removal of soils) processes that disturb soils and sediments, and consequently the ancient surfaces and deposits they may contain. Failure to recognize and control for this complex transformational history before performing survey may result in specious interpretations of the surface record. A central innovation of EKAS was the explicit geomorphological foundation for defining and analyzing survey space. a Prior to archaeological reconnaissance, geomorphological survey provided maps of landforms and soils that influenced the selection of survey units, the way such units were treated in the field, and the interpretation of data. The universe was first divided into 44. 2004. record archaeological survey geomor Gregory In-field at different the most relevant of these are the phological spaces, scales; ing and processing, driven by heritage Morphostratigraphic Unit (MU) and the Geomorphic Unit (GU). The issues rather than permit restrictions, more common as is in other parts of the MUs are defined major landforms shaped by tectonic, alluvial, colluvial, Australia: et or world, notably Holdaway littoral processes, and identified by their distinct surface forms. MUs al. 1998, p. 4; Pardoe 2003. associated with alluvial include terrace fans, flood processes might deposits, 45. See, e.g., Kardulias 1994a; and insets. The boundaries between MUs channels, floodplain commonly Cullen 2001, p. 14; Cherry 2003, occur or are 155-159. at breaks in slope, angle, aspect. The GUs individual pieces of pp. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 467

5. Eastern Korinthia Figure Geomorphological map Archaeological Survey Units ping: Discovery (light lines) ? within numbered Geomorphic Units 400 Meters (heavy lines)

or landscape, however small large, that have formed under the influence of a or or single geological (e.g., alluvial colluvial) cultural (e.g., bulldozing) a process during discrete period of time. The boundaries of the GUs take account on movement into the effects of such processes artifact and loca a tion. The GU is generally smaller unit within the larger MU, although can be coterminous. they our Geomorphic Units formed the basis for the placement of archaeo our was logical Discovery Units (DUs). The inviolable principle of survey that DUs must not cross GU boundaries. Within the GU, archaeologists ac were free to define as many DUs as they deemed necessary, primarily as cording to uniform conditions of discovery, such visibility and ground cover were mean (Fig. 5). For this reason, survey units generally small, the ca. were size being 0.3 ha and the median 0.21 ha. The DUs placed in the field by teams of geomorphologists and archaeologists. The GU/DU system us at a to use permitted to recognize formation processes very fine scale, and that knowledge to better understand the integrity of the artifact distribu tions that we encountered. As a result, the inferences that we have drawn from the surface material have an explicit geomorphological foundation. This approach differs from standard techniques of defining survey or units.46 One traditional method is the long transect (with without on subunits) superimposed the landscape without regard for topography, or terrain, depositional history, designed to avoid judgmental placement a and to provide statistically valid sample. Another method defines "tracts" use an or according to units of modern land (e.g., agricultural field the land lying between two roads), ostensibly homogeneous in terms of topography or two ground visibility. Yet survey spaces defined by these methods ignore 46. table 2.1. our Mattingly 2000, p. 7, the fine-scale depositional history of sediments, and in experience tend 468 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

?fv':.*?'-i- ?.;??;* *, mm ?Ai

to 6. Rachi Boska, a flat mix geomorphic deposits impacted by bulldozing, sediment transport, Figure relic marine terrace, with and other processes. topped, was a Mt. Oneion in the distance, looking A second innovation the attachment of trained geomorphol south to a ogy intern each survey team.47 On daily basis, the geomorphologist to accompanied the team to perform fine-scale mapping and consult with on the team geomorphological processes within the survey units. With we the benefit of this collaboration, avoided creating units comprising a mixed contexts, preserving meaningful basis for interpretation of the a survey results. Archaeologists developed better understanding of surface more dynamics, and geologists became sensitive to archaeological problems and cultural material. were on occa The field geomorphologists' contributions vital many as two at sions, brief examples will show. During discovery-phase survey an terrace Rachi Boska, uplifted marine overlooking the northern Corin we a new thian plain (Fig. 6), observed that recent deep plowing for vineyard a had exposed copious remains of multiperiod site, including segments of a Classical or Hellenistic fortification wall and a dense scatter of artifacts

indicating repeated use from Neolithic to Roman times. To investigate the we a x m site, designated LOCA 9001, superimposed grid of 90 10 10 col over lection squares the vineyard (Fig. 7). Before the collection began, the geomorphology team identified a subtle disturbance that had escaped the some archaeologists' notice: the deliberate movement of of the plowed soil (along with the artifacts it contained) from the northern to the southern to an half of the vineyard, presumably level east-west-trending gully. This on disturbance, detected the basis of subtle properties of color and texture was in the dumped sediments, significant because it involved the removal one of artifact-rich soil from part of the vineyard to another with far lower artifact Without this intervention, it is certain that our density. virtually 47. This has now also been would have a false of the extent of the practice investigation produced impression the adopted by Troodos Archaeological scatter the amount of material in southern by grossly overestimating many and Environmental Survey Project: our 18. grid squares. We excluded those squares from grid collection, and later Given 2004, p. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 469

Figure 7. Plan of the gridded col lection of LOCA 9001 at Rachi Boska, showing the location of the gully into which soil and artifacts were from the northern imported gridded area. Artifact density figures (sherds/m2) are indicated on each of the DUs.

Figure 8. View of a limestone cairn at with vertical rills formed Vayia by #&**'' water erosion (rillenkarren), showing the of such long-term development erosiona! features in situ

found that low artifact densities in DUs surrounding the affected area justified the modification. At another site, the Saronic coastal site of Vayia, geomorphological to a analysis provided pivotal evidence leading chronological framework for limestone cairns and other architecture.48 In this case, geomorpholo gists examined karstic dissolution features, known as karren, as well as on other formational features the limestone (Fig. 8). They recognized differences in the progressive development of these features, suggesting a relative chronological framework with two broad phases in antiquity. these observations with and site 48. Described in detail in Tartaron, Combining archaeological survey map Pullen, and Noller 2006. ping, we were able to demonstrate a clear association between the older 47? THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL. phase architecture and Early Helladic (EH) II artifacts, the only material recovered from the interior of the cairns and sharing with the stone certain as a re geomorphological features such calcium carbonate accretions. As we a sult of this interdisciplinary effort, recognized fortified EH II coastal a a settlement overlooking superb harbor, and developed geoarchaeologi cal method for studying architecture that may have broad applications in karstic regions worldwide.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The eastern Corinthia is environmentally diverse, and thus may be a partitioned in variety of ways for analysis. One approach is to suggest zones area: that three notional geographic make up the EKAS survey the northern Corinthian plain, a lowland corridor that links ancient Corinth with the Corinthian Gulf and the Isthmus; the Saronic Gulf zone south of the Isthmus; and the trans-Oneion zone, comprising the upland hills and mountains and the basins south of the Oneion ridge zones a (Fig. 1). These reflect the experience of traversing landscape of one topographical diversity in which ascends from the northern plain or through around the liminal Oneion range and continues in rugged or terrain either inland toward the Argolid coastward toward the Saronic a Gulf. This approach is useful in that it presents potentially humanized on our perception of the landscape, and also because restrictions placed our permit limited most of work to the northern Corinthian plain, readily definable from this phenomenonological point of view. Yet the basis of a zone was our initial definition of 350-km2 survey the geomorphologi are a cal perspective that sediments, including artifacts, transported by crosscut are crosscut zones series of drainages that and by the geographic on (Fig. 4). In spite of the geographical limitations placed the pedestrian we were to survey, able perform paleoenvironmental work throughout the 350-km2 area.

The eastern Corinthia has been shaped mainly by regional uplift of the northern P?loponn?se and by sea-level fluctuations caused by Tertiary gla cial and interglacial sequences.49 Because Greece is positioned at the southern edge of the Eurasian tectonic plate, with the African plate be ing subducted below, the country is seismically active and the historical record of frequent and often devastating earthquakes reaches back almost three millennia and continues to the present.50 Three main structural fault domains affect the eastern Corinthia: W-WNW-trending normal faults east bounding the Corinthian Gulf; NNW-trending normal faults of the ern structures western P?loponn?se; and NW- and NE-trending of the terminus of the Hellenic Volcanic Arc. Tectonic activity along these faults one is of the most rapid and significant agents of landscape change in the Corinthia. The regional record of uplift and subsidence is complex and vari able, and local sequences may be the most factors in significant topography 49. 1973; 1999, a Freyberg Hayward and coastline configuration. The faults also play key role in determining 2003. the of fresh water the distribution of sources supply through groundwater 50. Ambraseys and Jackson 1990; at as Stiros 2001. accessible through wells and issuing the surface springs (Fig. 9). THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 471

p'-**^'\

' ?. i Fi v , i.^^^m

Jl Isthmia

'"ffiTv:

Kenchreai

MT. ONEION

"M -tiK

9. Figure Major faults traversing the Isthmia and Examilia basins. Note 'P .;;!:iSlW-Sl two the convergence of major fault lines at Kromna. EfaiiMTJS^miMi?In.

The surface geology of the eastern Corinthia is dominated by carbon ate rock, generally white to grayish Pliocene-Pleistocene marine marls, are capped by Pleistocene conglomerates, sandstones, and limestones that interbedded with marls and other clay units (Fig. 10).51 The properties of the limestones, including stratification, solubility, and mineralogy, produce springs and strongly influence the formation of soils, particularly the red terra but because of and 51. Institute of and Min (iron-oxide stained) rossa,52 regional topography Geology eral colluvial and alluvial are also contributors.53 In ad Exploration 1972,1975. relief, processes major 52. and the of these Yassoglou, Kosmas, dition, complex depositional history sediments, particularly Moustakas 1997. as occurrences 1997; Atalay affected by tectonic activity, has resulted in highly variable 53. Yaalon 1997; van Andel 1998; of red, white, and greenish-white clays suitable for potting.54 Bruno 2003. as a Today, the eastern Corinthia is characterized fragmented Medi 54. Farnsworth, Perlman, and Asaro terranean forest with a xeric moisture On the basis of numerous 1977;Whitbread 2003. regime.55 a consensus has that the climate 55. Yaalon 1997, pp. 159-162; paleoenvironmental studies, emerged Adams and Faure 1998, p. 636. of Greece?that is, temperature, rainfall, and seasonality?has remained 472 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Corinthian Gulf

Kenchreai Saronic Gulf

I A Recent Deposits E??3 Recent EluvialDeposits

I*71 Pleistocene Red, Clayey Sand

Hi Tyrrhenian Marine and Near Shore Deposits

H Fluvio-terrestrial Deposits

1 I Pliocene Marls 10. of Figure Geological features Bffl Mesozoic Limestone the northern Corinthian plain. T. F. Tartaron, after Hayward 2003, E23 Ophiolite p. 17, fig. 2.1

relatively constant for the last 5,000 years. By that time, theMediterranean was climatic regime of hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters established. recent curves Similarly, glacio- and hydro-isostatically corrected sea-level suggest that modern sea level was attained some 6,000 years ago, and has on average increased a few meters at most since that time.56 Yet it is also recognized that variability at smaller geographical and temporal scales frequently becomes significant in cultural processes. Frequent co-seismic uplift and subsidence events in the Corinthia have altered the relationship or between shore and sea, drowning coasts thrusting them upward inways that greatly exceed the modest changes accommodated by general eustatic or isostatic sea-level models.57 The same maybe said of climatic variability: 56. Lambeck 1995,1996. or 57. Noller et al. 1997;Wells 2001, annual decadal anomalies in climate may induce drought, flooding, and pp. 173-176. other perturbations with devastating effects on humans and significant 58. See, e.g., Bawden and for Reycraft consequences archaeological patterning.58 2000; Chew 2001. the Corinthia has been of considerable interest to Although geologists 59. Freyberg 1973; Vita-Finzi and for its tectonic history and long-term structural development,59 much less is King 1985; Keraudren and Sorel 1987. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 473

areas known about local geomorphology in that would be most relevant to human activity: soils, local faults, hydrology and groundwater sources, and karst topography. EKAS studied the environmental history of the eastern a Corinthia in number of ways. Each of the six natural drainage systems, comprising major streams, subsidiary streams, and the surrounding land was forms that provide sediment load and transport cultural material, consid as a ered the coarsest-grained entity in nested hierarchy of geomorphological were units. Within each basin, finer-grained units mapped to document the history of Holocene landscape evolution, including investigations of soil erosion, tectonics, coastline change, vegetational succession, mineralogy, raw materials sourcing, and dating of deposits and landforms. was on The geomorphic mapping based analysis of satellite imagery and aerial photography, with extensive field checking by teams of ge were ologists and archaeologists. Surface deposits and landforms mapped onto 1:5,000 topographic sheets and incorporated into digital elevation models for the use of field teams. Field verification consisted of numerous transects north-south in each drainage system, inwhich geomorphologists described the physical landscape, examined geomorphic surfaces and surfi as cial deposits exposed in natural outcrops such stream banks and coastal bluffs, and completed soil profiles of exposures in wells, landfill pits, and new or house excavations. These soil-sediment-slope-landscape profiles, catenas,*? involve geomorphic mapping and classification, sediment and soil stratigraphy, measurement of modern and long-term rates of soil erosion, and geochronological control for these processes. were Localized sequences of tectonic uplift and subsidence investi gated by extensive field examination. With the aid of Landsat imagery and were topographic maps, active and potentially active major fault domains area. identified and mapped throughout the survey eastern These studies show that the Corinthia possesses unusually diverse and dynamic landscapes, shaped continuously by natural forces of tectonism, erosion, and sedimentation during the Holocene?the period of time inwhich we can demonstrate a human presence in the Corinthia. But the long history of intensive human activity has also transformed eastern to Corinthian landscapes. In addition varied modifications of the landscape wrought by permanent settlements and agro-pastoral land use, intensive a exploitation and the dense population left behind thick residue of durable material, particularly ceramics, in surface and subsurface deposits. In many scatters locations, overlapping surface form multiperiod palimpsests and often the "continuous carpets" of material from many periods that have been noted also in Boeotia.61 our was Much of methodological attention directed to finding effective means out of sorting these transformational processes and their respective contributions to variability in the surface record. A close integration of us geomorphology and archaeology allowed to evaluate landscape stability assess and the integrity of surface artifact scatters by mapping processes, movement at a including the of artifacts, very fine scale. Archaeological units were this and the effort fo 60. Birkeland 1984, pp. 238-254. survey plotted using information, survey cused on to record as as the content and 61. Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988, ways faithfully possible variability p. 506. of the surface remains. 474 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

METHODS OF PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION

was to The main archaeological activity of EKAS systematically investi a gate sample of landscapes within the survey universe. As noted above, the survey operated in three modes: intensive discovery mode, extensive discovery mode, and site investigation mode.

Discovery Units

was The Discovery Unit (DU) the methodological unit of the discovery our were to phase of the survey. In the discovery phase, main objectives (1) detect broad patterns of the presence and absence of human activity; (2) to evaluate the varying density of material remains and advance preliminary to hypotheses concerning its significance; (3) characterize where possible the chronology and functional characteristics of the material remains; (4) to collect environmental information as a contextual framework for the

archaeological material; and (5) to identify anomalous concentrations of material that may warrant further consideration. It was not the purpose at a re of discovery-phase investigation to analyze very fine scale the mains within the DU, but rather to collect basic data over a broad swath of the landscape. When "anomalous" concentrations of material remains were a more was perceived, second phase of detailed and precise analysis often initiated. on The investigation of the DU relied in part relatively standard pro cedures for intensive survey in the Mediterranean. Crew members were a two counters arrayed at uniform 10-m spacing and equipped with tally one a ("clickers"; normally each for pottery and tile/brick),62 compass, and a plastic resealable bags. Each walker observed the ground surface in 2-m a a an swath only, meter to the right and meter to the left, resulting in ef a fective 20% sample of each survey unit. All observed artifacts larger than were were thumbnail counted. Artifact counts generated and recorded by individual fieldwalkers, so we were able to obtain sub-DU data about the to quantities of broad artifact types. In addition counting artifacts, walk ers most collected certain objects. Potsherds, by far the abundant surface were artifact type, picked up in accordance with the chronotype system, in are an are which objects that "unique" to individual fieldwalker in each DU gathered (see below). Other ceramic materials, mainly rooftiles and bricks, were collected according to chronotype principles, but lithics and other were nonceramic objects collected in their entirety. At the conclusion of were walking the unit, all collected objects placed together in labeled artifact team out a bags according to material type. Finally, the filled three-page DU form detailing field conditions and the results of the investigation.63 some Extensive Discovery Units (EDU) provided degree of coverage 62. In rare cases when and for areas that could not be examined using intensive methods, and targeted pottery or not tile were not the dominant artifact certain interesting problematic locations that otherwise would be clickers were used to count other examined. Such areas fall outside the transects earmarked for DU types, might materials. Artifacts not counted were access a being often because difficult of for were sampling, they particularly large with clickers counted by hand. were a and fully laden team. Some EDUs walked systematically in way 63. The EKAS forms are available to most or same from the first author similar to DUs, using forms record all of the information by request. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 475

as in DUs, but covering ground at much greater walker intervals. Other were extensive investigations unsystematic, taking the form of thin "probes" sent into unknown territory to gather information in advance of the inten sive survey effort. Yet all extensive units were defined in geomorphological were terms, and artifacts encountered processed using the chronotype were a system. Extensive survey teams small, typically composed of team an a leader, assistant, and geomorphologist. The small size allowed the team to maximize its most crucial asset, mobility.

