final neolithic crete and the southeast aegean () || chapter 7: the final neolithic/late...

Chapter 7: The Final Neolithic/ Late Chalcolithic in the Southeast Aegean

Archaeological problemsWhen dealing with the fourth millennium BC in the Dodecanese the controversial term “Final Neo-lithic” will be abandoned because it has never been introduced to this region by scholars involved in primary research. Instead, the closest equivalent to the Cretan Final Neolithic is Late Neolithic II (with two sub-phases: a and b), a period alternatively termed Aegean Late Neolithic (ALN), again with two sub-phases 3 and 4, both proposed by Sampson.1 This chronological system is based on relatively abundant archaeological evidence, and offers more flexibility than that of the Cretan “Final Neolithic” when making links with external areas. Unfortunately, the system also has a few weak points which cause considerable problems when we try to use it for relative dating of the fourth millennium BC sites in the Aegean region as a whole.

The first serious reservation concerns Sampson’s numerous changes of terminology and dates regarding particular sites and strata, which are not always justified by progress of research.2 The second problem comes from the character of archaeological sites excavated by Sampson – mostly caves, often with disturbed stratigraphy, and settlements with a single phase of occupation. There are also serious problems with the reliability and dating (both relative and absolute) of stratified sequences at some sites. The excavated deposits at cave sites were often disturbed, in particular in the highest layers, and the section drawings published do not accord with the stratigraphic descrip-tion.3 Much of the material from caves (but also from open-air sites) must have been mixed, and

1 Sampson 1984; 1987; 1989; 2007; 2008a.2 Compare for example relative and absolute dating of the group of the Dodecanesian sites of Partheni on Leros, Giali and Alimnia, which must have been roughly contemporary with each other, and most probably also contemporary with the East Cretan sites of FN II date, certainly not earlier than the Cretan FN I. In 1984 Partheni and Alimnia were dated to the second half of the fourth millennium BC, approximately contemporary with Emporio VII–VI, Kum Tepe Ib and Poliochni I (Black), and within LCh 4(–5) in the Anatolian term (Sampson 1984, 248). In 1987 the relative chronology remained the same, but the absolute date was lowered close to 3500 BC and earlier, though the sites were placed within ALN (NAN) 4 (Sampson 1987, 59). In 1988 three sites (Giali was added) were clustered together, close to 3500 BC, in the same relative position to Emporio VII–VI, Kum Tepe Ib and Poliochni I, within LN IIb (Sampson 1988, 231). In 2002, Giali, Poliochni I and Kefala on Keos were lowered to ca. 4000 BC in LN IIa or between LN IIa and IIb (Sampson 2002, 154). In 2006 and 2007 (2006, 223; 2007, 475), Giali, as well as Partheni on Leros and Alimnia, was moved back to ALN 2, earlier than Emborio VII, and even earlier than Kum Tepe Ia. Yet, also in 2006 (Sampson 2006, 250) the Neolithic building on Giali was dated to ALN 3 and equaled with the Anatolian LCh 3 with the absolute dates 4500–4000BC? (apparently wrong dates!). It is difficult to explain the reasons of Sampson’s continuous changes of the chronological position of Giali, Alimnia, Partheni on Leros, and other contemporary sites, dated initially to the second half of the fourth millennium BC, and their re-dating to the fifth millennium BC. It also remains unexplained why the relative chronology of these sites was shifted from the Kum Tepe Ib horizon to the one even earlier than Kum Tepe Ia? Which Anatolian chronology was used for dating “Late Chalcolithic 3 of Anatolia (4500–4000 BC)” is not clear either.3 See for example Sarakenos cave, Sampson 2008. There are numerous contradictions between the section on fig. 6 and the layer descriptions (pp. 31–34). One may conclude, from the drawing, that all the layers from A 10 up were disturbed and contained mixed material. The first “clean” stratum was Layer A 11, marked as LN II. Under LN II is located LN IIa, shown as part of A 12, and LN Ib, A 13–16(?). The section drawing does not show why LN Ib and LN II were differentiated. The description of the layers further contradicts the drawing. Stratum A 11 is clearly shown (on fig. 6) above a burnt area, which on the left side of the section is dated to LN IIa and certainly much above any LN Ia. Yet, the pottery from A 11, as well as from A 12, 13, 14 and 15, is dated to LN Ia. The description of the LN Ib and LN II pottery stratigraphic location makes it clear that these groups were found in disturbed contexts also containing EH material. Their differentiation was therefore stylistically and not stratigraphically based, and thus the dating of all

