Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 11‐17 Copyright © 2010 MAA Printed in Greece. All rights reserved. THE KARYSTIAN KAMPOS SURVEY PROJECT: METHODS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS Tankosić, Ž.1 and Chidiroglou, M.2 1Indiana University, Department of Anthropology, Student Building 130 Bloomington, IN 47405, USA 2 Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 20 Bouboulinas Str., 10682 Athens, Greece, ([email protected]) Received: 30/11/2009 Accepted: 16/02/2010 Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT The Karystian Plain (the Kampos) is part of the Karystia that had not been archaeo‐ logically explored in a systematic way despite its obvious economic importance for the inhabitants of southern Euboea. In the course of two seasons of fieldwork the Kampos Survey was able to cover approximately forty percent of the designated survey area. In the process we located 36 previously unknown archaeological findspots ranging in date from the end of the Neolithic to the Late Byzantine times. In this paper we present our preliminary results. Our data suggest that the Kampos was as important to the ancient Karystian as it is to the area’s inhabitants today. KEYWORDS: Karystian Plain, prehistory, Classical and Roman periods, obsidian, sur‐ face survey 12 TANKOSIC, Ž. & CHIDIROGLOU, M. INTRODUCTION tential of the Kampos as well as its geo‐ In this paper we present preliminary graphical location between Karystos and results of the two seasons of intensive ar‐ the sheltered deep water port at Marmari chaeological field survey of the Karystian were added incentives to the research pro‐ Plain or Kampos. The project is organized ject. The Karystia, although somewhat by the Southern Euboea Exploration Pro‐ marginal in modern times, had been an ject (SEEP) with the permission from the important region in the past. Previous Hellenic Ministry of Culture. The project work in the area by both the Greek Ar‐ is funded by the Institute for Aegean Pre‐ chaeological Service represented by the th history (INSTAP) and by the personal 11 Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical funds of the late Professor Malcolm Wal‐ Antiquities and by SEEP provided a size‐ lace. The fieldwork part of the project took able body of data to support this assertion. place during the summers of 2006 and Although the eastern part of the Kampos 2007. Currently, the detailed study of the had been explored in the course of previ‐ material and other data collected in the ous work, large gaps in our knowledge of field is under way by an international the area, potentially very important for team of scholars. reconstructing the Karystian past, still re‐ The Kampos is located northwest of the mained. It was our goal to fill in those Bay of Karystos (fig 1) and stretches gaps. roughly east‐west, starting at the head of The survey target area in the plain cov‐ the bay, where it is the broadest and ers approximately 260 ha (fig 2), including where the modern town of Karystos is lo‐ the lower foothills of the Karpaston range cated, and tapering somewhat towards to the north and of the Paximadhi Penin‐ Marmari on the western coast. sula to the south. Figure 2 Topographic map of the Kampos with the boundaries of the survey area. North is up. The boundary of the survey area in the east coincides with the westernmost ex‐ tent of Dr. Donald Keller’s dissertation Figure 1 The Karystian Kampos viewed from survey (Keller, 1985). Our aim was to the east. South Euboean Gulf and east coast of learn as much as possible about the use of Attica in the background. the Kampos in the past and to locate the On the north it is bordered by the Kar‐ focal points of that use in the form of paston range and on the south by the Bay findspots. Since the Kampos is under of Karystos and the northern foothills of rapid modern development, obtaining the Paximadhi Peninsula. It is the largest information on the exact location of ar‐ agriculturally viable piece of land in the chaeological sites in the area will help in area and is also fairly well watered, espe‐ their protection. An important goal of the cially in the spring. This agricultural po‐ Kampos survey was to compare in the THE KARYSTIAN KAMPOS SURVEY PROJECT: METHODS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS 13 same setting some of the methods used previously in the field by SEEP in order to gauge their reliability and effectiveness. In addition, we wanted to examine whether some of the routes that exist today in the Kampos have been used as thoroughfares in the more distant past. Finally, we wanted to examine the effects of alluvia‐ tion on the visibility of ancient remains in Figure 3 Survey coverage. Dark gray – the 2006 the plain. transects. Light gray – squares surveyed in 