The Chronotype System

The chronotype system performs two related but distinct roles, serving both as a framework for classification of artifacts and as a standard for field collec

tion. It is designed to simplify and improve the quality of the identification our of pottery in the field, while facilitating ability to analyze these data. now In this dual role, the chronotype system has been used successfully in five regional surveys: the Sydney Cyprus Survey Project (SCSP), the Australian Paliochora-Kythera Archaeological Survey (APKAS), EKAS, theTroodos Archaeological and Environmental Survey Project (TAESP), and the Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological Project (PKAP).64

Chronotype as a System for Classification

a The chronotype system provides flexible, hierarchical structure for clas on a or sifying artifacts based the ability of any analyst to assign form date, or a however precise imprecise, to given object.65 The hierarchical nature a seven of the chronotype system is expressed in structure consisting of terracotta basic classes?pottery, stone/lithics, metal, glass, (nonpottery), are shell/bone, and other?that then divided into subclasses. Pottery, for seven coarse coarse example, is divided into subclasses: ware, medium ware, fine ware, semifine ware, kitchen/cooking ware, lamp, and pithos. These are subdivisions further divided, potentially ad infinitum. Each chronotype a set consists of unique of the following characteristics: period (chronol a ogy); place in the hierarchy of class and subclasses (e.g., given chronotype cannot coarse ware be both and fine ware); and presumed function. If the characteristics of a given artifact do not fit all the characteristics of an a new existing chronotype, chronotype must be created. a The place of particular object in the hierarchy at any given moment a is determined by the ability to assign it date or form. The date may be a or or very specific (within decade less) very broad (e.g., "ancient," "Early a Modern"). Each level of the hierarchy represents specific chronological or so a formal resolution, that all artifacts residing at given level possess the to structure resolution inherent that level. The of the chronotype system

64. The was et et collection as chronotype system Given al. 2002; Boutin al. 2004; strategy is known "repre designed and used first by the Sydney PKAP: Caraher et al. 2005; Caraher, sentative collection" (M. Given, pers. Given et al. Cyprus Survey Project: Nakassis, and Pettegrew 2006, comm.). et 1999, pp. 24-25; Meyer 2003; Meyer pp. 11-13. For SCSP andTAESP, 65. Given al. 1999, p. 24; Meyer term and Gregory 2003. For APKAS and the "chronotype" is reserved for 2003; Gregory 2004. EKAS: Gregory 2004; TAESP: the system of classification, while the 476 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

so an move an is infinitely expandable, however, that expert may object to a or create new higher level of resolution in the hierarchy, for that matter chronotypes to accommodate the expert's knowledge. New chronotypes were often created by the processing teams in the field. on Further, the chronotype is based, whenever possible, standard definitions of artifacts used by ceramicists in different period specializa tions. The system is thus flexible and not based on definitions of "wares" one not some cases that may be appropriate for period but for others. In an most a individual chronotype may be what scholars call "ware," but in on others it may be defined by decoration (e.g., types of transfer prints same on or some the "ware," types of combing Late Roman amphoras) other characteristic that has chronological significance. The system easily so a to accommodates multiple identifications, that scholar should be able search the pottery using different definitions?thus, it does not matter for an analysis if amphora is identified by Dressel type, Bernice type,Williams and Peacock number, or any other system; the database recognizes these identities. Finally, because the system encourages the creation of chrono or types that accommodate ambiguous currently undatable material (e.g., are "ancient historical," "prehistoric," and "ceramic age" EKAS chrono on to types), the pressure ceramic analysts shoehorn objects into dubious or chronological, functional, fabric categories is reduced, and problematic on material can be differentiated broad, hierarchical scales of probability or to rather than wrongly classified simply consigned oblivion.66 a The chronotype for kind of Roman red-slipped pottery is illustrated in Figure 11. In this well-developed chronotype, the hierarchy includes class (pottery); subclass (fine ware); subdivision (Roman fine ware); type (Roman red slip); subtype (African Red Slip); form (Form 50); and sub form (Form 50B).

Chronotype as a Method for Field Collection

a As method for collecting artifacts in the field, the chronotype addresses the problem of obtaining a systematic sample of artifacts by generating information about both the quantity and variety of the artifacts encountered or in a given physical space (DU, EDU, portion of LOCA). The "clicker" a raw count provides very rough indication of and relative densities of or various classes of artifacts, but does not allow chronological functional as differentiation beyond gross categories such pottery, tile, lithics, and so on. a The chronotype system offers compromise between the impos sible goal of recording all artifacts and the unacceptable option of gaining an a only impressionistic view of the material residing in given space. essence The of this compromise is the principle that fieldwalkers pick up all artifacts they encounter, with the important exceptions of those that ones we mean duplicate already collected. By "duplicate" that the artifact is the same in terms of (1) material (color, thickness, coarseness, etc.); (2) or shape body part; and (3) decoration (slip, glaze, etc.). For instance, each one fieldwalker picks up only example of identical coarse, red body sherds, or are but if different parts (formal elements) of the same fabric vessel type one as 66. 105-106. encountered, of each is picked up well. Thus, since by convention Hayes 2000, pp. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 477

Form 46

Form 47

Form 48

11. of a well Form 49 Figure Example Form 50A for a developed chronotype variety of Roman ware. red-slipped fine Form 50 T. F. Tartaron, after Gregory 2004, p. 22, Form 50B fig. 2.4

we identify five different vessel components (rim, handle, neck/shoulder, a body, base), single fieldwalker may theoretically collect up to five pieces from the same kind of vessel (or even the same vessel). This measurement is not, of course, precise, but it does provide systematic evidence that allows across the area. comparison survey The notion of the chronotype may be compared with two widely used alternative methods?diagnostic collection and total collection?for effec tiveness in generating information about quantity and variety. Diagnostic a collection involves the pickup of "diagnostic" artifacts, category that in or ceramics typically includes all rims, bases, handles, and necks shoulders, as as or well all painted decorated sherds?the principle being that the or can original form classificatory type of the whole vessel be reconstructed are from the diagnostic features of these sherds. Yet such collections inef fective measures of since entire classes of coarse or variety artifacts, i.e., no undecorated body sherds (which may have corresponding diagnostic are considered and as a are parts preserved), nondiagnostic consequence are not collected. Further, since diagnostic collections biased?producing 478 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

unlimited numbers of specific kinds of highly recognizable types at the are expense of others?they notably poor at measuring relative quantities of ceramic types. "Total" collection, inwhich surveyors pick up all artifacts they observe in their survey swaths, naturally yields the most accurate measures of an quantity and variety,67 but often at unacceptable cost in terms of time on and burden processing and storage systems. Under conditions of low or even artifact density, total collection may be viable essential, but in the a generally artifact-rich eastern Corinthia, it is not feasible option. an Chronotype collections present appealing compromise because an measure a they generate accurate and reliable of variety in given unit, a coarse while offering yet systematic estimation of relative quantities of artifact types. Because the chronotype system promotes the collection of as all ceramic forms and fabrics, the variety it captures should be compre as a hensive that of total collection, without the massive amount of largely redundant material. The system generates ratios of artifact quantity by are coarser type (i.e., chronotype) that far than those obtained by total as collection, yet while not precise they should nevertheless be accurate,68 are our and they entirely consistent with requirement for assembling basic over a data broad swath of the landscape. not Of course, chronotype collections do solve all problems associated to with in-field sampling of artifacts. The downside any artifact sampling strategy is that the burden of recognizing artifacts sometimes devolves upon inexpert surveyors, who, it might be argued, lack the experience to one recognize the fine physical attributes distinguishing type of artifact so even from another. The chronotype system is designed that inexperienced can fieldwalkers effectively select representative samples, and the pottery rare specialists working with teams in the field report that it is that two are so distinct pottery types similar in all characteristics that they cannot be distinguished by fieldwalkers with minimal chronotype experience. None a theless, EKAS adopted cautious policy in implementing the chronotype system: fieldwalkers were instructed to pick up an artifact whenever there as was a a was doubt to whether that artifact duplicate sample of chrono type already collected in their swath. In practice, the EKAS finds database confirms that fieldwalkers overcollected rather than undercollected data, some producing redundant chronotypes for their swaths and "outcollecting" the resolution of our ceramic analysts in assigning sherds to any specific chronological period. Over the course of three seasons, fieldwalkers counted 146,599 arti facts in DUs.69 Most of the artifacts counted were pottery (74.5%) and

67. is not a 69. Even total collection This total includes only artifacts since perfect tool, geomorphological from the survey of standard discovery limits not and human factors always place units, and does include experimen on the fullness of the archaeological tal, extensive, LOCA, and other units at a moment in in record detected single sampled nonstandard ways, thus not for the differ time, and total collection is synon accounting quantitative with of a ence the ymous total coverage given between this analysis and units in survey space. numbers reported for all the 68. 2003. on Meyer and Gregory section artifact processing below. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 479

TABLE 5. FIVE PERIODS REPRESENTED MOST FREQUENTLY IN DU SURVEY FINDS

Time Span Number of Percentage DatesPeriod (Years) Artifacts Analyzed

Ceramic age 6700 b.c.-a.d. 2000 8,700 5,695 14.9 Ancient 6700 b.c.-a.d. 700 7,400 7,748 20.2 b.c.-a.d. 2000 Post-prehistoric 1050 3,050 1,9235.0 Ancient historic 1050 b.c.-a.d. 700 1,750 9,563 24.9 Late Roman a.d. 250-a.d. 700 450 1,7074.5

Total 26,636 69.5

tile (24.4%) fragments, with lithics (0.4%) and other types of artifacts (e.g., marble revetment, glass, metal) together comprising less than 1%.Of the counted artifacts, 38,337 (26.2% of the artifacts seen) were collected using the chronotype system and subsequently analyzed by the processing team.70What does this body of data suggest about the implementation of as a the chronotype system whole? On the one hand, our data support the observation made time and again that the vast majority of pottery encountered by Mediterranean not to survey projects is especially diagnostic chronological period.71 The most five periods represented frequently (Table 5) include 69.5% of all one analyzed artifacts, and only of these periods?Late Roman?can narrow or be considered precise. Moreover, the 15 chronotypes listed in are a Table 6 tiny minority of the nearly 600 chronotypes noted in three a years of survey, and yet constitute remarkable proportion of the overall pottery counted and processed in the field (23,480 of the total number of artifacts recorded; 61.2% of all chronotyped artifacts). These figures sug our not gest that fieldwalkers did miss the significant quantities of poorly coarse diagnostic medium wares, kitchen wares, and tile fragments that littered the surface of their survey units. more A specific piece of evidence, moreover, indicates that fieldwalk ers on generally overcollected artifacts the basis of perceived differences in the physical attributes of the artifacts. In principle, the maximum number a of specimens of single chronotype that any walker should collect in a swath is five, representing the five different parts of the vessel (see discus sion above). In practice, the average ratio of chronotype sherds to each walker swath should be much lower, since rim, base, and neck/shoulder are as as fragments not found frequently body fragments.72 Given that body fragments frequently constitute the great majority (often 70%-99%) most we a of the abundant chronotypes, should expect chronotype:walker

one coarse 70. The figure of 38,337 is based Mille? 2000, pp. 53-57. 1785, piece of "Medium on standard collection 72. The ratio of was chronotype average chronotype ware, ancient" produced from and excludes other rare to is on two a procedures walker calculated the basis of walker swaths, giving ratio of of such as was a types collection, grab units where that chronotype 0.50. The average ratio for chrono discovered. units that did not is the of the ratio samples. Hence, type simply average 71. of in all units E.g., Haggis andMook 1993, yield examples of the chronotype do chronotype:walkers van not factor into the ratio for that where was pp. 265-267; Annis, Dommelen, average that chronotype found. van As one in and de Velde 1995, pp. 143-148; chronotype. example, DU 48o THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

TABLE 6. FIFTEEN CHRONOTYPES REPRESENTED MOST FREQUENTLY IN DU SURVEY FINDS

Chronotyped Chronotype Period Count Artifacts (%)

Medium coarse ware, ancient 5,360 14.0 ancient

Medium coarse ware ceramic age 4,909 12.8 Medium coarse ware, ancient historic 3,785 9.9 ancient historic

Tile, ancient historic ancient historic 1,830 4.8 3.2 Amphora, ancient historic ancient historic 1,236 Kitchen ware, ancient ancient 1,149 3.0 Tile, Lakonian, ancient ancient historic 830 2.1 historic 2.1 Tile post-prehistoric 829 Kitchen ware, ancient ancient historic 719 1.9 historic ware Late 1.8 Spirally Grooved Roman 702 ware Roman 1.5 Wheel-Ridged 568 Kitchen ware ceramic age 406 1.1

Pithos, orange and Archaic-Classical 401 1.0 blue core 1.0 Tile, Lakonian post-prehistoric 385 Combed ware Late Roman 371 1.0

Total 23,480 61.2

ratio to be, on average, below 1,where each fieldwalker on average collects no more one a a than specimen (usually body sherd) of chronotype per we a swath. In reality, what find is that the average ratio exceeds value of 1 in eight of the 15 most abundant chronotypes found in DUs (Table 7). This result indicates that fieldwalkers collected sherds on the basis of

physical attributes that did not prove to be typologically significant during to ceramic analysis. By contrast, the three lowest ratios inTable 7 belong the Roman/Late Roman chronotypes (Combed ware, Spirally Grooved ware, most andWheel-Ridged ware), the diagnostic of these 15 chronotypes, readily defined by their characteristic surface treatments. The average ratio to are of chronotype sherds walker in units where these chronotypes found more ismuch lower (0.44 to 0.47), suggesting in part that fieldwalkers felt not same confident in picking up additional specimens of the chronotype seem to after they had already collected examples. This would indicate that in the implementation of the chronotype system, the inherent fieldwalker bias favors overcollecting coarse, poorly diagnostic body sherds (e.g., the coarse more medium wares) rather than obviously diagnostic artifacts (e.g., Combed ware). While it is impossible to quantify the absolute effectiveness of imple we menting the chronotype system in the field, these data suggest that can be confident that our fieldwalkers collected more artifact data than was a necessary for the resolution of our analysis. And while certain amount were of redundant data collected, the implementation of the chronotype THE eastern korinthia archaeological survey 481

TABLE 7. CHRONOTYPES REPRESENTED BY EXTANT VESSEL PORTION

Vessel Portion Ratio of Base Handle Neck / Shoulder Rim Total CTto Walker* Chronotype Body

Medium coarse ware, 4,594 81 430 16 239 5,360 2.88 ancient (85.7%) (1.5%) (8.0%) (0.3%) (4.5%) Medium coarse ware 4,248 89 316 24 232 4,909 2.90 (86.5%) (1.8%) (6.4%) (0.5%) (4.7%) Medium coarse ware 2,988 73 446 11 267 3,785 2.61 ancient historic (78.9%) (1.9%) (11.8%) (0.3%) (7.1%) Tile, ancient historic 1,821 9 1,830 1.42 (99.5%) (0.5%) ancient 418 32 48 1.05 Amphora, 688 50 1,236 historic (55.7%) (4.0%) (33.8%) (2.6%) (3.9%) Kitchen ware, ancient 738 12 173 3 223 1,149 1.35 (64.2%) (1.0%) (15.1%) (0.3%) (19.4%) Tile, Lakonian, 717 113 830 1.11 ancient historic (86.4%) (13.6%) Tile 825 4 829 1.06 (99.5%) (0.5%) Kitchen ware, 483 19 86 3 128 719 0.93 ancient historic (67.2%) (2.6%) (12.0%) (0.4%) (17.8%) ware 1 1 702 0.44 Spirally Grooved 700 (99.7%) (0.1%) (0.1%) ware 1 2 2 3 568 0.47 Wheel-Ridged 560 (98.6%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.4%) (0.5%) Kitchen ware 280 4 58 13 51 406 0.64 (69.0%) (1.0%) (14.3%) (3.2%) (12.6%) 0.71 Pithos, orange and 347 9 2 6 37 401 blue core (86.5%) (2.2%) (0.5%) (1.5%) (9.2%)

Tile, Lakonian 374 11 385 0.87 (97.1%) (2.9%) Combed ware 371 371 0.44 (100%)

ratio of count to walker count DU. *Figure represents the average chronotype per

amount system also seriously reduced the of artifact processing in the field, since little more than a quarter (26.2%) of all artifacts counted for these us to units were analyzed. The system thus permitted minimize the corpus us to of artifacts to record while simultaneously enabling systematically a and representatively map complex artifactual landscape.

Systematizing Periods from Chronotype Data: The Case of the Late Roman "Explosion"

can mean EKAS also generated evidence that the chronotype system reveal ingful patterns of relative ubiquity among artifact types. We may explore across this by examining the apparent expansion of activity Mediterranean landscapes in Late Roman times.73 have the abundance 73. For a fuller discussion, see Pette Landscape archaeologists frequently interpreted of Late Roman across Greek as an indication of a final grew, forthcoming. pottery landscapes 482 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

corre phase of economic prosperity for the province of Achaia, perhaps to or even sponding population growth, intensification of agriculture, imperial policy.74 Although there has been recent discussion about the relative representation of particular periods in survey data,75 there has to to been little effort analyze the degree which the differential visibility and identification of Late Roman pottery might exaggerate this period on a the ground and, by consequence, lead to misimpression of settlement "explosion" in the countryside. The EKAS data for the Late Roman period support the general pat a tern of very busy Late Roman countryside (Fig. 12) but also provide insight into the material ingredients that create the Late Roman "spike" one can in the eastern Corinthia. On the hand, material that be securely tied to the Late Roman period is ubiquitous: Late Roman ceramic frag are ments found in nearly half of all survey units (43.2%, compared, to for example, 14.5% for the Early Roman period). Furthermore, Late Roman pottery constitutes almost 4.5% of all pottery analyzed, making Late Roman the best-represented period in EKAS. By stark contrast, the material from periods immediately preceding and following the Late a Roman period forms less than percent of the total number of analyzed artifacts.