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst LibraryAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/7/14 8:39 PM

Archaeological problems 303

it would be more useful if the finds were published within well-described archaeological contexts rather than according to shape, decoration, or stylistically dated groups. In some cases it seems that the published “strata” did not represent archaeological layers, but artificially (arbitrarily) excavated ones, as for most of the trenches at Ftelia on Mykonos.4 Dating of the excavated material constitutes a separate problem. For example, Sampson dates the occupation of Ftelia within 2 or 3 centuries (or even less) in the first half of the fifth millennium BC, and the abandonment of the set-tlement before the beginning of LN II. This chronology, however, is difficult to accept in light of the published pottery and other finds from the site. There are too many links between the latest group of pottery from Ftelia and the pottery from Kefala on Keos to allow the sites to date over a thou-sand years apart.5 Doubts about chronology arise also from the metal objects and chipped stone found in Ftelia.6 There are further questions on the reliability of the published radiocarbon dates and the interpretation of some chronological phases, of some of the published sites, a problem which may (though not necessarily) result from misprints.7 The relation between Sampson’s ALN and LN periods and LCh in Anatolia may cause also some confusions. According to Sampson, ALN periods 1–4 are parallel to Anatolian LCh 1–4.8 Yet, according to his chronological system ALN 1–2 are contemporary with LN Ib which in absolute dates ranges between 4800–4200 BC. ALN 3 is contemporary with LN IIa, 4200–3800 BC, and ALN 4 with LN IIb, 3800–3300 BC.9 These dates are not commonly accepted for the Anatolian LCh 1–4(5).10 The above criticism points to apparent problems concerning individual sites, and individual strata at these sites, but does not question

material classified as LN Ib–LN II can be questioned. Why, for example, is a “cheese pot” fragment 112, found in A 6 (a stratum which yielded LN II and EH pottery) dated to LNIb and not to LN II? No “cheese pot” was reported from the layer under A 10, and this according to fig. 6, must be disturbed LN II with EH intrusions. If there were other factors which allowed differentiation of the strata in Trench A in a way different than it is represented on fig. 6, then the published section is not helpful at all.4 Sampson 2002; see for example Trenches A 3 (fig. 5 on p. 20), A 5 (fig. 6 on p. 23), B 3 (fig. 9 on p. 26), B 4 (fig. 10 on p. 27), B 5 (fig. 11 on p. 29).5 See the Kefala pottery in Coleman 1977.6 See the chapter by V. Maxwell, Metalworking at Ftelia, in Sampson 2002, 147–149, where all the parallels can be found only with the EBA or slightly earlier. Maxwell’s statement “it is thus very exciting to find a single coil pin so early at Ftelia” may highlight the problem of Ftelia’s dating. One may came to the same conclusions from the analysis of the chipped stone industry (Chapter Twelve by N. Galanidou, 317–332) where we read “… the tanged points from Fte-lia share further similarities with those found at Paoura … and none with those from nearby Kephala” (p. 322); Paoura is chronologically either contemporary or even later than Kephala and belongs to the LN IIb phase (see Caskey 1972, pl. 76). There are also serious contradictions between dates of plastic decorated ware, rope-like motives and incised decoration in Ftelia and Sarakenos Cave (Sampson 2002 and Sampson 2008a). An attempt to move the origins of these types of decoration much earlier to the LN Ia or the very beginning of LN Ib, because of the C14 dates of Ftelia, does not seem to be convincing. Equally problematic is explanation of the presence of Pattern Burnished Ware (however limited the samples were) at Ftelia (2002, 104). It is highly probable that Ftelia had either two interrupted phases of occupation, with the earlier one dated to the LN I (somewhere in the fifth millennium BC) and the later dated to the LN IIb (in the second half of the fourth millennium BC), or that the settlement was inhabited through a longer period between LN I and LN IIb. In the latter case the rate of accumulation of strata would be very slow, covering at least 1500 years.7 See for example Sampson 2002, 167: “At present, the entire period since the Late Aegean Neolithic 1 down to Late Aegean Neolithic 4 periods is spanned, while radiocarbon dates go back to 5300/5200 BC”(sic). Elsewhere (Sampson 2008b, 200): “… human occupation increased … and was of longer duration during LN Ib (approximately 5800–5300 B.C)”. Dating of rock and soil, as presented in a separate chapter (Sampson 2002, 273–277) is not convincing either, with the dates respectively 5500+-700 BC and 4000+-500 BC and the comment that “both ages fall within the dated frame of the settlement through typological studies of pottery finds and radiocarbon dating of the stratigraphy, which ranges between 4500–5500 calibrated years BC” (p. 273). This kind of range of dates, between 6200 and 3500 BC, is completely useless for archaeological interpretation.8 Sampson 2006, 219.9 Sampson 2006, 219; Sampson 2007, 474.10 According to the chronology of Sagona and Zimansky (2009) the Anatolian Late Chalcolithic covers the period between 4000 and 3100 BC (p. 145) or between 4300 and 3000 (p. 149 and 155). In both variations LCh 3 and 4 would