2007. Courtesy of Google Earth. METHODS “Stratified sampling” in this particular case meant that the squares to be surveyed In 2006 the survey methodology con‐ were not chosen randomly but with re‐ sisted of two to four people walking in spect to specific predetermined guide‐ transects determined mainly by natural or lines; e.g., to include all of the different man‐made features of the terrain (fig 3). geomorphological features present in the This method intentionally corresponded survey area as well as taking into account to the “route survey” approach used by some of the results of the 2006 season. The SEEP east of the Bay of Karystos on the 100 x 100 m squares were further divided Bouros‐Kastri Peninsula. Our transects into ten 10 x 100 m transects, each sur‐ followed paved and unpaved roads, foot‐ veyed by a team member. Total collection paths, gullies, ravines, and current or sea‐ was carried out on the surface of all the sonal water flows; in short, all features of areas designated as findspots, while the the terrain that could serve as thorough‐ thin material scatter between the findspots fares. Additionally, two long arbitrary was recorded (in case of non‐diagnostic transects that roughly coincided with the material) or recorded and collected (diag‐ edges of the survey area were surveyed on nostic sherds, obsidian, etc.). the north and south foothills bordering We were able to locate 20 findspots in the Kampos. The team members were also 2006 and 16 in 2007. Judging only by the allowed to depart from the transects and number of discovered findspots it would investigate any areas that seemed promis‐ be possible to conclude that the extensive ing as potential locations of findspots. method employed in 2006 was more pro‐ Only a small representative sample of ma‐ ductive. However, the degree of efficiency terial was collected during this phase of notwithstanding, the route‐survey method the survey and only from locations that was not able to address other aspects of were designated as findspots. the use of the Kampos—namely the offsite The 2007 survey was executed using the distribution of archaeological materials. intensive stratified sampling method. The Moreover, many of the findspots discov‐ survey team in the 2007 season consisted of ered in 2007 are located not far from the seven to ten people in the field at any time. 2006 survey transects. This shows the in‐ The entire survey area was divided into adequacy of the extensive survey when 100 x 100 m squares, which were then sur‐ trying to locate all past remains in a given veyed independently or in clusters using area and especially the ones located at un‐ the stratified sampling approach (fig 3). expected locations. Therefore, the main 14 TANKOSIC, Ž. & CHIDIROGLOU, M. `difference between the methods used in “settlements” as they are traditionally de‐ 2006 and 2007 field seasons is not in the fined based on surface finds—we did not quantity but in the quality of data that find any architectural remains and pottery was acquired. is present only in the form of a few very small fragments. Most of the prehistoric RESULTS OF THE SURVEY findspots are characterized by obsidian scatters, some of which are among the We were able to locate and record 36 largest found in Greece thus far (William new archaeological findspots in the course Parkinson pers. comm.). Good illustra‐ of the survey. As we suspected, the plain tions of this are findspots 06N16, 07S28, was not a forgotten area in the past but and 07N35 (fig 4). was the location of lively activity in both prehistoric and historic periods. The prehistoric finds were the most surprising. At the beginning of the project one of our working hypotheses was that prehistoric remains would be largely cov‐ ered by alluvium. Consequently, we only expected to find evidence of the prehis‐ Figure 4 Locations of findspots mentioned in toric use of the plain in areas located on the text. Triangles mark prehistoric and circles higher grounds and on other locations Classical/Hellenistic/Roman findspots. North is up. away from the heaviest effects of alluvia‐ tion. Contrary to our expectations, we The findspot 06N16 is located on a have found at least 15 findspots that are ridge north of the modern road to Mar‐ either purely prehistoric or have a prehis‐ mari and above the small Ay. Photeini toric component. They are located on both chapel. The site consists of a large number schist outcrops and on the flat alluvial soil of obsidian flakes, tools, and core frag‐ of the plain. Moreover, some findspots ments (ca. 400 pieces) and small pottery located on sloped terrain (e.g., findspot fragments. The evidence suggests blade 06N16) did not show evidence for defla‐ and flake production on the site (William tion and displacement of materials, which Parkinson pers.