As indicated inTable 6, two of the 15 most abundant chronotypes in the ware eastern Corinthia?Spirally Grooved and Combed ware?belong a over to the Late Roman period, and form substantial part (2.8%) of the all number of artifacts analyzed from intensive survey units. These two chronotypes also constitute the majority (62.8%) of the 1,707 total pieces even some to of Late Roman pottery, though 30 other chronotypes dating were the Late Roman period recorded. wares The great majority (83.0%) of Late Roman analyzed by EKAS coarse wares wares represent and amphora fragments, with fine (9.7%) and wares one kitchen (5.6%) following meagerly behind. To offer immediate the Roman ismore divided between medium contrast, Early period evenly 74. BintlifFand Snodgrass 1988; wares wares wares Bintliff van Andel coarse and amphoras (36.2%), fine (38.0%), and kitchen 1991, pp. 126-127; eastern are and Runnels 1987, pp. 113-117. For (24.9%). In the Corinthia, utilitarian vessel fragments much see more are recent reviews and discussion, Raut important signatures of the Late Roman period than fine-ware man 2000; 2002, pp. 329-331; The is even more when we consider that the Shipley fragments. point significant Kosso 2003; Caraher, Nakassis, and of cases of Late Roman medium coarse and great majority (83.5%) amphora Pettegrew 2006, pp. 21-26; Pettegrew, are The obvious source of this enormous The term "Late Roman" chronotypes body fragments. forthcoming. are is often defined as the between corpus of Late Roman body sherds those two predominant chrono period are as the 3rd/4th and early 7th centuries a.D.; types?Spirally Grooved and Combed wares?that easily identified for EKAS, "Late Roman" Late Roman their characteristic surface treatment. contrast, corresponds by Again, by to the dates a.d. 250-700. the Roman fine-ware rims (found Early period, usually recognized through 75. Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass far less than coarse-ware be a more a frequently body sherds), may typical 1999, with several responses and 13 and ceramic period in terms of its visibility in archaeological survey. Taking rejoindermJMA (2000), continued discussion in BintlifT et al. into account these factors, the Late Roman settlement "explosion" in the 2002. For further see Davis eastern Corinthia is more described as an and even this critique, aptly "upturn," 2004. need not indicate increased habitation.76 designation 76. Pettegrew, forthcoming; Cara Our results show that visible and identifiable artifact occur highly types her, Nakassis, and Pettegrew 2006, as more frequently using the chronotype system just they do using tradi pp. 21-26. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 483

Late Roman Artifact Quanjtittes

0-2 W ?-A-?0

'Eft. 16-29

30-55

("'"'"-"'1Survey units

Figure 12. Late Roman artifact in DUs in the northern quantities tional collection methods. The limit of five pieces per type per walker per Corinthian plain survey unit had little effect, given the rarity of attaining maximum collec tions of any chronotype. But the example of Late Roman pottery also points to a fundamental problem inMediterranean survey that the chronotype we does not solve: our general inability to date coarse-fabric sherds. Until are coarse wares better able to identify of other periods, comparisons and on inferences based the coarse-ware-dominated Late Roman assemblage are likely to be problematic. Without targeted studies of all fabric types correlated with data from stratigraphie excavations,77 there is little hope can that differential visibility and invisibility of archaeological periods be addressed. It isworth that the of the 77. See Haggis andMook 1993 for adequately noting emphasis chronotype an on the full of forms and fabrics will facilitate this excellent application of this strategy system capturing variety to coarse fabrics on Crete. in a cannot. prehistoric endeavor way that diagnostic and grab collections 484 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

... $00 $ .y <~>><=r7 // /illllll ';v>-' / -.^ ^ f*r" / / \r* Mlw J?? ?T -/

9003D509.jpg 6/26/02 AZD

Figure 13. Examples of artifacts recorded in the field

In-Field Processing

In an effort to minimize the volume of material removed from the land a scape, EKAS pursued low-impact collection strategy. This strategy was our concerns prompted by about the repercussions of collecting large samples, but also by permit restrictions about removing off-site material. The processing team, staffed by artifact experts and illustrators, was the methodological extension of the low-impact collection strategy, charged with the responsibility for identifying, recording, photographing, and teams. drawing objects picked up by survey Processing data in the field avoided time-consuming and poorly rationalized collections, eliminated a the need for extensive storage facilities, and provided unique opportunity for dialogue between artifact experts and those responsible for identifying and collecting appropriate material. The processing teams operated in close concert with field teams engaged in discovery-phase survey. Following behind the survey team, team a once was the processing entered survey unit it finished. Bagged artifacts were described, and selected artifacts were measured, drawn, and a or camera photographed using digital standard (Fig. 13). In many cases as the processing teams simply recorded much basic information as could an be discerned about artifact, in accordance with the chronotype clas were sification system. Toothbrushes and dental picks often used to clean were as artifacts, and selected objects also washed deemed necessary. Along with records kept by the survey teams, the processing teams work forms the basis for inferences about chronology and function. Although artifacts could not be retained from the DUs for permanent a collections, the processing system generated thoroughly documented archive of information consisting of drawings, photographs, and detailed descriptions, which is augmented by substantial artifact collections that we were to permitted make from LOCAs (see below). The processing teams THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 485

recorded 48,558 of the 158,802 objects counted in the field by all methods were (30.6%); of the objects recorded, 1,919 (4.0%) retained for permanent storage.78 This material will be available for inspection by experts, who will access also have to the finds database for analytical purposes. Furthermore, because most of the artifacts were left in the field, selected DUs may be as revisited to evaluate and expand information about the archaeological semblages found in them.

Localized Cultural Anomalies (LOCAs)

course In the of walking DUs, survey teams frequently encountered surface or scatters of archaeological material recognizable architectural features were that insufficiently documented by discovery-mode survey alone. As noted earlier, the traditional concept of the "site" has become increasingly problematic in theoretical and methodological terms. The concept has been forcefully critiqued,79 discrediting the equation of site with habitation and as can questioning the status of artifact scatters behavioral entities that be "discovered" and interpreted in archaeologically meaningful ways. Surface not phenomena do universally resist interpretation, for standing architec are tural remains, caves, and graves potentially well-bounded, functionally are interpretable loci that often detected during surveys. But surface artifact must seen as scatters be modern phenomena affected by complex, long-term or postdepositional processes that have obscured obliterated behavioral patterning in possibly unknowable ways. The challenge for survey archaeologists is to untangle the complex in teractions of geological and cultural structuring that result in these scatters,80 to context and interpret them in the of the overall landscape rather than from a stricdy site-based perspective. Several innovative approaches have recently been developed, including long-term replication studies,81 geophysical remote sensing,82 phosphate analysis,83 and controlled collections followed by limited, targeted excavations.84 A recent approach in Lakonia combined gridded to a surface collection, limited coring depth of 20 cm, geophysical survey (resistivity and magnetometry), and chemical analysis for mineral magnetic properties and levels of key elements at 20 small, dense rural scatters.85 our manner Because permit prohibited all of subsurface testing, EKAS on focused careful investigation of the geomorphological processes acting on were upon localized parcels of land which anomalous artifact densities were found. Using this information, field teams better able to identify scat ters with sufficient integrity to warrant further investigation. Geophysical was a prospection applied to small selection of LOCAs to test for subsurface architecture and other features.86

78. The discrepancy between these 80. Schiffer 1972,1987; Taylor 1996. figures and those reported above (see 2000. 84. Shott 1995; Dunnell and Simek pp. 478-479) arises because the former 81. Ammerman 1985,1995. 1995. include materials recovered in LOCAs 82.Weymouth andHuggins 1985; 85. Cavanagh, Jones, and Sarris in and nonsystematic survey. Kvamme 2003; Sarris and Jones 2000. 1996;Mee and James 2000. 79. See Dunnell 1992. 83. esp. Cavanagh, Jones, and Sarris 86. Sarris 2003. 486 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Archaeologists have generally retreated from terminology that makes transparent associations between artifact scatters and traditional functional as classes of sites, giving rise to such concepts the "place of special inter est" (POSI).87 Areas with concentrations of POSIs, forming interpretable landscapes of human activity, have often been termed "special interest areas" (SIAs).88 We have preferred the term "localized cultural anomaly" (LOCA). term The elements of this explain the concept: (1) localized, thus having some or a or spatial integrity, clustering, by which scatter feature may be or distinguished from the material the landscape around it; (2) cultural, a or as thus product of human manufacture modification, and not (as far we can tell through geomorphological study) the result of natural causes; or and (3) anomaly, thus standing out qualitatively quantitatively from the or a surrounding material landscape. Typically, the designation of LOCA on a one or more relied first the detection of higher density of classes of or artifacts (e.g., Classical black-slipped pottery, obsidian bladelets) of same chronologically associated objects, relative to densities of the mate on on rials in adjacent units the landscape; and second, the identification a was of definable edges to the artifact scatter. The designation of LOCA as an to viewed invitation further study in the hope of extracting useful behavioral information from it. were LOCAs designated by team leaders in consultation with field walkers, geomorphologists, processing team members, and other experts. a as our In-field consultation played crucial role in these decisions, did use of GIS, which allowed for the display of large amounts of data, such as artifact densities, in a clear and understandable format. Many LOCAs, more though not nearly all, were subjected to further, intensive methods a of field investigation. We adopted flexible approach to investigating them, in recognition of their diversity in material, size, complexity, and a x m terrain conditions. In many cases, grid composed of 10 10 squares was over superimposed the entire LOCA. These squares became sampling units within the LOCA, allowing us to gain fine spatial control over the re locations of artifacts and features. For some LOCAs, samples were a corded and collected from all squares, while in others only selection of was the sample squares investigated. Within the squares, artifact collections ranged from total collection to chronotype collections of the entire square or a team of 5-m2 sampling circle therein. The field processing followed a the LOCA team to carry out chronotype analysis of the artifacts. Each was investigation supplemented by photography and geomorphological or as description, and with topographic mapping geophysical prospection to needed. We received permission collect artifacts from many LOCAs for curation and study in the laboratory.

n. 87. Davis et al. 1997, p. 401, 27; formulations, archaeologists remain to Given et al. 1999, p. 24; Given and reluctant part with the site concept and Meyer 2003, pp. 34-35. Noncultural (Caraher, Nakassis, Pettegrew have phenomena also been desig 2006, pp. 7-9,14). 88. and 35 nated POSIs, e.g., geomorphological Given Meyer 2003, pp. or botanical POSIs (M. Given, pers. 36. in new comm.). Note that spite of such THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 487

Chronotype Artifact Collections from LOCAs: An Experiment

a was on LOCA 9002, large, dense artifact scatter, encountered in 1999 the a gently sloping south side of Rachi Boska (Fig. 6). In 2000 sample col was a x m lection made there from grid of 40 10 10 squares superimposed over an area 80 m (N-S) x 200 m (E-W). Because this was one of the first we we LOCAs designated, employed four different sampling techniques an to an in 10 "experimental" squares in effort establish optimal sampling we strategy for similar dense scatters. In each experimental square, collected a the following samples: (1) chronotypes from 5-m2 circle within the grid square (a 5% sample); (2) the remaining artifacts from the circle; (3) chrono types from the rest of the square; and (4) the remaining artifacts from the we square.With these samples, could form four distinct collections: (1) the chronotype collection of the circle (sample 1); (2) the complete collection of the circle (samples 1 and 2 combined); (3) the chronotype collection of the square (samples 1 and 3); and (4) the complete collection of the square (samples 1-4). We sought to clarify two parameters of LOCA sampling: first, by we comparing samples from circles with samples from entire squares, would see a if the smaller sample provided by 5-m2 circle would be sufficiently on representative of the artifact types the surface. Second, by comparing the we measure total artifact collection with the chronotype collection, could a the effectiveness of the chronotype system in delivering representative are sample of the artifacts in the LOCA. The results of the experiment quite informative. Collection 1 (the chronotypes from the circles) consisted of or a 77 chronotypes, 34% of total 229 chronotypes from the squares. Collec tion 2, the entire circle, contained 111 chronotypes (48%), and Collection 3, the chronotype collection of the square, 208 chronotypes (91%). By any an reasonable standard, the sampling circles failed uniformly to capture x m acceptable proportion of total chronotypes within the 10 10 squares, or whether subjected to total chronotype collection. On the other hand, were in chronotype collections of entire squares, 91% of all chronotypes recovered.

In view of the substantial amount of time saved, the chronotype col a lection from squares appears to be reasonable compromise between time spent and information obtained. These data also indicate that loss of infor mation stemmed not from using the chronotype system rather than total a collection, but instead from examining small areal sample of the dense we are surface concentration. Thus, confident that chronotype collections produced accurate and precise accountings of the range of materials present we as at the artifact concentrations designated LOCAs.

Multiple Landscape Perspectives on LOCAs

In recognition of the inescapable element of subjectivity attached to means designating LOCAs in the field, EKAS developed alternative of analyzing and interpreting artifact density data, complementing in-field LOCAs with cultural anomalies revealed only through the application of a GIS analysis. We may illustrate this approach using simple example drawn 488 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

from intensive survey in and around the large Classical site of Kromna in the northern Corinthian plain (analyzed in detail below). team was a The designation of LOCAs in the field by leaders relatively a conservative and intuitive process (Fig. 14:a).Mapped against background raw we see not areas or of artifact densities, that most, but all, of high rela were so were some tively high artifact density declared LOCAs, but also areas were of relatively low density. In-field decisions apparently driven more occurrences or by anomalous of architecture particular types of arti as facts than by density alone?in other words, attributes such chronology are were to and function that variables independent of density deemed be a of great importance. This perspective must have been influenced also by sense of uncertainty about extracting coherent, meaningful cultural entities from relatively continuous carpets of material, characterized by palimpsests of residue from many periods of the past. were Although exceptionally high artifact densities normally recog on nized in the field, particular densities take archaeological significance as a only in the context of the survey universe whole, something rarely perceived by archaeologists whose daily frame of reference is limited to a area. relatively small percentage of the total survey Consequently, the anomalous and even cultural nature of many localized concentrations of once artifacts emerged only the densities?that is, the number of artifacts area area?were per walked, or per total unit analyzed and compared against a wide range of environmental, cultural, and archaeological variables and constants. For example, the GIS-generated maps of "density LOCAs," de as a fined units where artifact density exceeded certain threshold established or or a either arbitrarily (e.g., the top 15% 20% of units) statistically by to Jenks (K-means) equation that grouped units according "natural breaks" more in the data. Raw density figures produce both and different LOCA a units than the in-field set when threshold of the top 20% (quintile) of raw all units in artifact density is applied (Fig. 14:b). our us Moreover, the GIS and survey databases allowed to analyze the as environmental data (such ground visibility, ground cover, and surface we clast composition) collected from each unit, against which could better we were evaluate artifact densities. For example, able to identify units with exceptional artifact densities per surface visibility. In many instances where visibility was poor, team leaders did not recognize anomalous concentrations of cultural material. When the density data were adjusted for ground vis ibility, however, certain units with low visibility but relatively high density on met the threshold requirements (Fig. 14:c). Many of these lie the pe raw more riphery of density "hot spots," suggesting continuous high-density areas are scatters, where intervening of low artifact density the product of not discovery conditions and the actual intensity of human activity. Similar to analyses that compared artifact density ground cover, modern land use, to our numerous and background disturbance brought attention units whose or even moderate low densities may have been produced by the limitations of surface survey methods rather than the quantities of material actually on the surface. Furthermore, by identifying high-density LOCAs among we units with comparable environmental conditions, avoided simplistic "corrections" for visibility and other environmental conditions, which tend THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 489

assume a more to fixed relationship between variations in artifact density and environmental factors. us The chronotype system allowed to identify units with anomalously diverse artifact assemblages with respect to chronology, function, and spe we cific artifact types. Since could observe, for example, that the higher a s more as unit artifact density, the chronologically diverse the artifact we semblage tended to be, could suppose that exceptionally diverse units with lower-than-average densities might reflect anomalous, but essentially we "invisible," concentrations of artifacts. In this way, might identify units in which adverse environmental conditions mask culturally significant artifact concentrations. to We also used GIS analyze surface trends in artifact density pat across terning the survey universe. This procedure involved comparing a the artifact density of particular unit with the densities present in its immediate vicinity, with the effect of placing seemingly isolated LOCAs us as in their local context, and often allowing to group units together potential "density SIAs." We revealed these phenomena by transforming our a unit-based density data, essentially series of complex polygons with to a raster a density-per-meter values, grid where each cell of particular x was as a mean standard dimension (e.g., 5 5 m) assigned value the artifact a was density of the unit into which it fell. Then, neighborhood analysis was performed: the density value for each cell recalculated by compar a ing its value to those for all cells within circle of 20-m radius around it (Fig.l4:d,e). or The effect of this analysis is first to smooth small spikes dips in as areas artifact densities created by such factors very localized of poor vis or error ibility small units that exist at the margins of statistical inherent our in collection and mapping methods. Second, this method establishes areas on fixed, quantifiable based the distribution and nature of cultural or material rather than arbitrarily defined modern features local toponyms that may have little to do with patterns of the past. This is not to say that or local features, geological characteristics, modern land-use patterns could as not be established factors influencing the distribution of artifacts, but we can use rather that GIS to integrate these aspects with the archaeological a data to create landscape that blends expected cultural and environmental influences with the recorded distribution of cultural material upon the use across zones landscape. The of fluctuating densities broader defined by or geomorphology, topographic entities, blind "cells" of equal size89 permits the patterning of cultural material to be discussed with reference not to on specific spots the landscape ("sites"), but rather to particular kinds of or resources.90 landscapes Such manipulations of density data, combined with EKAS's methods overcome of defining and collecting data from survey space, suggest ways to some as of the obstacles, such variable visibility, to characterizing surfaces in archaeologically meaningful ways. Although density-derived LOCAs as more may be viewed objective than those designated in the field, they on human measurements and the same bur 89. Thomas 1975; Foley 1981; Ebert rely similarly imperfect carry 1992. den of demonstrating significance with respect to the past. Intuitively, it 90. Binford 1992. are more 1982; Schlanger appears that humans sometimes effective at judging the cultural 4?O THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Raw Artifact Density

to Figure 14 (above and opposite). Alternative approaches the designation of LOCAs in the Kromna area: (a) in-field LOCAs (in yellow) designated by team leaders during survey, plotted against artifact density; (b) LOCAs (in red) derived from top 20% of DUs in artifact density; (c) LOCAs (in red) derived from top 20% in artifact density adjusted for visibility; (d) grayscale plot showing trends in artifact over the K-means to derive natural breaks projected density surface, using equation in data and not adjusted for visibility; (e) grayscale plot as in (d),with superimposed survey units designated as LOCAs by all other methods combined THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 491

EftjjJagl?LJBM^^^BBBi /j?fc i?k-?????ts?ia??^K^K???m ?Et

^^S^^^&H 0 150300 A jSH^^B&H 0 150300 A

b c

d e 492 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

significance of artifact scatters, while often the obstacles to detection of artifacts, and the ambiguity of fragmentary material upon recovery, combine to limit human judgment and necessitate the kinds of subsequent analyses our described above. A likely outcome of ongoing analysis is that each technique reveals different but useful information; therefore, knowledge about the past is maximized by the application of multiple perspectives. use Certainly, however, the of GIS for evaluating surface scatters in terms reassess of density is effective in highlighting locations where revisits and ments should be profitable.