304 Chapter 7: The Final Neolithic/Late Chalcolithic in the Southeast Aegean

the superiority of the chronological system itself, proposed and worked out by Sampson, as an alternative to the unclear and non-precise “Final Neolithic”.

To sum up, in the present state of research Sampson’s chronological system, with the LN divided into two phases (I and II) and each of them into two subphases (a and b), seems to be the most accurate for the Dodecanese and allows us to link this area with the rest of the Aegean (apart from Crete) and with LCh Anatolia. Problems arise, however, when it comes to the absolute dates of particular sites within this chronological frame.

In Crete, as I pointed out in Chapter 4, the most plausible date for the beginning of the BA can be placed between 3200 and 3000 BC, but the FN II phase seems to have been a short one, probably between 200 and 300 years. This means that the transition between LN IIa and IIb (ca. 3800 BC), as proposed by Sampson, and between FN I and II in Crete (ca. 3400/3300 BC), as proposed in this book are not contemporary. More important is that the nature of these transitions was also differ-ent. The FN II in Crete was marked by a large number of new settlements with few or no links to the previous FN I phase – a phenomenon best identified in eastern and southern Crete. This new phase of settlement development seems to have been preceded by a growing concern about security among the FN I Cretans, already in the first half of the fourth millennium BC. In the Dodecanese the transition between LN IIa and IIb seem to have been less abrupt, and with more continuity, accord-ing to Sampson.11 However, is this continuity reflected also in settlement patterns, or is it limited only to artifact sequences? Changes or continuity in the technology of pottery production may, but do not need to, reflect population change or continuity. More important for the reconstruction of the historical circumstances of the transition between LN IIa and IIb, and then between LN IIb and EBA, are changes of settlement locations and settlement patterns. These should be analysed in the broader geographical context of the Aegean and western Anatolia.

The problems of the relative and absolute chronologies of the Dodecanese during the LN II period, and especially within the LN IIb phase, can be investigated through comparisons with the related material and sites in Crete. As discussed earlier, in Chapter 4, the general sequence of Cretan FN I, FN II and EBA I (EM I) is well established, with only a narrow margin of error for the key phase in this sequence, the FN II period. The latter is well differentiated from the earlier FN I, and relatively well separated from EBA I early. The Cretan FN I and II should be broadly equated with the single phase of LN IIb in the Dodecanese, though possible links between the beginning of FN I and the end of LN IIa should be also considered. The substantial changes between the Cretan FN I and II, which fall within LN II, seem to be completely absent in the Dodecanese. Absolute dates for the LN IIb, however, as proposed by Sampson, are controversial and based on indirect evidence.

Sampson divided the Aegean into several Late Neolithic (Late Chalcolithic) “cultural groups”. Thus, the region consisted of 1) the Dodecanese and Samos, 2) the Cyclades with Euboia and Attica, 3) the northern group of East Aegean islands and Northern Sporades. Crete was not classified in Sampson’s system at all.12 Although in general such a division is reasonable, recently documented evidence makes the picture appear more complicated. Apart from the similarities, we see substan-tial differences between the northern and southern group of the Dodecanesian islands. Astypalaia, geographically situated between the Dodecanese and the Cyclades, shows significant individual characteristics, not seen in the Karpathos–Kasos group, for example, but having many common features with the central Cyclades. Rhodes and Kos, the largest islands in the archipelago, have a number of sites not matched by other smaller islands, and, even more important, the variety of sites types and pottery characteristics are also outstanding. A good indicator of links between par-ticular islands in the Dodecanese is the pattern of chipped stone use – in particular the distribution

fall within Sampson’s ALN 4. The absolute dates proposed by Sampson for ALN 3 and, in particular, for ALN 4 are too long and too early when compared to either Cretan or Anatolian material.11 Sampson 2002, 164.12 Sampson 1984, 246, fig. 6.