EXPERIMENTS TO EVALUATE AND CALIBRATE RESULTS

an All regional-scale surface surveys would benefit by having experimental component operating in tandem with the main archaeological reconnais a sance. EKAS conducted series of experiments in 1999 and 2001 with two to measure specific aims: (1) the effects of field conditions upon archaeological procedures for purposes of calibration, standardization of to test our practice, and development; and (2) reflexively the efficacy of one methods. With regard to field performance, might ask: How well do we recognize cultural material when half the surface is covered with veg or etation, when the color of red-fabric potsherds and terra rossa-stained limestone gravel is essentially the same? How does the pace of fieldwalking a as affect identification? Will pace twice fast decrease recognition by half? ones as These questions are important they influence the archaeological a document that survey produces. a EKAS assembled team to address these and other questions. The con most extensive experiments (Table 8) investigated the effects of field a ditions upon artifact recovery through series of seeding experiments in a which team of researchers planted potsherds, which had been previously a tract photographed and described, along 50-m and plotted their posi were tions.91 Two kinds of potential survey conditions tested. In the first sets were a tract experiment, equivalent of artifacts placed in with optimal not visibility (100%, i.e., with the ground surface obscured), in another with poor visibility (20%), and in two others with average visibility (50%-70%). This focused on the extent to which cover such as experiment ground 91. A full presentation and analysis a of in the 1999 season weeds and grain stubble hinders artifact recovery. In second experiment, the experiments a was a tract be found in Schon 2002. tract with high background disturbance92 tested against may 92. disturbance differs in which there were few visual distractions, in order to measure differ Background from in that it refers not to ences in artifact under these two conditions. The took visibility recognition analysis matter vegetation and other preventing into account cover, artifact and and to vegetation type appearance, background the surface from being visible, but as rate as confusion they affected the of artifact recovery. The determina clastic material in the soil itself, such over a was to or to conditions of the soil tion of recovery rates broad range of conditions expected rock, (com a sense not pact, loose), which confuse the viewer provide better of the total range and quantity of material, or distract attention from artifacts. in the of but also in the away only inspected portions survey units, uninspected is mentioned A good example that portions. above: the confusion caused by red the results of the back into has a color By feeding seeding experiments everyday stained limestone gravel that we more similar to the red fabric of sherds. practice, contributed to the acquisition of robust data for analysis THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 493

TABLE 8. MAIN SURVEY EXPERIMENTS

Experiment Purpose

Visibility and artifact recovery Measure the effects of various field conditions upon the recovery of artifacts

(seeding experiments)

use to units Efficacy of Geomorphic Unit Test the of GUs define survey against benchmarks of person-hours and artifact patterning in the Efficacy of processing artifacts Compare chronotype classification results between washed and unwashed artifacts the field of vs. Field identifications Measure long-term effects low-impact collection strategy large artifact collections in terms of the identification and representation of artifact types and the preservation of cultural heritage of the as a Test whether artifact collection to Efficacy using chronotype according chronotype principles generates collection strategy representative samples of artifact types Assessment of artifact densities methods and for (for Develop algorithms calculating adjusted artifact densities, extrapolated and from over a wide chronotype aggregate counts) samples collected range of field conditions

TABLE 9. ARTIFACT RECOVERY PROFILE FOR SURVEYOR 1 IN SEEDED FIELDS

Field 111222-333444 Pass 123123123123 Visibility (%) 60 50 50 10 10 10 100 100 100 70 70 70 Time of day 15:23 15:40 15:58 16:16 16:23 16:39 15:29 15:45 15:58 15:22 15:38 15:47 Sherds recovered 50 16 33 52 6 12 90 25 42 75 21 39 Sherd recovery rate (%) 50.0 53.3 61.1 52.0 20.0 22.2 90.0 83.3 77.8 75.0 70.0 72.2 Seconds 910 880 810 819 330 566 875 630 710 809 396 467 Sherds/minute 3.30 1.09 2.44 3.81 1.09 1.27 6.17 2.38 3.55 5.56 3.18 5.01

to a more our and refined interpretation of artifact patterning in standard team survey units. In 1999 and 2001, the experimental used the seeding to create a results standard for surface visibility rankings with the aid of detailed written descriptions, photographic images, and in-field collabora team were tion with leaders and fieldwalkers. Team leaders charged with as a rating effective visibility percentage of potential visibility (in incre ments to of 10 from 0% 100%, where 0% represents total impediment to no or surface visibility, and 100% represents surface ambient impediments to visibility). The continuity of key personnel in the team leader positions serve as a ensured consistency in these observations. To further, independent two were check, "visibility" photographs taken for each DU: one overview one a of the unit, and detail of representative surface. These photographs to assess are cru may be used retroactively the visibility rankings, which cial since the relationship between surface visibility and artifact recovery one our forms basis for GIS analyses (described above) and ultimately for interpretations of the survey data. a The seeding experiments generated large dataset of records of artifact a recovery by individual walkers in variety of field conditions (Table 9). The a full dataset shows that artifact recovery and relative visibility have linear not an one relationship, although equivalent (Fig. 15). In other words, while as recovery increases consistently visibility improves from 40% to 80%, that 494 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

79.50% = y -0.072X + 0.9453 = 66.60% R2 0.9991

29.45%

-1?i?i?r~ i-1?r 60 50 40 20 10 Visibility Score

Figure 15. Graph showing the rela increase is not twofold.93 A series of recovery curves, correlated with spe tionship between ground visibility cific conditions, be used to corrections discovery might apply quantitative and rates of artifact recovery, to normalize for all units. When and artifact collection from visibility visibility projected artifact recovery data are formulas to to artifact and combined, extrapolate adjusted counts, experiments derived statistics such as total artifact densities, are within reach.94 no or Without such experimental data, there is basis for explaining sources attempting to control for the of variability in artifact recovery, we must although acknowledge that myriad other factors be taken into as some were consideration well,95 of which also addressed by the experi are mental teams and currently undergoing analysis (Table 8). Although eastern these experimental data may be informative principally for the an Corinthia, they offer excellent comparative dataset for surveys in the Mediterranean and beyond.96 Similar experiments, adapted to local field conditions and methodological interests, would be relatively simple to devise and implement.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: THE CLASSICAL LANDSCAPES OF KROMNA

The densest and most diverse concentration of cultural material in the survey an area area occurred in the northern Corinthian plain in previously identi as name fied byWiseman the Classical town of Kromna. A place by this a was in the Corinthia is mentioned by Callimachus in passage that later discussed by Middle Byzantine commentators (Callim. Sos. 12 [frag. 384 Tz. ad In discovered a of a Pfeiffer]; Lye. 576). 1960, Wiseman fragment 93. Schon 2002, pp. 149-157, or stone funerary monument of the late 4th early 3rd century b.c., inscribed chart 5.5;Meyer and Schon 2003. in a b.c. tower 94. and 2003. "Agathon of Kromna" and reused 3rd-century fortification Meyer Gregory 95.Wandsnider and Camilli 1992; (SEGXX?1 219).97 The was at the north of a dense artifact findspot edge Given 2004. a con scatter east of the modern village of Examilia. Wiseman posited 96. See Schon 2002 for complete in nection between the Kromna mentioned literature and the inscription, data. and the extensive artifact that this site was 4. scatter, suggesting probably 97. Wiseman 1963, p. 257, fig. on 98. Wiseman 66. "the largest inland Classical settlement the Isthmus."98 Although there 1978, p. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 495

Ayios Kosmas Gonia Isthmia Road Quarries (Wiseman Road 3)

Figure 16. The environs of Kromna are now alternative of the this area of the in the northern readings literary testimony,99 Corinthian plain was an crossroads clearly important node of habitation and land use east of Corinth.

EKAS investigated Kromna and its environs in four survey zones with names the local Kromna, Kesimia, Boulberi, and Perdikaria (Fig. 16). The EKAS found itsmost effective 99. See SEG L 339; and Shipley integrative approach adopted by expression at so 2000, pp. 371-372, where the author Kromna, because many major components of the project?intensive identifies the as Agathon inscription survey and processing, LOCA analysis, geomorphology, mortuary and to a man referring from the of polis modern survey, and GIS?were important for the Kromna in Arcadia. See also understanding complex Caraher, a new history behind the cultural patterns. The survey produced variety of Nakassis, and Pettegrew 2006, pp. 14, n. kinds of information about the area, and also documented, in broader 36, 2; and Pettegrew 2006, pp. 250 a the and of this site at the 262, for rereading of the literary testi terms, growth cyclical development principal for a Corinthian our mony "Kromna," Isthmian crossroads. Alongside varied explorations, interviews with which that the Kromna men argues local informants conducted by the modern survey team led us to notable not to a tioned by Callimachus refers on features and shed particular light how the archaeological record has Corinthian town per se, but to a place been transformed in recent The discussion that follows on the Isthmus to or years. sacred mythologi highlights associated with different of the of Kromna from a cally Poseidon, perhaps ways understanding long-term history Kenchreai. landscape perspective. 496 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Kromna's Physical Setting

Kromna is situated on the lowland corridor known as the northern Corin on thian plain, comprising the coastal front the Corinthian Gulf and the fertile plain behind it. The plain has been shaped mainly by geologically recent deposits (see Fig. 10, above). Behind the beach sands and gravels on the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, the plain is formed by recent sedi as ments brought by swift-flowing rivers such the Xerias and Solomos (or to Xeropotamos, the ancient Leukon), which flow perpendicular the coast narrow in channels cut in response to regional uplift.100 Behind the alluvial are deposits eluvial loam and sandy loam derived from the weathering or of Pliocene Tyrrhenian sandy marls, and fossiliferous red clayey sand on representing near-shore deposits. A prominent feature the northern a arcs Corinthian plain is series of fossil marine terraces arrayed in several to terraces approximately parallel the shore of the Corinthian Gulf. These represent old beach fronts that have been subsequently uplifted and then to subjected faulting and erosion.101 Through tectonic activity they have so been tilted backward, that the forward (roughly north-facing) edges as to rise prominently cliff faces, while the trailing edges slope gently the plain behind. The terraces have not survived intact in the Holocene; rather, erosion and the cutting of streams and gullies have left remnants of the arcs as isolated eminences rising above the plain (Fig. 10). reasons. This unique geological configuration is important for several Because these relic terraces afford expansive views and defensive possibili ties, they have been favored locations for human settlement from the earliest occupation of the eastern Corinthia. One such prominent terrace at Rachi over Boska (LOCA 9001; Fig. 6), occupied repeatedly many millennia, was overlooks Kromna from the south. Long-term settlement at Kromna a runs east to west supported by branch of the Corinth fault that directly numerous at through the ancient site (Fig. 9); along the fault wells and one at least large spring hint the permanent supply of water necessary to sustain a settlement of some size.Moreover, the terraces run longitudinally east to west, structuring and delimiting the routes of communication and area. transport through this Wiseman deduced from the known sites and s structure must the territory geological that at least eight major roads have as one crossed the central Isthmus. In antiquity, today, two roads converge, from Kenchreai and one from Isthmia, at or very near the area identified as Kromna.102

Finally, the northern Corinthian plain is today almost entirely culti a vated, the mix of crops varying as function of market forces and other trees are factors affecting local farmers' decisions.103 Olive particularly common in the survey area, present in more than half of all survey units, followed by grain, vineyards, citrus, and almonds; apricots and vegetables area was occur in lesser amounts. As might be expected, this entire used 100. 16-17. as Hayward 2003, pp. for purposes in indicated by scattered fragments agricultural antiquity, 101. Pirazolli et al. 1994; Dia et al. as of artifactual material such groundstones, millstones, and agricultural 1997. modern and ancient evidence attests to the of equipment. Thus, fertility 102. Wiseman 1978, p. 64. Kromnas 103. Shutes 1997. territory. the eastern korinthia archaeological survey 497

Tracking Kromna through Time: The View from Siteless Survey

are an Although the survey data in early stage of analysis, the broad a at outlines of settlement history of the Greek and Roman community Kromna are discernible. The artifacts and features we encountered permit use the reconstruction of land and cyclical patterns of growth and decline b.c. from ca. 700 to a.D. 700. At present, given the fragmentary condi tion of surface materials, the chronological resolution of these patterns is somewhat coarse, but they appear to mirror the changing fortunes of an Corinth itself, and probably reflect intimate relationship between city and hinterland. was a By the late 8th century b.c., Corinth already major founder of on colonies to the west along the shores of the Corinthian Gulf, the north on western Greek coast facing Italy, and Sicily. These colonies facilitated raw as as Corinth's commercial interests, providing materials well markets for finished goods, notably oil, wine, and the fine painted pottery that dominated the western markets for more than a century (ca. 725-575 b.c.). were Architectural terracottas, bronze work, and stone other major Corin thian exports. Under the tyrants Kypselos and Periander (ca. 655-586 b.c.), Corinth reached a zenith in prosperity and power. In addition to sending out colonies, these rulers built temples and other monumental works, and oversaw a s major development of Corinth primary harbors. Shortly there were after, ca. 582 b.c., the Panhellenic Isthmian athletic games organized on at the Sanctuary of Poseidon the Isthmus. was a At Kromna, the Archaic period (ca. 700-480 b.c.) seemingly at time of growth, first gradual and then probably rapid (Fig. 17:a, b). The as number of artifacts that can be classified with certainty Archaic is small, seven more with only DUs producing than three such objects (Fig. 17:a). amounts near Although Archaic pottery has been found in limited the crossroads at Kromna, the principal scatter of Archaic material lies imme an area a diately south of the Classical site in extending almost kilometer northwest to southeast. This dispersed, low-density spread demonstrates a the utility of siteless approach, since the density of Archaic material iswell a not below what might be expected of former settlement, and surely would as be recognized such by any site-based method. The recording of artifact use density distributions, the of the chronotype system, and subsequent a analysis using GIS and database queries together revealed consistent, us a low-density pattern that suggests to nascent settlement ancestral to the later Classical town.104

A sharp increase inDUs producing significant numbers of artifacts that can to be assigned with less precision "Ajrchaic^Classical" (ca. 700-323 b.c.) in probably reflects the rapid physical and economic expansion of Corinth an the Late Archaic and Classical periods (Fig. 17:b). It is likely that agri some cultural (and perhaps industrial) community of size and significance at or first emerged Kromna in the Late Archaic Early Classical period. The DU data in coarse terms: not does the number of 104. Caraher, Nakassis, and Pette suggest this, only 14-21. more a grew 2006, pp. DUs producing than three objects increase sharply, but there is 498 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Archaic

IN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 M A

Figure 17 (above and opposite). Chronological development of Kromna. DUs with more than three certain to a objects of attribution are period shaded. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 499

Classical

IN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 M A 5o0 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

to area geographical shift the crossroads where roads from Kenchreai and a Isthmia met at the limestone quarries (Fig. 16), indicative perhaps of de veloping residential "core" of the growing community. Piecemeal discoveries area from extensive cemeteries in the quarry at the western edge of the site include graves containing 7th- and 6th-century pottery, indicating that this was coalescence under way already in the later Archaic period.105 s Corinth prosperity continued through the first half of the Classical even period. J. B. Salmon argues that the Peloponnesian War (431-404 b.c.) affected the inhabitants of the Corinthia only marginally, mainly indirectly means commerce by closing off the harbors and other of that furnished so much wealth.106 This relative security evaporated in the first quarter of the 4th century b.c., as the Corinthia became the theater for near-constant more a warfare among the Greek city-states. For than decade surround ing the Corinthian War (395-387 b.c.), the Spartans and their allies laid waste regularly to the Corinthian countryside, burning crops, stealing can livestock, and driving residents from their homes. Kromna hardly have escaped the devastation, and may have been abandoned for years at a as time the inhabitants sought safety behind the walls of Corinth. Rachi was Boska, overlooking Kromna from the south, fortified at around this a time and may have housed small garrison monitoring movements into and around the plain. was a re There relief after Thebes ended Spartan hegemony with sounding victory at Leuktra in 371 b.c.; and later, in the Hellenistic pe successors riod when the Macedonian kings Philip, Alexander, and their a was recover some united Greece under single rule, Corinth able to of its a former prosperity. In the early 3rd century b.c., major trans-Isthmian was area wall constructed through the that must have transformed the local topography and landscape. It is telling that the wall appears to have we protected the town of Kromna and might wonder how that would a have impressed visitor traversing the plain from Isthmia.107 Inscrip tions concerning a substantial export business in Corinthian architectural some stone date to this period of the 4th and 3rd centuries; plausibly, was we can of this stone acquired from the quarries at Kromna, and a therefore infer continued relationship between the settlement and the

quarries. Later Hellenistic occupation at Corinth was interrupted in 146 b.c., when the Romans under Mummius destroyed the city. At that time, the a Corinthia suffered general depopulation, and Kromna may have persisted a 105.Morgan 1939, pp. 265-266; as little more than tiny rural settlement, if at all. Yet there is growing Lawrence Wiseman was never 1964, pp. 94-101; evidence that Corinth entirely abandoned,108 and the results of 1978, p. 66. The EKAS archaeological EKAS a similar for smaller satellite communities such as portray picture and mortuary surveys discovered other the one at Kromna. graves and cemeteries around Kromna, some of which are discussed below. The DU data furnish echoes of this turbulent history: the Classical 106. Salmon 1984, pp. 175-177. Hellenistic period is represented in fewer DUs than the Archaic-Classical, 107.Wiseman 62 and none of these DUs had more than three artifacts datable with 1963; 1978, pp. certainty 63. to the Hellenistic We assume that Kromna sur period (Fig. 17:c, d). may 108. See Gebhard and Dickie 2003, vived into the Hellenistic the of Early period, given gravestone Agathon with references to other arguments for as as an interim of that date, well circumstantial evidence of substantial activity in and against community. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 501

iT^lj?

* -#

Figure 18. Olive press of Hellenistic or Roman date (LOCA 9132) on the surface at Kromna

on the quarries and the trans-Isthmian wall. The weak material signature at a of the Late Hellenistic period Kromna may reflect period of abandon not an ment, although this need entail entirely bleak picture. It is possible an that the installation of olive press (Fig. 18), capable of pressing olives ca. from 10 ha of groves per year, may date to that period,109 suggesting use continued agricultural of the plain despite the destruction of the city

nearby. We may say much the same about the Early Roman era. Corinth was as a refounded Roman colony in 44 b.c., and gradually rose to renewed as prominence the first city of the Roman province of Achaia. The sparse representation in DUs of definitively Early Roman ceramic material (Fig. 19: a) contrasts sharply with the expansive spread of Late Roman times so (Fig. 19:c), appearing to confirm the picture of Roman Greece often an reported by regional surveys: abandoned Early Roman settlement that came to reason back life in the later Roman period.110 But there is ample to be skeptical of this simplistic notion. Recent work by David Romano has revealed evidence for Caesarian and Flavian centuriation of the northern as Corinthian plain, enveloping Kromna.111 In addition, argued above, this contrast is exaggerated by the greater diagnosticity of ceramics of the latter a period.112 Here again, siteless survey method that records the distribution can of artifacts systematically reveal the biases responsible for perceived differences in settlement patterns. Even taking these biases into account, however, there appear to be real changes in the locations of activities in on the Roman period. Evidence for Early Imperial activity is focused 109. James 2005. area the southwest of the Classical Greek town, while occurring in only HO. Alcock Kosso 2003. 1993; amounts slight in the immediate vicinity of the quarries. Only in the later 111. Romano 2005,2006. Roman did shift once to the north into the 112. See the discussion above, period activity again quarry the collec area of Kromna a of pp. 481-483, of chronotype proper, accompanied by survey-wide pattern extensive, use ca. A.D. tion of Late Roman pottery fabrics. dispersed of the landscape after 400. 502 THOMAS F. T?RTARO

Early Roman

IN 1000 1200M A

Figure 19 (above and opposite). Chronological development of Kromna from the Early Roman through the Late Roman era.DUs cer with more than three objects of tain attribution to a period are shaded. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 503

Late Roman

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 M A?B

Another View: LOCA Analysis and Locating Kromna

A complementary approach to reading broader patterns from the siteless to on data is focus LOCAs in the area, which represent places of exception on ally high artifact density or features the land. Several of these LOCAs were more (9001,9003,9005,9006, and 9007) surveyed intensively through as gridded collections; such they offer greater chronological and functional resolution than is possible to obtain from the DU data (Table 10; Fig. 20).113 The resulting outlines of the settlement history of Kromna appear similar to more those described above, but in greater detail and with clarity; there are some also real differences that confirm the place of LOCA analysis in use complementing the picture of land inferred from the siteless data. as The Geometric period (800-700 b.c.) emerges it did not in the DU data, raising the possibility of "hidden landscapes" that might only be discovered by careful, high-resolution search.114 A nearly complete was an Geometric teacup found in otherwise empty grave at Mortuary 113. Tables 10 and 11 contain only LOCA and artifacts in LOCAs 9005 and 9007 evidence artifacts that could be dated with some (ML) 10, provide for a small settlement between the Geometric and Archaic While confidence. Other artifacts could only periods. be a too coarse to see assigned chronology LOCA 9003 has little of the earliest material, it is there that we may be useful for this "ancient a analysis (e.g., the geographical expansion of settlement in later Archaic times, trend historical"). that continues the Classical 114. See and 2003. through period. Meyer Gregory What is most about the data from these LOCAs We have collected data with which to perhaps striking address the is that there is that can be characterized as hidden-landscape hypoth virtually nothing definitively so a or esis, and will do at later time. Hellenistic Early Roman. It would be tempting to interpret this pattern 5?4 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

TABLE 10. ARTIFACT COUNTS BY PERIOD FROM LOCAS IN THE VICINITY OF KROMNA

LOCA

Period Approximate Dates 9003 9005* 9006 9007

Geometric 800-700 b.c. 0 0 15 Geometric-Archaic 800-480 1 9 0 13 Archaic 700-480 7 4 0 24 Archaic-Classical 700-323 16 88 1 54 Archaic-Hellenistic 700-31 13 62 1 10 Classical 480-323 11 22 4 40 Classical-Hellenistic 480-31 16 17 2 21 Hellenistic 323-31 0 0 1 0 B.C.-A.D. Early Roman 31 250 0 0 0 0 Roman 31 B.C.-A.D. 700 24 0 27 Late Roman 250-700 5 23

*LOCA 9005 consists of two areas, 9005a and 9005b.

as an a abandonment in Late Hellenistic times and gradual repopulation s as of the countryside after Corinth reestablishment, which, noted above, would conform to a remarkably consistent decrease in rural site numbers in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman epochs reported by surveys in Greece and the Aegean islands.115 But because the intensive, siteless survey detected low to moderate levels of activity, in the form of modest artifact we see counts, agricultural installations, and graves, clearly the limits of a a site-based approach and perceive instead the shifting focus of small agricultural community away from the center of the former Classical town s during the time of Corinth nadir. Functional information extracted from the gridded collections illumi use nates the range of activities and the spatial patterns of land at Kromna ca. and its vicinity. Considering the period between 650 and 146 b.c., it is use possible to the ceramic finds (by far the most ubiquitous and most easily a dated) to gain first impression of the spatial arrangement and character of Kromna during prosperous times (Table 11). LOCAs 9003, 9005, and 9007 yielded high percentages of fine and semifine painted table ware, a pointing to generally high level of prosperity among the inhabitants of those locations. Further, the eight sherds from vessels likely to have had a votive function at LOCA 9007 span the Archaic and Classical periods, an or suggesting the existence nearby of enduring sanctuary shrine. In 1960, a Wiseman discovered miniature votive bowls, terracotta female figurine a a terracotta to (probably Kore), and altar, suggesting him the proximity a of sanctuary, possibly close to LOCA 9003.116 Yet the finds from these a LOCAs also imply working community engaged in agriculture, indus try, and trade. Ceramics of a domestic or commercial/industrial function are common at LOCAs 9005 and 9007, and many other sherds of these must to categories that cannot be closely dated belong also the Archaic Hellenistic settlement. An interesting contrast in the two assemblages maybe 115. Alcock 1989a; 1989b; 1994, iswell at 9007, while at 9005 there significant: cooking pottery represented pp. 177-179. is a abundance of and vessels. LOCA particular storage transport 9005, 116.Wiseman 1963, p. 272, pi. 70; facing the Kenchreai road reaching Kromna from the southeast, may have 1978, p. 66. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 505

Figure 20. LOCAs, MLs, and other been a focus of or such as wine or oil. features at Kromna warehousing transshipping products more The assemblage at LOCA 9007, by contrast, looks domestic. no Other feature and artifact-scatter LOCAs, at which gridded col so to lections were made, fill out the general picture, that it is possible areas at begin to map out land-use patterns and functional Kromna and its east surroundings (Fig. 20). LOCA 9126, just of LOCA 9007, is similar more a in artifact composition, but the sample is consistent with domestic a function while lacking votive content. It is likely that LOCA 9126 should be attached to the central residential core that includes LOCAs 9005 and western 9007. The quarries abut the and northwestern edges of the dense a Archaic-Hellenistic scatter, and the lack of strong signature from that era at Boulberi, across the quarries to the northwest, suggests that the one to town. quarries formed boundary the Within the residential center, the olive press mentioned above (LOCA 9132) reinforces the impression a as of working agricultural community, although this feature may be late as Roman.117 Early was Some part of the quarry area adjacent to the settlement utilized for areas we ritual activity, evident in two dining that for convenience call the 117. 2005. rooms 9130 James "upper" and "lower" dining (LOCAs and 9131, respectively). 5?6 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

TABLE 11. CERAMIC FUNCTIONAL ATTRIBUTES, CA. 650-146 B.C.

LOCA

Functional Category 9003 9005 90079006

Table ware: fine, semifine 42 91 5 82 votive vessel: fine,miniature 0 00 8 Figurine: terracotta 0 0 10 Ritual basin (perirrhanterion) 100 0 Storage: pithos 3 014 6 Utilitarian: coarse,medium coarse 5 0 31 34 Transport: amphora 2 250 2 Cooking/kitchen 0 20 15 Loomweight 110 1 Lamp 2 0 0 0 Rooftile, painted 0 9 11 Rooftile, slipped 7 0 14 4

areas as arenas In the Greek world, these dining served commonly for communal meals attached to certain kinds of ritual. It is possible that these rooms a to dining had ritual connections with nearby sanctuary, similar those associated with ritual dining at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore at Corinth in the 6th-5th centuries b.c.118 Although far from complete, are these dining rooms comparable in size and apparently similar in plan to those at the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore.119 Two fragments of ce on ramic perirrhanteria?ritual washing basins?found the surface within room the perimeter of the upper dining reinforce the impression of ritual, rather than domestic, activity. The concentration of votive material from m LOCA 9007 is less than 200 from the dining rooms, and although there a we can is broad chronological fit, only guess at this point that the two may be related. to Archaic-Classical cemeteries and other mortuary features may help further fix the towns boundaries. Wiseman listed three cemeteries that he believed delimited the boundaries of the settlement, which must roughly correspond to the locations ofML 9,16, and 37 (Fig. 20).120 A number of other cemeteries and surface finds of fragmentary stone burial sarcophagi are known in the vicinity of Kromna,121 but it has proven difficult to recon struct their exact locations and this effort is ongoing. It is clear, however, were that large cemeteries associated spatially with the roads and quar a ries in the Archaic and Classical periods. ML 10, cemetery of broadly Classical date, overlooks the probable line of the Kenchreai road at the an southeastern limit of LOCA 9005. ML 16 is unfinished sarcophagus at probably of Late Archaic-Late Classical date resting its manufacturing a location in quarry adjacent to the Isthmia road, at the northern limit of LOCA 9007. The convergence of quarries, roads, and mortuary contexts 118. Bookidis 1993; 2003, pp. 255 suggests that together these features defined the physical and symbolic 256. 119. Bookidis limits of the residential core on the northern, southern, and western sides. 1993, pp. 46-48, 3.1. more or figs. 3.1-3.3, table The eastern boundary is problematic, lacking definitive features 120.Wiseman 1963, p. 271. obvious breaks in but ML 37, an area 200 m east of LOCA 9007 density, 121.Morgan 1939, pp. 265-266; where numerous Archaic-Late Classical were a local sarcophagi reported by Lawrence 1964, pp. 94-101; Wiseman a eastern nn. 117-119. resident, hints at possible boundary. More likely, the boundary 1978, p. 66, THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 507

was more always fluid, the natural direction for growth but susceptible to or expansion contraction in response to the political and economic fortunes of the eastern Corinthia. Outside the main residential zone lie several concentrated artifact a scatters that have domestic character and maybe hypothetically assigned to the functional category of "farmstead."122 LOCAs 9154 and 9163 in particular have strong signatures in the Archaic-Hellenistic periods. LOCA 9163 typifies their artifact assemblages: 18 fragments of fine to semifine table ware, 11 rooftiles, 7 pithoi, 1 transport amphora, 2 loomweights, 2 millstones, and 1 lamp. Such farmsteads surrounding the main settlement were to presumably placed take advantage of the well-watered arable soil. Other potentially similar sites, LOCAs 9161, 9164, and 9221, produced too few objects of certain Archaic-Hellenistic date for functional attributes to be inferred. We may, therefore, propose several functional areas at Kromna: a resi core an area a dential ("town"), adjacent industrial at the quarries, focus of ritual activity at the transition between residential and industrial zones, a series of mortuary locations that may have demarcated the transition between residential and nonresidential space, two major carriage roads con necting Corinth with the eastern coast of the Corinthia, a fortified position (garrison?) overlooking Kromna from the south, and several farmsteads on in the fertile agricultural land the plain. LOCA 9003, several hundred east a meters to the of the settlement, remains something of puzzle. There, cut an large quantities of architectural stone, unusual number of sherds from fine vessels, many of which are characteristic of Archaic-Classical sanctuar ies, and the discovery of two fragments of perirrhanteria all point toward a the presence of sanctuary. This function appears to be corroborated by a a Wisemans discovery, somewhere nearby, of terracotta altar and partial a area Kore figurine. Yet geophysical survey covering this in 2002 turned up no indication of monumental foundations.123 This LOCA may be a sanctuary and settlement that grew up along the road outside the confines a of the main settlement at time of expansion and prosperity in the eastern we Corinthia, but remain ignorant of its form and extent. were or use These various features certainly not all in existence at any we given time, but believe that they give a good impression of activity areas use s and land during several centuries of prosperity, when Kromna fortunes seemingly coincided with those of Corinth itself. The preliminary patterns invite many questions that will only be fully addressed by contin ued analysis of the data, which will refine, if not substantially revise, the reconstruction offered here.

Interpreting the Functional Landscapes of Kromna

The archaeological and environmental evidence suggests that Kromna held a a distinctive position in the Corinthia because of unique convergence of an was landscapes, where auspicious location augmented by the intensive of abundant and lithic resources, and the cre 122. But see Pettegrew 2001 on this exploitation agricultural by ation and of social which and problematic category. manipulation landscapes by power identity 123. Sarris 2003. were asserted. 5o8 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Kromna as Crossroads

The location of Kromna best explains its existence and its apparent prosper on ity.As noted above, the town sat well-watered, fertile soil at the cross roads of the major land routes through the eastern Corinthia (Fig. 16).124 One of these roads connected Corinth, via Kromna, with the Isthmus, giv access ing to the wealth generated by the Diolkos and the rich Sanctuary of Poseidon, where Panhellenic games were held every two years. Another ran road began at the Saronic port of Kenchreai and northwest to meet the road from Isthmia at Kromna, before heading west to Corinth. Wiseman ran suggested that another route north from Kromna toward Lechaion and a a the Corinthian Gulf. Kromna must have been busy place, with constant movement of goods and people between Corinth?a popular destination commerce famous for and pleasurable diversions?and the coasts. Kromna, as an a was s important node in connective landscape, central to Corinth efforts to maintain firm control over its eastern territory.

The Agricultural Landscape

was a A variety of evidence discussed above indicates that agriculture fun damental activity of the inhabitants of Kromna. The soils in the adjacent are water plain deep and fertile, supplied with from streams, springs, and streams wells, and with sediment from local and hills (Rachi Boska, Ayios team Dimitrios). Fine-scale mapping by the geomorphology shows that sediments transported into the plain by alluvial and colluvial processes have been transformed the formation of of which a thick horizon by deep soils, Bt is visible in plowed fields and miscellaneous cuttings today. The impressive thickness of the variable but to tens of meters in one Bt horizon, exposed a deep cutting for municipal landfill, indicates the considerable time depth of over formation and the essential stability of the landscape that interval. water too was The supply ample: faults running through the plain offer access to groundwater, and springs issue at exposed interfaces between soft, porous limestones and conglomerates and the underlying impermeable a tree marls and clays.125 At the very heart of Kromna, huge fig growing a a from chasm beneath small rise at the southern edge of LOCA 9007 saw marks the location of just such a spring. In 1960, Wiseman 11 wells, are two cisterns, and a basin of poros slabs.126 Fewer wells visible today, resources but local farmers have described vividly the water encountered in the course of digging. EKAS further discovered several features related an to agriculture, described above: olive press (LOCA 9132), millstone or more are (LOCA 9134), and two artifact scatters that provisionally as interpreted farmsteads (LOCAs 9154,9163). The northern Corinthian was a was a plain, of which Kromna part, rich agricultural land for the as urban polis, it still is today.

The Industrial Landscape

one The settlement of Kromna was adjacent to of the largest of Corinth's 124. Wiseman 1978, 64. a p. famed limestone which extended low for almost 3 water at quarries, along ridge 125. For the natural supply km from the modern of Examilia to Kromna and village beyond. Cuttings Corinth, see Landon 2003. along this ridge show the tremendous volume of material removed from 126. Wiseman 1978, p. 66. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 509

over were the quarries time. Ancient cut blocks identified in 66 of the 470 DUs (14%) in the Kromna, Kesimia, Boulberi, and Perdikaria zones; the over to an figure for Kromna/Kesimia is just 21%. In addition cut blocks, can seen unfinished sarcophagus and columns still be in the quarries, at were on testing to the range of products that manufactured site.Wiseman more as as saw far unfinished objects in the quarries recently the 1960s, con most of which have since disappeared.127 Contemporary inscriptions was firm that Corinthian limestone used extensively in the 4th and 3rd b.c. centuries for construction at the sanctuaries of Asklepios at Epidauros at we a and Apollo at Delphi,128 and closer hand may infer substantial demand for stone at Corinth, at the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia, and elsewhere. It is not known whether the quarries at Kromna provided some or an all of the Corinthian stone for these major projects, but ongo ing geochemical and p?trographie study by Chris Hayward offers the hope that it will be possible to match the architectural stone to the quarry of * 129 origin. must The quarries also have supplied stone for buildings, monuments, uses and sanctuaries at Kromna and its vicinity. One of the greatest of was a stone locally for the construction of trans-Isthmian fortification wall in response to the threat of the Persian invasion in 480 B.c.130This wall was to an later rebuilt, probably in 279 b.c., forestall anticipated Gallic resources invasion.131 The value of Kromnas agricultural and industrial is were illustrated by the fact that they protected behind these walls, while was the Sanctuary of Poseidon at Isthmia not. Today, the line of the Classical-Hellenistic wall can still be followed as it passes to the north of a measure Kromna, providing useful of the limit of Kromnian territory in turbulent times.132 A pair of wheel ruts (LOCA 9133) worn into bedrock were possibly shows that the quarries connected with Wisemans Road 3 as we it passed Kromnas northern edge (Fig. 20). Logically may associ an access a ate these ruts with road for moving quarry stone to main road not to for shipment, but it is possible date them, except to note that their depth (6-15 cm) and gauge (1.27-1.33 m) fall within known ranges for Roman vehicles.133 was a It is likely that work in the quarries mainly seasonal occupation undertaken by the inhabitants of Kromna, who were at other times engaged in agro-pastoralism. Journeymen may have been employed at times of great demand for stone, and soldiers drafted for the hasty work of throwing up a defensive walls. By the Roman period, slaves may have comprised sub stantial component of the workforce.134 At Kesimia, the detection by geophysical survey of two probable kilns among a concentration of Classical surface pottery hints at other work or shop industrial-scale activities, although their date cannot be confirmed without excavation.