Settlement in the Dodecanese 305

of Giali obsidian and of very local chert of good quality. Another important marker of regional divi-sions is the appearance of a very characteristic group of pottery, here called the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, and especially fabrics with small particles of obsidian, most probably originating exclusively from the Kos – Giali – Nisyros area.13

The fourth millennium BC, and in particular its second half, was a period of substantial changes in a number of elements of social and economic organization in the eastern Mediterranean. These changes further stimulated fast development of social hierarchy, technological improvements and political unification or expansion – factors which led to the emergence of the first kingdoms in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Aegean was in a second peripheral zone (with the first covering the Levant and a large part of Anatolia), which may have been affected by side effects of these pro-cesses, with some chronological delay in comparison with the first zone. The Dodecanese was a natural bridge between Anatolia, on one side, and the Cyclades and Crete on the other, and thus cultural influences or migrations coming from the Near East affected the Dodecanese first, before reaching the Aegean islands situated farther west. If the contacts between the Anatolian (and Levantine?) and the Aegean people were of a peaceful nature, settlement pattern changes seem most likely to have been minor. If migrations were involved in the process, pressure on the native Neolithic islanders may have affected earlier settlement organization and the location of habitation sites more strongly.

There are many similarities in the characteristics of settlement topography in Crete, the Dode-canese and the Anatolian coast in the fourth millennium BC that do not seem to be coincidental. There are many, though usually small, defensible and fortified LN II/LCh 3–4(5) (and fewer EBA I) settlements in the Dodecanese which seem to have been founded in view of security problems. The situation on the Anatolian coast, especially on its promontories protruding into the Aegean Sea, looks similar, though only very limited evidence is available for this region.

Settlement in the DodecaneseThe history of settlement in the Dodecanese during the period in question is among the most intriguing problems related to the subject of this book. For the better understanding of settlement changes in this region the published material from the Dodecanese will be compared with archae-ological evidence from Crete, on one hand, and with archaeological sites in the Dodecanese which were only briefly or not at all discussed in the literature to date, on the other. The LN II sites will be first briefly described on each island. Following this the characteristics of settlement patterns will be analysed.

Evidence for settlement location and patterns in the Dodecanese comes mostly from work of Hope Simpson and Lazenby,14 Sampson,15 and Melas.16 Whereas Hope Simpson and Lazenby gave only brief remarks on sites tentatively identified as Late Neolithic or EBA I, and Melas has focused his research on the southernmost group of the Dodecanese (Karpathos and Kasos), Sampson has covered most of the archipelago’s islands with his more intensive investigations, including exca-vations. Little information on the period can be found in the unpublished dissertation by Mee,17 which made only a few critical remarks concerning the interpretation of sites and archaeological material by Hope Simpson and Lazenby.

13 Georgiadis 2012, 22–24.14 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973.15 Sampson 1984; 1987; 1988; 2007.16 Melas 1985; 1988.17 Mee 1975.




Hope Simpson and Lazenby wrote:

“Apart from a few sporadic or uncertain finds, the evidence for Neolithic habitation in the Dodecanese all comes from caves, and it is often difficult to distinguish material which may belong to earlier Neolithic from that of the Late Neolithic or Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age phase, to which the bulk appears to belong … in the last part of the Neolithic period and in the first part of the Early Bronze Age the Dodecanese had close affinities with the Cyclades and with Samos, and also some contact with western Anatolia. Much of the recent evidence belongs to a phase roughly contemporary with EM I, EH I and the early part of Troy I. Particularly indicative are the holed fragments of ‘cheese pots’ and/or ‘baking pans’ from Astypalaia, and from Aspripetra, Tsilimbiri, and Asklupi on Kos. The type has a wide distribution, and is associated with the ‘Grotta-Pelos’ culture of the Cyclades” (Pl. 65).18

Since this comment, knowledge of the LN and EBA I periods in the Dodecanese has been substan-tially enriched, mainly by excavations and surveys carried out by Sampson. Thus, Hope Simpson’s and Lazenby’s observations can be now corrected and complemented with many more details shedding light on the above claimed “affinities” and “contacts”.