127.Wiseman 1963, pp. 271-272; 131. Paus. 7.6.4; see also Wiseman 1978, p. 66. 1963, pp. 267-269. 128. Burford 1966,1969; Wiseman 132.Wiseman 1963, pp. 256-258, 68:a. 1978, p. 68. pi. 129. Hayward 2003, pp. 33-40. 133. Pritchett 1980, pp. 167-181. 130. Hdt. 8.71. 134. Hayward 2003, p. 39. 5io THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

The Mortuary and Memorial Landscape

was common In classical antiquity, it to bury the dead and set up funerary monuments along roads outside the confines of cities. As proposed above, s these cemeteries may help to fix the approximate boundaries of Kromna core residential through time. Pausanias, traveling through the Corinthia in the 2nd century a.D., noted the existence of memorial monuments along the road between Kenchreai and Corinth, but regrettably he did not describe them.135 Until recently, many such monuments survived around Kromna as ruins, and extensive cemeteries and freestanding tombs of Archaic on through Roman times existed the margins of the town, as revealed by excavations of the last century and surface discoveries made byWiseman, members of EKAS, and others. Monumental funerary structures served multiple purposes. A constant stream of merchants, pilgrims, soldiers and sailors, athletes and spectators, an journeymen, slaves, and local residents provided audience for the social messages encoded in these highly visible monuments. For elite families, re the monuments served to proclaim their status and to facilitate social production in Corinthian society. The Corinthian state undoubtedly used monuments of various types to advance explicit historical claims to the ter ritory and resources between the city and the coast, echoing the territorial role played by tombs and funerary monuments around the world.136 Such monuments held considerable propaganda value, celebrating the glorious exploits and persons of the Corinthian past.

The Sacred Landscape

no sources Although there is explicit mention in the ancient of sanctuaries or at the surface remains at certain locations are temples Kromna, sug gestive of sacred contexts. The votive pottery at LOCA 9007, along with an a Wiseman s discovery of comparable ceramics and altar and figurine of terracotta farther east, leaves little doubt that during Archaic-Classical times shrines or sanctuaries existed in the residential core of the settlement areas and beyond. The two, roughly contemporary, dining (LOCAs 9130 were a and 9131) associated with ritual and possibly neighboring sanctuary: the architectural evidence and the presence of perirrhanteria?particularly common components of ritual at Corinthian sanctuaries?are strong in were dications of sacred contexts. Fragments of perirrhanteria also found at LOCA 9003, where, in addition to one of the highest concentrations of cut-stone blocks in the survey area, the finds include abundant sherds are from fine-ware vessels that characteristic of, though not exclusive to, sanctuary offerings of the Archaic and Classical periods.137 Wisemans discoveries may indicate that a cult of Demeter and Kore existed there. a as Such cult would not be surprising shrines dedicated to the pair have been identified across the Isthmus, from Acrocorinth in the west to the 135. Paus. 2.2.4. 136. Saxe 1970; Goldstein Rachi settlement and the Isthmian sanctuary in the east.138 E.g., Wise Buikstra and Charles The of a sacred first detectable in the Archaic 1980; 1995; development landscape, 1999. reflects the and consolidation of sur K. period, probably physical symbolic 137. M. Risser (pers. comm.). the of Poseidon at rounding territories, including Sanctuary Isthmia, by 138. Anderson-S tojanovic 2002. no at the expanding city of Corinth.139 There is evidence for earlier shrines 139. Gebhard 1993. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 511

Kromna, although these would have been small, open-air shrines lacking durable architecture and thus not easily recognized from surface remains. a More likely, the inhabitants of Geometric Kromna joined regional to community of cult at the Early Iron Age shrine at Isthmia, prior the cen establishment of the first known sanctuary at Corinth in the early 7th b.c. tury The archaeological evidence indicates that for centuries, the as a Isthmian roadside sanctuary served meeting place for widely dispersed groups from the Isthmus and beyond, fostering what Catherine Morgan a has called "regional framework of community identity."140

Reintegrating Kromna

we we we Although may place the materials discover and the activities infer at Kromna in convenient categories, such as "industrial" or "sacred," or or attempt to locate physical boundaries liminal places, such dichotomies our own more may reflect intellectual preconceptions than the reality in we can which ancient Kromnians existed. The data have gathered be read alternatively to show that neat boundaries in space and in daily life did us not exist, and in fact the integrative approach of EKAS leads to alter native points of view by breaking down such divisions. An example is the interp?n?tration of the "sacred" with industrial, memorial, and connective was landscapes. At Kromna, ritual practiced at sanctuaries and dining rooms areas situated in residential and among the quarries. Dedicatory inscriptions are known from quarries in the classical Greek world, such as on a the dedication to Dionysos inscribed face of cut limestone bedrock in the quarries just northwest of Kenchreai.141 The sacred and memorial were a landscapes closely linked?indeed, there is wide functional overlap as in the artifacts from sacred and funerary contexts in early times, is known at from the 6th-4th-century deposits the Sanctuary of Poseidon and the case West Cemetery at Isthmia (though this is distinctly not the later in Ro man or Byzantine times, when the functional overlap is between domestic a and funerary assemblages).142 These shared forms indicate conflation of some aspects of the acts of worship and commemoration. a Similarly, aspects of connective landscape held importance for Greek religion?a typical example being the status of crossroads as both magi cal, associated with and and the haunt of 140. Morgan 1994, p. 115. protection healing, dangerous, were 141. SEGX1 50;Mitsos 1936, witches and the restless dead. The Greek gods Hermes and Hecate 146. were p. particularly associated with crossroads, where their images often set 142. Clement andThorne rooms near 1974; up. The clear evidence for ritual dining and shrines very the Dickey 1992; Gebhard andHemans of the Isthmia and Kenchreai roads may reflect a strong emotional M. K. crossing 1992, passim; 1998, passim; association with supernatural forces at such places. Risser (pers. comm.). the raises about 143. For ideas of agency and theo Furthermore, present analysis many questions agency ries of see in the of this site with the urban center at Corinth. practice and "structuration," relationship important Bourdieu Giddens were 1977; 1979,1981; What the relationships linking Kromna, quarrying activity, and Dobres 2000. Corinth? Is it possible that Kromna developed independent strategies 144. This point becomes irrelevant, for economic prosperity, security, and ritual activity?143 Might Kromna however, if Shipley (2000, pp. 371-372) at certain times have relations with other entities in the is correct was a pursued separate that Agathon foreigner eastern was from Arcadian Kromna who was buried Corinthia and beyond? It is perhaps significant that Agathon in the Corinthia. memorialized not as a Corinthian, but as a Kromnian.144 Yet we cannot 512 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Figure 21. View from Kromna to west Acrocorinth, looking southwest: Kromna figuratively and almost literally in the shadow of Corinth

owners were say that the land and quarry at Kromna not in fact wealthy urban dwellers from Corinth.145 If they were, it will be difficult to sepa an even rate the interests of astu and chora. On more fundamental level, a close examination of the literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence a has led Pettegrew to suggest that Kromna was not really well-bounded "town" at it functioned as a crossroads as of all?rather, emporium part an zone ex-urban of spatially continuous exploitation in Corinth's eastern territory.146 Ongoing analysis of survey contexts and artifact collections area us from the broader survey may enable to better place Kromna in its Corinthian context (Fig. 21). are We also left with questions regarding the nature of change and area. chronological development of the For instance, should the northward geographical shift in the Classical period be understood in terms of the a development of the residential "core" of growing community associated directly with quarrying activity? Or does the shift indicate the formation of a town at the crossroads befitting the material developments at Isthmia and at the harbor Kenchreai? Or is it the cultic and mortuary significance of the area an in the midst of ancient quarry that is the greatest factor affecting the are we to migration of settlement? How read the paucity of Early Roman material and the apparent shift in settlement to the southwest? And what reason area is the for the rehabitation of the quarry in late antiquity? It is in the margins of uncertainty, at this early analytical stage, that such questions arise and alternative interpretations take shape. It is clear, however, was that Kromna significant because so many aspects of the Corinthian was ethos found expression in this single place. It central to Corinthian life, both geographically and in the practical and symbolic construction as a of Corinth prosperous and historically situated polis. An integrative us to on methodology enabled extract remarkably detailed information Kromnas setting and its human history, offering interpretive potential well or beyond that ofWisemans impressive but nonsystematic investigation, the information chance finds. piecemeal supplied by 145. Osborne 1987, pp. 13-26; an a In article assessing century of investigations into the Bronze Age 1991. of the 146. 248-327. Corinthia, tellingly subtitled "Old Approaches, New Problems," Pettegrew 2006, pp. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 513

an new Jeremy Rutter advocates infusion of field research in the form of a problem-oriented surveys and excavations, to avoid scholarship made stag on nant by continued reliance the reanalysis of old excavation material.147 new more This need for archaeological approaches to address finely focused questions extends to all periods of the Corinthian past.148 The preliminary one examination of Kromna by EKAS, of many such historical inquiries a and merely the beginning of process of reconstituting past landscapes some in the eastern Corinthia, suggests of the fruits of the application of new methods and perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Dense human occupation of the eastern Corinthia for more than 8,000 years, an combined with active tectonic, sedimentary, and erosional landscape, presents serious challenges to eliciting meaningful data from the surface across some record. The density of material the landscape is variable, in areas an characterized by "unbroken carpet" of overlapping, superimposed palimpsests of material from multiple periods of the past, and elsewhere or scatters. typified by sparse material discrete, single-period A further complication is the frenetic pace of modernization in the countryside, new characterized by extensive bulldozing and the proliferation of settle at ments. The coastal Corinthia is especially risk, with villas and hotels to attract appearing everywhere tourists and Athenian weekenders. The worsen recent a situation will only with the completion of high-speed rail line connecting Athens and Corinth; this could effectively make much of a the Isthmus bedroom community for Athens, about 45 minutes away by train. The urgency of preserving the cultural heritage of the eastern even Corinthia provides justification for the survey, under less than ideal conditions. we a as While do not advocate specific set of "best practices," such those formulated for the European POPULUS Project's Manual of Best Prac we tice,149 believe that many of the principles and practices guiding EKAS are a widely relevant. Our integrative approach provides unifying philosophy of interdisciplinary collaboration focused on the critical moment of primary data collection, and enhances the effectiveness of the discovery process by attaching to it experts in geomorphology, archaeology, GIS, and other dis us an ciplines. This flexible model allowed to accomplish effective survey in over we spite of unanticipated limitations which had little control. on A fundamental emphasis fine-scale geomorphological analysis our guided research design, sampling schemes, field procedures, analysis, our and interpretation. It is view that this level of involvement of geo 147. Rutter 2003. morphology should be standard among archaeological surveys. Without 148. For the recourse to as example, application complementary programs such long-term replication studies to of survey data issues affecting the or test excavations to calibrate survey results, our work Bronze of the northeastern P?lo geomorphological Age an even role in the success of the and it is clear that is played greater survey, ponn?se explored in Cherry and of on the EKAS model is Davis 2001; Rutter 2003;Wright 2004. geomorphological analysis survey space practi on a 149. Barker andMattingly 2000. cable regional scale. 514 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

our The combination of geomorphology, the chronotype system, and us answer DU procedure allowed to the question recently posed by Eliza we beth Fentress: What are counting for?150 She suggests that it may be or of little value to count weigh off-site material, because gross numbers or are we no weights uninformative if have information about relative or we ubiquity of specific artifact classes, if cannot decipher the site-for mation processes that create off-site distributions. By carefully defining to geomorphological space in which survey, and by using the chronotype a approach to acquire representative sample of artifacts, both qualitatively to more use and quantitatively, EKAS is able make confident of off-site assess data to the potential for reconstructing past cultural patterns. The on experiments EKAS conducted the parameters of artifact recovery further refine the quantitative and qualitative information acquired from off-site locations.

More broadly, our methods and results demonstrate the continued value and relevance of intensive, siteless survey, in the face of considerable and, to an extent, justified criticism.151 Taking only the example of Kromna, careful analysis of the intensive survey data revealed activity during the Geometric, Late Hellenistic, and Early Roman periods that surely would have been a or were invisible using site-based nonintensive method. We able to detect spatially continuous patterns of low-density material that modify in fun our damental ways understanding of Kromnas long-term history at such times as the interim between Corinth's destruction and refoundation.

We believe that the low-impact collection policy of EKAS anticipates as future directions in survey archaeology, budgets tighten, host countries on ar seek to establish closer controls territorially extensive fieldwork, and chaeologists ponder the utility of large collections of redundant, fragmen on tary material. These developments focus attention the responsibility of survey archaeologists to help preserve cultural heritage, particularly in case countries that suffer from rampant modernization and looting. The studies presented above indicate that chronotype collections yield samples that are representative of ubiquity, type, and date, while dramatically reduc ing the number of artifacts retained. as to Specific EKAS methods, such the geomorphological approach as a or survey space and the chronotype collection classification strategy, may be attractive in a form modified to suit local conditions and research can objectives. These methods be augmented where fieldwork permissions are more are liberal. But the broader goal of producing data that usefully across areas comparable regions and of the world is crucial, and in the ab sence a of standard practice, it is essential that methods of data collection to be presented in explicit detail.152 A central aim of this article has been our so are explain clearly methods that the inferences that generated from them may be evaluated by others. 150. Fentress 2000. an was As archaeological tool set, the EKAS methodology designed, 151. Blanton 2001; Osborne 1996; Alcock and 2004a. above all, to harmonize geographic, environmental, and archaeological Cherry 152. Tartaron 2003, p. 26; Alcock information at all stages of the research endeavor, and to enable firmly and 2004b. The Internet of the record to be drawn. The Cherry pro grounded interpretations archaeological a for commu vides promising vehicle data EKAS will the vast archive of information even most generated by complement nicating the voluminous and and to a from prior excavations, surveys, chance discoveries, contributing detailed accounts and dataseis: Gates, more and 2004. fuller and nuanced understanding of the Corinthian past. Alcock, Cherry THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 515

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge gratefully the cooperation of the 37th Ephoreia of Prehis toric and Classical Antiquities (represented by Panayiota Kasimi) and the 25th Ephoreia of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities (represented was by Konstantina Skarmoutsou). EKAS supported by grants from the we our following organizations, to which extend sincerest appreciation: the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the National Geographic Society, the on Foundation for Exploration and Research Cultural Origins, and the Ohio State University Excavations at Isthmia. In addition, individual members received support from university was and other external funds. Tartaron supported by grants from Yale University, including the A. Whitney Griswold Faculty Research Grant, the Yale Center for International and Area Studies Grant, and the Stavros was S. Niarchos Faculty Research Grant; funding for students provided on summer by the Council Archaeological Studies grant program. Pullen received support from Florida State University through the Committee on Faculty Research Support and the Arts and Humanities Program En was an hancement Grant. Noller funded in part by Oregon State University General Research Fund grant, and also by aNational Science Foundation grant awarded to Noller and Lisa Wells. Rothaus received funds from St. Cloud State University for equipment, supplies, and GIS development. Rife received funding from the Classics Department of Cornell University. an Tzortzopoulou-Gregory received Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit a Foundation Fellowship and School of Archaeology Research Grant from s was LaTrobe University. Schon work supported in part by the Christopher at a Fund Bryn Mawr College and by grant from theWhiting Foundation. a Caraher received funding from United States Department of Education as Fund for the Improvement of Secondary Education Research Grant, well as sources: a the following Ohio State University Department of History Summer Research Fellowship, an Office of International Affairs Sum mer Dissertation Research Grant, a Graduate School-Alumni Research a was Award, and Department of History Isthmia Fellowship. Pettegrew sources: supported by several Ohio State University the Ruth Higgins Award for Summer Research in the Department of History; the College an of Humanities G. Michael Riley International Academic Fund; and by Office of International Education Dissertation Research Grant. Nakassis

received travel support from the Classics Department and from the Program inAegean Scripts and Prehistory at the University of Texas at Austin. We crew also thank enthusiastically all of the members and other participants, who will be listed individually elsewhere. we are to Finally, grateful Michael Given, P. Nick Kardulias, and Apos as as t?los Sarris, well Tracey Cullen, Carol Stein, and three anonymous Hesperia reviewers, for their insightful critiques and suggestions during the editorial process. THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL. 5l6

REFERENCES

Adams, J., and H. Faure. 1998. "Prelim Contemporary Perspectives, Maiden, inaryVegetation Maps of theWorld Mass. since the Last Glacial Maximum: Atalay, 1.1997. "Red Mediterranean An Aid toArchaeological Under Soils in Some Karstic Regions of 623-647. Taurus Catena standing,"/^ 24, pp. Mountains, Turkey," E. 247-260. Alcock, S. 1989a. "Archaeology and 28, pp. Roman and and D. 2000. Imperialism: Expansion Barker, G, Mattingly. the Greek City,"JMA2, pp. 87-135. "General Editors' Introduction," -. in Francovich and Patterson 1989b. "Roman Imperialism 2000, in iii-ix. the Greek Landscape,"//?^ 2, pp. pp. 5-34. Bawden, G, and R. M. Reycraft. -. 1993. Graecia The Land 2000. Environmental Disaster and Capta: Roman the Human scapes of Greece, Cambridge. Archaeology of Response -. Museum of 1994. "Breaking up the Helle (Maxwell Anthropol in nistic World: Survey and Society," ogy Anthropological Papers 7), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Albuquerque. Modern ed. I. and I. Hodder. 2003. Archaeologies, Morris, Berggren, ?., 171-190. "Social and Some Cambridge, pp. Practice, Method, -. Problems of Field 2000. "Extracting Meaning Archaeology," Con AmerAnt 421-434. from Ploughsoil Assemblages: 68, pp. in R. cluding Remarks," Francovich Binford, L. 1982. "TheArchaeology and Patterson 2000, pp. 265-266. of Place," JAnthArch 1, pp. 5-31. Alcock, S. E., and J. F. Cherry. 2004a. Bintliff, J. 1991. "The Roman Coun in Obser "Introduction," in Alcock and tryside Central Greece: Cherry 2004b, pp. 1-9. vations and Theories from the Sur in -, eds. 2004b. Side-by-Side Boeotia Survey (1978-1987)," in Roman vey: Comparative Regional Surveys Landscapes: Archaeological in Mediterranean theMediterranean World, Oxford. Survey the Region, ed. G. Barker and Ambraseys, N. N., and J. A.Jackson. J. Lloyd, London, 1990. "Seismicity and Associated pp. 122-132. Strain of Central Greece between Bintliff, J., E. Farinetti, P. Howard, 1890 and 1988," GeophysicalJournal K. Sarri, and K. Sbonias. 2002. International 101, pp. 663-708. "Classical Farms, Hidden Pre Ammerman, A. J. 1985. "Plow-Zone historic Landscapes, and Greek an Experiments inCalabria, Italy,"JFA Rural Survey: A Response and 12, pp. 33-40. Update/'/AW 15, pp. 259-265. -. P. and A. Snod 1995. "The Dynamics of Bintliff, J., Howard, Modern Land Use and the Acconia grass. 1999. "The Hidden Land Survey; JMA 8, pp. 77-92. scape of Prehistoric Greece,"/AW 139-168. Anderson-S tojanovic, V. 2002. "The 12, pp. Cult of Demeter and Kore at the Bintliff, J., M. Kuna, and N. Venclov?. in 2000. "Editorial in The Isthmus of Corinth," Peloponne Overview," Future in sian Sanctuaries and Cults. Proceedings of Surface Artefact Survey M. and of theNinth International Symposium Europe, ed. J. Bintliff, Kuna, at the Swedish Institute at Athens, N. Venclov?, Sheffield, pp. 1-2. 11-13 June 1994, {SkrAth4?, 48), Bintliff, J., and A. Snodgrass. 1985. 75-83. "The Boeo ed. R. H?gg, Stockholm, pp. Cambridge/Bradford Annis, M., P. van Dommelen, and tian Expedition: The First Four P. van de Velde. 1995. "Rural Settie Years,"//*/12, pp. 123-191. ment -. 1988. "Off-Site Distri and Socio-political Organiza Pottery tion:The Riu Mannu Survey Proj butions: A Regional and Interre ect in Sardinia," BABesch 70, pp. gional Perspective," CurrAnthr 29, 133-152. pp. 506-513. P.W. 1984. Soils and Geo Ashmore, W., and A. B. Knapp, eds. Birkeland, 1999'. Oxford. Archaeologies of Landscape: morphology, THE EASTERN KORINTHIA SURVEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL 517

E. of in Urbanism Blanton, R. 2001. "Mediterranean Pyla-Koutsopetria Archaeological lands Mycenae," in Bronze Myopia," Antiquity 75, pp. 627-629. Project: First Preliminary Report the Aegean Age (Shef in Biegen, C. W. 1920. "Corinth in Pre (2003-2004 Seasons)," RDAC 2005, field Studies Aegean Archaeol historic Times," AJA 24, pp. 1-13. pp. 245-268. ogy 4), ed. K. Branigan, Sheffield, -. 1921. Korakou, a Prehistoric Caraher, W. R., D. Nakassis, and pp. 141-159. near D. 2006. Sur L. and E. Man Settlement Corinth, Boston. K. Pettegrew. "Siteless Cherry, J. F., J. Davis, -. MMS Intensive Data Collection eds. 1991. 1930. "Gonia," 3, vey and tzourani, Landscape in an Artifact-Rich Environment: as pp. 55-86. Archaeology Long-Term History: at Case Studies from the Eastern Co Northern Keos in Islands Bookidis, N. 1993. "RitualDining the Cycladic 7-43. Corinth," in Greek Sanctuaries: New rinthia, Greece,"/M/f 19, pp. (Monumenta archaeologica 16), ed. N. Marinatos and C. 1995. Practices: Los Approaches, Carr, "Mortuary Angeles. R. 45-61. 2001. World H?gg, London, pp. Their Social, Philosophical Chew, S. C. Ecological -. Urban 2003. "The Sanctuaries of Religious, Circumstantial, and Degradation: Accumulation, in and 3000 b.c.? Corinth," Corinth XX, pp. 247 Physical Determinants," Journal of ization, Deforestation, Method and ad. 259. Anthropological Theory 2, 2000, Walnut Creek. 1977. Outline a 105-200. A. 1991. Bourdieu, P. of Theory pp. Clark, R. H., and J. Schofield. R. W. V. of Practice, Cambridge. Cavanagh, W., J. Crouwel, "By Experiment and Calibration: A. An to Boutin, A., B. Knapp, I. Banks, Catling, and G. Shipley. 2002. Integrated Approach Archae M. and M. Horowitz. 2004. The Laconia 1: of the in Inter Given, Survey Continuity ology Ploughsoil," "Settlement and in and and in a Greek Rural Land Scatters: Contribu Cemetery Change preting Artefact and tions to around Katydhata Village: From scape. Methodology Interpretation Ploughsoil Archaeology, to 93 Prehistory the Roman Era," (BSA Suppl. 26), London. ed. A. J. Schofield, Oxford, pp. RDAC 2004, pp. 335-351. Cavanagh, W., R.Jones, and A. Sarris. 105. 1996. Bruno, C. 2003. "Isotopic Record of "The Phosphate and Geo Clement, P. A., and M. M. Thorne. in Laconia at Paleoclimatic Change in Soils of the physical Surveys," The 1974. "From the West Cemetery Eastern Greece" 2: and in 401-411. Korinthia, (M.S. Survey Continuity Change Isthmia," Hesperia 43, pp. a Greek Rural = thesis, Oregon State Univ.). Landscape. Archaeo Corinth XX C. K.Williams II and Buikstra, J. E., and D. K. Charles. 1999. logicalData (BSA Suppl. 27), ed. N. Bookidis, eds. Corinth, the Cen R. V. "Centering the Ancestors: Ceme W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, W. tenary: 1896-1996 (CorinthXX), teries, Mounds, and Sacred Land Cading, and G. Shipley, London, Princeton 2003. scapes of the Ancient North Ameri pp. 235-261. Cullen,T 2001. "Introduction: Voices can in Ashmore 1984. and Visions of Midcontinent," Chang, C. "TheArchaeology of Aegean Prehistory," in in A Review and Knapp 1999, pp. 201-228. Herding Sites Greece," MASCA] Aegean Prehistory: on 44-48. Burford, A. 1966. "Notes the Epi 3:2, pp. (AJA Suppl. 1), ed.T. Cullen, Bos -. daurian Building Inscriptions," 1992. "Archaeological Land ton, pp. 1-18. BSA 61, pp. 254-339. scapes: The Ethnoarchaeology of Dann, M. A., and R. W. Yerkes. 1994. -. 1969. The Greek Build Pastoral Land Use in the Grevena Temple "Use of Geographic Information ers at Social and Eco of in Epidauros:A Region Northern Greece," Systems for the Spatial Analysis of nomic in and Land Frankish Settlements in the Korin Study ofBuilding theAskle Space, Time, Archaeological the Fourth and ed. and L. Wand in pian Sanctuary during scapes, J. Rossignol thia, Greece," Kardulias 1994b, Early Third Centuries b.c., Liverpool. snider, New York, pp. 65-90. pp. 289-311. an -. Butzer, K. 1978. "Toward Inte 1997. "Greek Sheep, Albanian Davis, J. L. 2004. "Are the Landscapes Contextual in Economies in grated, Approach Shepherds: Hidden of Greek Prehistory Hidden? A A Personal the in Kar in Archaeology: View," European Community," Comparative Approach," Alcock JAS 5, pp. 191-193. dulias and Shutes 1997, pp. 123 and Cherry 2004b, pp. 22-35. -. 1982. as Human 141. Archaeology Davis, J. L., S. E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Ecology, Cambridge. Cherry, J. F. 2003. "Archaeology beyond Y. G. Lolos, and C. W. Shelmer Bynum, M. R. 1995. "Studies in the the Site: Regional Survey and Its dine. 1997. "The Pylos Regional of the Southern Co in and Practice in Topography Future," Theory Archaeological Project, Part I: rinthia" Univ. of Mediterranean Old (diss. California, Archaeology: Overview and the Archaeological World and New World 391 Berkeley). Perspectives Survey," Hesperia 66, pp. Caraher, W. R., and L. Diacopoulos. (Cotsen Advanced Seminars 1), 494. a 2004. "Less than Village: Patterns ed. J. K. Papadopoulos and R. M. Dia, A., A. Cohen, R. O'Nions, and of Rural Settlement in the Land Leventhal, Los Angeles, pp. 137 J.Jackson. 1997. "Rates of Uplift of the Southeastern Korin 159. 230Th scape Investigated through Dating thia" (paper, San Francisco 2004). Cherry, J. F, and J. L. Davis. 2001. in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece)," W. R. S. S. Nol "'Under the of Caraher, R., Moore, J. Sceptre Agamem Chemical Geology 138, pp. 171 D. non: The from ler, and K. Pettegrew. 2005. "The View the Hinter 184. 5l8 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Diacopoulos, L. 2004. "The Archaeol Forbes, H. 1997. "A 'Waste' of of Modern inMediter Resources: of ogy Greece," Aspects Landscape ranean in Archaeological Landscapes: Exploitation Lowland Greek Current E. in Issues, ed. Athanassopou Agriculture," Kardulias and los and L. Wandsnider, Philadel Shutes 1997, pp. 187-215. 183-198. 1993. phia, pp. Fotiadis, M. "Regions of the M. Diacopoulos, L., Given, and Imagination: Archaeologists, Local K. Seretis. 2003. "Historical Ar and the People, Archaeological chaeology, Oral History, and Field Record in Fieldwork, Greece," in Survey," Given and Knapp 2003, Journal of European Archaeology 1:2, pp. 23-24. pp. 151-168. Dickey, K. 1992. "Corinthian Burial Francovich, R., and H. Patterson, eds. ca. b.c." 2000. Customs, 1100-550 (diss. Extracting Meaningfrom Bryn Mawr College). PloughsoilAssemblages (The Archae M.-A. 2000. and of Mediterranean Dobres, Technology ology Landscapes Social a Practice Agency: Outlining 5), Oxford. Framework Oxford. B. von. 1973. des for Archaeology, Freyberg, Geologie of von Doonan, 0.2002. Rev. Hodder Isthmus Korinth (Erlanger 2000b, mAmerAnt 67, pp. 787-788. geologische Abhandlungen 95), Doukellis, P. N. 1994. "Le territoire de Erlanger. romaine de in T. 1986. la colonie Corinthe," Gallant, W. "Background Structures rurales et and soci?t?s antiques. Noise Site Definition: A Con Actes du de 14-16 to colloque Corfou, tribution Survey Methodology," mai 1992, ed. P. N. Doukellis and JFA 13, pp. 403-418. L. G. Mendoni, Paris, pp. 359-390. Gates, J. E., S. E. Alcock, and J. F. Dunnell, R. C. 1992. "The Notion Cherry. 2004. "Internet Resources in and for Mediterranean Site," Space, Time, Archaeo Regional Survey ed. logical Landscapes, J. Rossignol Projects: A Preliminary Listing," and L. Wandsnider, New York, inAlcock and Cherry 2004b, pp. 21-41. pp. 243-251. Dunnell, R. C, and W. S. Dancey. Gebhard, E. R. 1993. "The Evolution of a Pan-Hellenic From 1983. "The Siteless Survey:A Re Sanctuary: at gional Scale Data Collection Strat Archaeology towards History in in in egy," Advances Archaeological Isthmia," Greek Sanctuaries: New and Method Theory 6, ed. M. B. Approaches, ed. N. Marinatos and Schiffer, New York, pp. 267-287. R. H?gg, London, pp. 154-177. Dunnell, R. C, and J. F. Simek. 1995. Gebhard, E. R., and M. W. Dickie. "Artifact Size and Plowzone Pro 2003. "The View from the Isthmus, ca. to cesses,"//^ 22, pp. 305-319. 200 44 b.c.," in Corinth XX, Ebert, J. 1.1992. Distributional Archae pp. 261-278. E. and F. P. Hemans. ology, Albuquerque. Gebhard, R., 1992. Farid, S. 2000. "The Excavation Process "University of Chicago Exca at vations at Catalh?y?k," inHodder 2000b, Isthmia, 1989:1," Hesperia pp. 19-35. 61, pp. 1-77. -. Farnsworth, M., I. Perlman, and 1998. "University of Chicago F. Asaro. 1977. "Corinth and Corfu: Excavations at Isthmia, 1989: II," 1-63. A Neutron Activation Study of Hesperia 67, pp. Their Pottery,"AJA 81, pp. 455 Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social 468. Theory, London. E. 2000. "What Are -. 1981. A Fentress, We Contemporary Critique For?" in and Historical London. Counting Francovich of Materialism, Patterson 2000, pp. 44-52. Gillings, M. 2000. "TheUtility of the R. 1981. "Off-Site Archaeol in Foley, GIS Approach the Collection, ogy: An Alternative Approach for Management, Storage, and Analysis the in Pattern the of Surface in The Short-Sited," of Survey Data," Past: Studies inHonour David Future in of of Surface Artefact Survey I. ed. M. and Clarke, ed. Hodder, G Isaac, and Europe, J. Bintliff, Kuna, N. Hammond, Cambridge, pp. 157 N. Venclov?, Sheffield, pp. 105 183. 120. THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 519

Ma and Practical D. P. Given, M. 2004. "Mapping and Archaeological Survey Holdaway, S., Witter, Fanning, for in R. G. T. Doel nuring: CanWe Compare Sherd Proposals Low-Impact Survey Musgrave, Cochrane, a Density Figures?" inAlcock and Mediterranean Context," inMedi man, S. Greenwood, D. Pigdon, and terranean Reeves. 1998. "New Cherry 2004b, pp. 13-21. Archaeological Landscapes: J. Approaches to Given, M., V. Kassianidou, A. B. Current Issues, ed. E. Athanassopou Open Site Spatial Archaeology los and L. Philadel in Sturt National New South Knapp, and J. Noller. 2002. Wandsnider, Park, 15-36. A in "Troodos Archaeological and phia, pp. Wales, Australia," rchaeology D. and M. S.Mook. 1993. Oceania 1-19. Environmental Survey Project, Haggis, C, 33, pp. on "The Kavousi Coarse Wares: A R. 1981. Cyprus: Report the 2001 Hope Simpson, Mycenaean Season," Levant 34, pp. 25-38. Bronze Age Chronology for Survey Greece, Park Ridge. in the Mirabello East Institute of and Mineral Given, M., and A. B. Knapp, eds. Area, Crete," Geology 2003. The Sydney Cyprus Survey AJA 97, pp. 265-293. Exploration (IGME). 1972. Social to Y. 1998. "Comments and Korinthos Athens. Project: Approaches Regional Hamilakis, Sheet, to M. -. 1975. Athens. Archaeological Survey (Monumenta Responses Given, Inventing Sofikon Sheet, - the Ar Isthmia Isthmia: Excavations the archaeologica 21), Los Angeles. Eteocypriots: Imperialist by A. N. and the of under the Aus Given, M., B. Knapp, Meyer, chaeology Manipulation University of Chicago the American School Classi T. E. Gregory, V. Kassianidou, Ethnic Identity' (JMA 11.1, June pices of of at J. Noller, L. Wells, N. Urwin, and 1998): Archaeology and the Politics cal Studies Athens, Princeton in II = O. and H. Wright. 1999. "The Sydney Cy of Identity Cyprus,"/M/tf 11, Broneer, Topography 107-111. 1973. prus Survey Project: An Interdisci pp. Architecture, W. 2000. "The Current State V = T. E. The Hexamil plinary Investigation of Long-Term Hayes, J. Gregory, in of Roman Ceramic Studies inMedi ion and the 1993. Change the North Central Tro Fortress, terranean or Pot VIII = C. The Late odos, Cyprus,"//*/ 26, pp. 20-39. Studies, Handling Morgan, 2003. from in Francovich Bronze Settlement and Iron Given, M., and N. Meyer. "Map tery Surveys," Age Early and Patterson 105-109. 1999. ping and Fieldwalking Procedures," 2000, pp. Age Sanctuary, C. L. 1996. IX = L. Roman inGiven and Knapp 2003, pp. 30-36. Hayward, "High-Resolu J. Rife, The tion Provenience Determination and Graves and Human Goldstein, L. G. 1980.Mississippian Byzantine Practices: A Case of Construction Stone: A Prelimi Mortuary Study of Remains, forthcoming. Two Cemeteries in the Lower Illinois nary Study of Corinthian Oolitic James, S. 2005. "An Olive Press Instal Evanston. Limestone at lation from the Eastern Korinthia" Valley, Quarries Examilia," T. E. 1985a. "An 215-234. Boston Gregory, Early Byzan Geoarchaeology 11, pp. (poster, 2005). at near -. 1999. P. 1994a. tine Complex Akra Sophia "Geological Evidence for Kardulias, N. "Archaeology 411-428. the inModern Greece: Corinth," Hesperia 54, pp. Pre-8th-Century Topography Bureaucracy, -. 1985b. "Cities and Social Evo of the Central Plateau," in Isthmia Politics, and Science," in Kardulias in 3-14. 373-387. lution Roman and Byzantine VIII, pp. 1994b, pp. in -. 2003. of Corinth: ed. 1994b. the Site: South East Europe," European "Geology -, Beyond Per The of a Basic Studies in the Social Evolution: Archaeological Study Resource," Regional Aegean Area, ed. in Corinth 15-42. Lanham. spectives, J. Bintliff, Bradford, XX, pp. -. in pp. 267-276. Hemans, F. P. 1994. "Greek Architec 1999. "Multiple Levels -. 1990. tural Terracottas from the the Bronze World "Intensive Archaeologi Sanctuary Aegean Age in at in in cal Survey and Its Place Byzan of Poseidon Isthmia," Proceed System," World-Systems Theory Studies the International on in Practice: tine Studies," Byzantine ings of Conference Leadership, Production, Greek Terracottas and P. N. 13:2, pp. 155-175. Architectural of the Exchange, ed. Kardulias, -. 1993a. "The Byzantine Dark Classical and Hellenistic Periods, Lanham, pp. 179-201. Roman December P. E. and Age Occupation in the Bath 12-15,1991 (Hesperia Kardulias, N.,T. Gregory, at N. M. Dann. 1997. a Isthmia," in Gregory 1993b, Suppl. 27), ed. A. Winter, A. "Re-creating 61-83. Frankish pp. 149-160. Princeton, pp. Town,"Archaeology 50:3, -, ed. 1993b. The Corinthia in Hodder, 1.1997. "Always Momentary, pp. 54-58. a P. E. theRoman Period {JRASuppl. 8), Fluid, and Flexible': Towards Kardulias, N.,T. Gregory, and Ann Arbor. Reflexive Excavation Methodology," J. Sawmiller. 1995. "Bronze Age -. 1994. "From Kleonai to and Late of Agios Antiquity 71, pp. 691-700. Antique Exploitation an -. 2000a. a Reflexive an in Vasilios: Journey through "Developing Islet the Saronic Gulf, Ancient in Structures in in Landscape," Method Archaeology," Hodder Greece,"//^22,pp.3-21. rurales et soci?t?s Actes du 3-18. P. and M. T. antiques. 2000b, pp. Kardulias, N., Shutes, de 14-16 mai ed. 2000b. Towards eds. 1997. Studies colloque Corfou, 1992, -, Reflexive Aegean Strategies: P. Culture and Environment on ed. N. Doukellis and L. G. Method inArchaeology: The Example of the at Mendoni, Paris, pp. 351-358. Catalh?y?k (British Institute of European Fringe, Lanham. -. is at Kenchreai I = R. L. W. 2004. "Less Better: The Archaeology Ankara, Monograph Scranton, J. Quality of Ceramic Evidence from 28), Cambridge. Shaw, and W. Ibrahim, Kenchreai, 520 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