Two islands, Rhodes and Kos, were particularly important in the settlement system of the Dodecanese, due to their sizes and economic potential. It is unquestionable that the majority of the archipelago’s population lived on these islands, where tens of sites have been identified so far: the number of inhabitants during the LN II period might have easily exceeded a couple of thousand of souls on each of them, whereas most of the other smaller islands may have had a population ranging between several tens and several hundreds. The real number of inhabitants, however, varied very much from one phase to another, since most of the habitation sites, apart from caves, were of short duration, probably between one and a few generations. The density of usually small LN IIb settlements on some islands, such as Symi, Tilos, and Kos, may suggest short-term “overpop-ulation”, hard to explain on the ground other than immigration from the east. The explanation of this fact will be presented at the end of this chapter.

Rhodes

The settlement pattern on this island was determined not only by its large size and fertility of plains and valleys, but also by its location very close to the Anatolian coast. A map of LN sites can be drawn up based on the work of Hope Simpson and Lazenby, and Sampson. However, such a map will probably show only a small proportion of all the sites inhabited during this period (Fig. 222). The density of LN II settlements in some regions of Rhodes indicates that the island was either very densely populated during the fourth millennium BC, that the settlement system was very unstable, and people frequently moved from one place to another, or that many sites were only seasonally occupied. Almost all rocky ridges above good harbours, and hills dominating arable valleys and plains, show traces of LN II and very early EBA habitation. Archaeological evidence for the later EBA periods is poorer. This suggests a substantially larger population in the second half of the fourth millennium BC than during most of the third millennium BC. The same observation is true for the other Dodecanesian islands.

18 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 170.




Hope Simpson and Lazenby mentioned Neolithic sherds on the northwestern edge of the Ialysos acropolis (Fig. 223)19 and Early Bronze Age or Late Neolithic from the acropolis of Lindos (Fig. 224).20An interesting LN site was reported on the hill of Anagros northeast of Archangelos (Fig. 225 and 226).21 The summit of this hill, ca. 100 by 60 m, and the upper slopes were covered with LN/EBA sherds (“… coarse fabric, with added white or purple grits. Cores usually grey, and surfaces pink to orange-brown, sometimes with signs of smoothing.”) and obsidian of Melian and Giali origin.

19 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 137 “from the extreme edge of the spur overlooking Kremasti.”20 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 151.21 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 152–153.

Fig. 222: South Dodecanese (Rhodes, Chalki, Karpathos and Kasos).




Fig. 223: Map of Ialysos (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 136, fig. 2).

Fig. 224: Rhodes Lindos from northwest.




Fig. 225: Map of Archangelos (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 153, fig. 5).

Fig. 226: Rhodes Archangelos Anagros from east.




Many, if not most, rocky promontories, such as for example Kallithies Eremokastro (Fig. 227), were occupied during LN IIb and at the beginning of the BA. Hope Simpson and Lazenby reported a chip of Melian obsidian and a sherd of coarse ware here, which may indicate use in the LN IIb–EB I period.22

More evidence of LN IIb occupation was noticed on the very similar Feraklos castle promontory (Fig. 228), near Charaki, which is the most defensible coastal location north of Lindos. North of the promontory is a small bay that forms a convenient natural harbour; the long beach of Charaki, on the south, stretches for several kilometres and may have also been used as a natural harbor. West of the promontory is an extensive cultivable coastal plain cut by several seasonal stream beds. The


Fig. 227: Rhodes Eremokastro from southwest.

Fig. 228: Rhodes Feraklos from north.




flat summit of the promontory is at least 150 by 100 m in size. LN sherds and chipped chert were seen here among the medieval ruins, together with Roman–Byzantine, and medieval pottery. The LN II pottery is of red, reddish-brown and brown colour with numerous chaff impressions on the surface: three sherds were of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Hope Simpson and Lazenby recorded Melian and Giali obsidian, and brown chert.23 Giali obsidian seems to be the most fre-quent kind of chipped stone, with red/brown and black chert, and grey flint also present. The settlement was probably large in size, at least 150 by 60 m or more.