Results a Eastern Port of Corinth: of Visible Remains and Study of the and Sources" Investigations by the University of Literary Epigraphic and Indiana I: Univ. of Chicago University (diss. California, Berkeley). and Leiden D. 2000. "Methods of Col Topography Architecture, Mattingly, 1976. lection, Recording, and Quantifica Keraudren, B., and D. Sorel. 1987. tion," in Francovich and Patterson "The Terraces of Corinth (Greece): 2000, pp. 5-15. A Detailed Record of Eustatic Sea McGlade, J. 1997. "GIS and Integrated Level Variations during the Last Archaeological Knowledge Sys Marine in 500,000 Years," Geology 77, tems," Archaeological Applications pp. 99-107. ofGIS. Proceedings of Colloquium II, C. 2003. Kosso, The Archaeology of UlSPPXIIIth Congress,Forli, Italy, Public in Late Roman Greece 1996 Policy September (Sydney University (BAR-IS 1126), Oxford. Archaeological Methods Series 5, K. L. ed. Kvamme, 2003. "Geophysical CD-ROM), I.Johnson and as M. Surveys Landscape Archaeology," North, Sydney. AmerAnt 68, pp. 435-457. Mee, C, and P.James. 2000. "Soils Lambeck, K. 1995. "Late Pleistocene and Site Function: The Laconia and Holocene in Rural Sites in Sea-Level Change Project," Landscape and Land Use in Greece Greece and Southern Turkey: Postglacial A of in Separation Eustatic, Isostatic, (Sheffield Studies Aegean and Tectonic Contributions," Geo Archaeology 3), ed. P. Halstead International physical Journal 122, and C. Frederick, Sheffield, pp. 1022-1044. pp. 162-175. -. 1996. N. 2003. and "Sea-Level Change and Meyer, "Pottery Strategy in Shore-Line Evolution: A General Chronotypes," Given and Knapp Framework ofModelling and Its 2003, pp. 14-16. to since andT. E. 2003. Application Aegean Greece Meyer, N., Gregory. Upper Palaeolithic Time," Antiquity "Pottery Collection, Pottery Analy 70, pp. 588-611. sis, and GIS Mapping," in Given 2003. Landon, M. E. "Beyond Peirene: and Knapp 2003, pp. 48-52. a Toward Broader View of Corin Meyer, N., and R. Schon. 2003. in thianWater Supply," in Corinth XX, "Experimental Data," Given and pp. 43-62. Knapp 2003, pp. 52-56. 1964. Lawrence, P. "Five Grave Groups Mille?, M. 2000. "Dating, Quantifying, from the Corinthia," Hesperia 33, andUtilizing Pottery Assemblages pp. 89-107. from Surface Survey," in Francovich Lee, W. E. 2001. "Pylos Regional and Patterson 2000, pp. 53-59. M. 1936. Archaeological Project, Part IV: Mitsos, "ErciYpccip?? d; ApKa Kai Change and the Human Landscape ?ia?, EmOa?pot), KopwGia?," a in Modern Greek Village inMes ArchEph 1936, pp. 136-146. 49-98. 1994. "The Evolution of a senia," Hesperia 70, pp. Morgan, C. M. Levy, T E., J. D. Anderson, Wag Sacral Landscape': Isthmia, Pera goner, N. Smith, A. Muniz, and chora, and the Early Corinthian in Gods: Sanctuar R. B. Adams. 2001. "Digital Ar State," Placing the 2001: GIS-Based Exca ies and Sacred in Ancient chaeology Space Greece, vation in S. E. R. Recording Jordan," The ed. Alcock and Osborne, SAA Record 105-142. Archaeological 1:3, Oxford, pp. 1939. at pp. 23-29. Morgan, C. H, II. "Excavations Lolos, G. J. 1998. "Studies in the Corinth, 1938,"4/^43, pp. 255-267. and N. Kardulias. 2000. Topography of Sikyonia (Greece)" Murray, P., P. as An (diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley). "The Present Past: Ethnoar -. Land Forthcoming. ofSikyon: chaeological Study ofModern Sites and a The Archaeology History of in the Pikrodhafni Valley," in Sutton Greek 141-168. City-State (Hesperia Suppl. 2000, pp. 39), Princeton. Noller, J., L. Wells, E. Reinhardt, and Marchand, J. 2002. "Well-built Kleo R. Rothaus. 1997. "Subsidence of nai:A History of the Peloponnesian the Harbor at Kenchreai, Saronic on a City Based Survey of the Gulf, Greece, during the Earth THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 521

a.d. a.d. in Roman in Urban ed. and L. quakes of 400 and 1928," ning Corinth," J. Rossignol Wandsnider, in Roman Corinth: Inter New 91-112. Eos 78, p. 636. Religion York, pp. R. 1987. Classical R. 2002. the Land Osborne, Landscape disciplinaryApproaches (Harvard Schon, "Seeding with Figures: TheAncient Greek City Theological Studies 53), ed. D. N. scape: Experimental Contributions Schowalter and S. Cam to and Its Countryside, London. J. Friesen, Regional SurveyMethodology" -. 25-59. 1991. "Pride and Prejudice, bridge, Mass., pp. (diss. Bryn Mawr College). -. 2006. "Roman in and L. 2003. Sense and Subsistence: Exchange Surveyors Seretis, K., Diacopoulos. and Society in theGreek City," Corinth," PAPS 150, pp. 62-85. "SIA 5:Mitsero Village," inGiven in and in the Ancient R. M. 2000. the and 109-118. City Country Rothaus, Corinth, Knapp 2003, pp. First Greece: An Urban World, ed. J. Rich and A. Wallace City of Shipley, G. 2000. "The Extent of Spar Late Cult and tan in the Late Classical Hadrill, London, pp. 119-145. History of Antique Territory -. 1996. in and BSA "Survey and Greek Soci Religion (Religions the Graeco Hellenistic Periods," 95, ety,"AJA 100, pp. 165-169. Roman World 139), Leiden. pp. 337-390. -. in O'Shea, J. 1984.Mortuary Variability: Rothaus, R. M., E. Reinhardt, T. Tar 2002. "The Survey Area the An and Noller. 2003. "A Geo Hellenistic and Roman in Archaeological Investigation, taron, J. Periods," for et New York. archaeological Approach Under Cavanagh al. 2002, pp. 257-337. of the Pardoe, C. 2003. "The Menindee standing Prehistoric Usage Shott, M. J. 1995. "Reliability of Ar Coastline of the Eastern Records on Cultivated Lakes: A Regional Archaeology," Korinthia," chaeological Australian 42-53. inMETRON: the Ae Surfaces: A Case Archaeology 57, pp. Measuring Michigan Study," Bronze Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeol gean Age (Aegaeum 24), JFA 22, pp. 475-490. ogy ofDeath and Burial, College ed. K. Foster and R. Laffineur, Shutes,M. T. 1997. "WorkingThings Station. Li?ge, pp. 37-47. Out: On Examining the Relation K. B. 1974. "The Late Helladic between Prac Pettegrew, D. 2001. "Chasing the Rutter, J. ships Agricultural at tice and Social Rules in Classical Farmstead: Assessing the IIIB and IIIC Periods Korakou Ancient of and Gonia in the Corinthia" in Kardulias Formation and Signature Rural (diss. Korinthos, Greece," in Univ. of Settlement Greek Landscape Pennsylvania). and Shutes 1997, pp. 237-257. Archaeology,'7ikW 14, pp. 189-209. -. 2003. "Corinth and the Corin Stiros, S. C. 2001. "The a.d. 365 Crete -. 2006. "Corinth on the Isth thia in the Second Millennium b.c.: Earthquake and Possible Seismic mus: an Old New to Studies of the End of Approaches, Problems," Clustering during the Fourth Ohio in Sixth Centuries a.d. in the Eastern Ancient Landscape" (diss. Corinth XX, pp. 75-83. State Univ.). Sakellariou, M. V, and N. Faraklas. Mediterranean: A Review of His -. "The 1971. Corinth-Cleonai torical and Forthcoming. Busy (Ancient Archaeological Data," Structural Countryside of Late Roman Cor Greek Cities 3), Athens. Journal of Geology 23, B. 1984. inth: Ceramic Data, Source Anal Salmon, J. Wealthy Corinth: pp. 545-562. A the to 338 S. B. 1988. "What Is a ysis, and Regional Settlement Pat History of City b.c., Sutton, Village Oxford. in a Nation of terns," Hesperia. Migrants?" Journal P. M. Modern Greek Studies 187 Pirazolli, A., S. C. Stiros, Arnold, Sarris, A. 2003. Technical Report of 6, pp. F. and at 215. J. Laborel, Laborel-Deguen, Geophysical Prospection Survey 1994. Kromna-Kesimia and Perdikaria -. 1994. "Settlement S. Papageorgiou. "Episodic Patterns, as Part Eastern Korinthia Settlement Rethink Uplift Deduced from Holocene of the Perceptions: Shorelines in the Perachora Penin Archaeological Survey (EKAS-2002), ing the Greek Village," inKardulias sula, Corinth Area, Greece," Tectono Rethymnon. 1994b, pp. 313-335. R. 2000. physics 229, pp. 201-209. Sarris, A., and E.Jones. 2000. "Geo -, ed. Contingent Country side: and Land Pritchett, W. K. 1980. Studies inAncient physical and Related Techniques Settlement, Economy, to Use in since Greek Topography,Part III:Roads Applied Archaeological Survey the Southern Argolid (University of California Publications in the Mediterranean: A Review," 1700, Stanford. in Classical Studies 22), Berkeley. JMA13, pp. 3-75. Tartaron, T. E 2003. "The Archaeo Rautman, M. 2000. "The Busy Coun Saxe, A. A. 1970. "Social Dimensions logical Survey: Sampling Strategies of Late Univ. in tryside Roman Cyprus," of Mortuary Practices" (diss. and Field Methods," Landscape in Southern RDAC 2000, pp. 317-331. ofMichigan). Archaeology Epirus, L. 1999. and M. B. 1972. Greece 1 Rife, J. "Death, Ritual, Schiffer, "Archaeological (Hesperia Suppl. 32), Memory inGreek Society during Context and Systemic Context," ed. J.Wiseman and K. Zachos, the Early andMiddle Roman AmerAnt37, pp. 156-165. Princeton, pp. 23-45. -. 1987. Formation Processes the T D. and S. Empire" (diss.Univ. ofMichigan). of Tartaron, F., J. Pullen, J. D. G. 1993. "Post-146 b.c. Noller. 2006.uRillenkarren at Romano, Archaeological Record, Albuquerque. Vayia: in S. H. 1992. a Land Use Corinth, and Planning Schlanger, "Recognizing Geomorphology and New Class 44 in of the Roman Colony of b.c.," Persistent Places Anasazi Settle of Early Bronze Age Fortified in 9-30. ment in Settlement in Southern Gregory 1993b, pp. Systems," Space, Time, Greece," -. 2005. "Urban and Rural Plan and 145-160. Archaeological Landscapes, Antiquity 80, pp. 522 THOMAS F. TARTARON ET AL.

T. R. M. and Transactions the Tartaron, F, Rothaus, Philosophical of Royal for Ceramic Production," in Corinth Pullen. 2003. London DJ. "Searching Society of 314, pp. 379-407. XX, pp. 1-13. for Prehistoric Aegean Harbors Vroom, J. 1993. "The Kastro of Velou Whitelaw,T. 1991. "The Ethnoarchae on with GIS, Geomorphology, and kovio (Kallion):A Note Surface ology of Recent Rural Settlement Archaeology," Athena Review 3:4, Finds," Pharos 1, pp. 113-138. and Land Use in Northern Keos," 27-36. -. 1996. "Coffee and in pp. Archaeol Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 2000. on a Taylor, J. "Cultural Depositional ogy: A Note K?tahya Ware 1991, pp. 403-454. Processes and Find in K. "La Post-depositional Boeotia, Greece," Pharos 4, Wise, 1995. ocupaci?n Chin Problems," in Francovich and Pat pp. 6-19. chorro en Villa del Mar, Ilo, Peru," terson 16-26. -. 1998. Modern Archae Gaceta Andina 2000, pp. "Early Arqueol?gica 24, N. 2004. in Terrenato, "Sample Size Mat ology Central Greece: The Con pp. 135-149. ters!The Paradox of Global Trends trast of Artefact-Rich and Sherdless Wiseman, J. R. 1963. "A Trans-Isth and Local Surveys," in Alcock and Sites; JMA11, pp. 131-164. mian Fortification Wall: Notes Cherry 2004b, pp. 36-48. Wandsnider, L., and E. L. Camilli. on Hellenistic Military Operations D. H. 1975. "Non-Site 1992. "The Character of Surface in the Thomas, Corinthia," Hesperia 32, in Sampling Archaeology: Up the Archaeological Deposits and Its pp. 24S-275. Creek without a Site?" in Influence on -. 1978. The Land the Ancient Sampling Survey Accuracy,"y/24 of in Archaeology, ed. J.W. Mueller, 19, pp. 169-188. Corinthians (SIMA 50), G?teborg. 61-81. and C. 1996. Tucson, pp. Wells, B., Runnels, eds. Wright, J. C. 2004. "Comparative Set M. N. 1985. Greek Historical In Berbati-Limnes tlement Patterns Tod, The Archaeological during the Bronze as two in scriptions (originally published Survey, 1988-1990 (SkrAth4?, 44), Age the Northeastern Pelopon Greek Historical volumes, Inscriptions Jonsered. nesos," in Alcock and Cherry 2004b, I II L. E. 2001. [1946] and [1948]), Chicago. Wells, "Archaeological Sed pp. 114-131. van T. 1994. in Andel, "Geo-archaeology iments Coastal Environments," in Wright, J.C, J. F Cherry, J. L. Davis, and Science? Sediments in E. Archaeological Archaeological Context, Mantzourani, S. B. Sutton, and A Personal View," in Kardulias ed. J. K. Stein and W. R. Farrand, R. F. Sutton Jr. 1990. "The Nemea 1994b, pp. 25-44. Salt Lake City, pp. 149-182. Valley Archaeological Project: A -. 1998. Red Sedi and R. eds. "Paleosols, Wescott, B., J. Brandon, Preliminary Report," Hesperia 59, ments, and the Old Stone Age in 2000. PracticalApplications of GIS pp. 579-659. 361? 1997. in Greece," Geoarchaeology 13, pp. for Archaeologists, London. Yaalon, D. "Soils the Mediter 390. and R. ranean Weymouth, J.W., Huggins. Region: What Makes Them van and C. Runnels. 1987. 1985. and Catena Andel, T., "Geophysical Surveying Different?" 28, pp. 157-169. A Rural Greek in Beyond the Acropolis: Archaeological Sites," Archae Yassoglou, N., C. Kosmas, and N. Mou Stanford. G. stakas. 1997. Past, ological Geology, ed. Rapp Jr. "The Red Soils, Their G P. Vita-Finzi, C, and C. King. and J. A. Gifford, New Haven, Origin, Properties, Use, and Man 1985. "The Seismicity, Geomor pp. 191-235. agement in Greece," Catena 28, and Structural Evolution 2003. phology, Whitbread, I. K. "Clays of Cor pp. 261-278. a of the Corinth Area of Greece," inth: The Study of Basic Resource

Thomas R Tartaron DanielJ. Pullen

University of Pennsylvania Florida State University

department of classical studies department of classics

hall logan 20i tallahassee, florida 32306

philadelphia, pennsylvania 0652o [email protected]

[email protected]

JayS.Noller E. Timothy Gregory Oregon State University Ohio State University department of crop and soil science department of history 3017 agricultural and 106 dulles hall life sciences building

west oregon 230 17th avenue corvallis, 97331

columbus, ohio 432io [email protected]

[email protected] THE EASTERN KORINTHIA ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 523

Richard M. Rothaus William R. Caraher

St. Cloud State University University of North Dakota

office of sponsored programs, department of history

research, and faculty development merrifield hall, room 20?b avenue south grand north dakota 72o 4th forks, 58202

st. cloud, minnesota 563oi [email protected]

[email protected]

K. David Pettegrew L. Joseph Rife Messiah College

Macalester College department of history

classics department P.O. BOX 3051 1600 grand avenue ONE COLLEGE AVENUE

st. paul, minnesota 55105 GRANTHAM, PENNSYLVANIA 17027

[email protected] [email protected]

Lita Dimitri Nakassis Tzortzopoulou-Gregory

La Trobe University Trinity University department of archaeology department of classical studies

kingsbury drive one trinity place

san texas bundoora,melbourne antonio, 78212

victoria 3086 australia [email protected]

[email protected]

Robert Schon

Wellesley College department of classical studies

founders hall

106 central street

wellesley, massachusetts 02481

[email protected]