Two caves, Kalythies and Archangelos Koumelo, with thick Neolithic deposits were excavated by Sampson on Rhodes. Archangelos Koumelo is located on a large peninsula, on the eastern coast (Fig. 229). In the vicinity lies a small open-air site of LN II date. The cave of Kalythies is located in an inner valley, about 1 hour’s walking distance from the coast, on a steep and rocky face of a ridge. The pottery from these caves constitutes a key part of the archaeological evidence supporting Sampson’s chronological and comparative analysis of the LN in the Dodecanese. Yet, the sites do not allow us to draw many conclusions on settlement patterns in Rhodes during this period: their role and position in the pattern remain uncertain. The same problem applies to LN/FN cave use on Crete and in the Cyclades. Discoveries of open-air settlements would shed more light on that subject, none, however, have yet been thoroughly excavated and published in Rhodes. The five LN II sites mentioned below give only a very preliminary indication of the potential of this large island for further investigations on the subject.

The first site is an example of a small defensible settlement located on a high ridge (ca. 200 m asl) immediately north of Glystra Bay, southwest of Lindos (Fig. 230). Occasional pottery and chipped stone (Melian obsidian and chert) can be seen on the steep southern and southeastern slopes and on the summit of the ridge. Pottery is characterized by dense chaff impressions. The site looks more like a temporary defensible habitation place than a long lasting and extensive settle-ment. Many similar sites on high rocky ridges are scattered along the coasts of Rhodes and other Dodecanesian islands.


Fig. 229: Archange-los Koumelo from northwest.




Another type of LN II site is represented by large and probably more stable settlements, cov-ering ca. 3000–6000 m2, usually located on low hills, either close to the sea, or above the coastal plains. A good example is the site, ca. 100 by 50–60 m in size, situated on the western coast in Apolakkia Bay, on a low hill on the northern side of the river mouth (Fig. 231). The pottery is red to brown in colour, with black core, and often with the remains of burnishing; several fragments found were of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. The sites of this group are usually situated to take account of regional environmental factors, being small habitation centres in individual valleys or plains, orientated towards exploitation of arable land, pasturages and the sea. The settlement recorded by Hope Simpson and Lazenby on the hill of Anagros, near Archangelos (see above), may have belonged to this group.

Fig. 230: Rhodes Glystra from north.

Fig. 231: Rhodes Apolakkia from south.




The third group constitutes sites orientated heavily towards the sea; these are situated on small peninsulas, promontories and coastal hills with less attention paid to the extent and quality of arable land around. This does not mean that such land is lacking nearby, but it is usually less valuable, and more difficult to access, than in the case of the previous site type. Two sites in this category can be mentioned, both poorly preserved. The first site is Prasonissi, on the southwestern tip of Rhodes, recorded by Sampson.24 Several sherds belonging to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group link the site to the central Dodecanese or coastal Anatolia. The second site in this group was identified on a long low promontory on the southern edge of the Plimiri beach, on the southeastern coast. Pottery at this site was mainly of red and reddish-brown colour, often with chaff impressions on the surface. One sherd, however, was of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group.

To sum up, Rhodes must have played a key role in all the contacts and exchange between Anatolia and the southern Aegean, and also between the central and northern Dodecanese and the southern part of the archipelago. This role is only vaguely understood due to lack of better evidence coming from settlements. Settlement patterns and their changes during the LN IIa and IIb periods in Rhodes are little known. No results of intensive surveys have yet been published, and all the sites known lack well-researched settlement contexts.

Chalki and Alimia

These two little islands, situated between Rhodes and Tilos, may have played an important role during the LN II period due to their position on a communication route along the NS axis of the Dodecanese. The smaller of the two, Alimia, was investigated by Sampson, who briefly excavated a site located on the most characteristic rocky spur protruding from the main ridge of the island,25 and later on by Melas, who surveyed the island.26 The site excavated by Sampson overlooked the narrow strait between Alimia and Rhodes and had easy access to the bay below it, an excellent natural harbor. Pottery excavated and published by Sampson (Pl. 66) had been initially dated to LN IIb, but later was moved back to the LN IIa period. Comparisons with other assemblages and with evidence from the Aegean, especially with Crete, indicate, however, that the initial dating (LN IIb) was more accurate.

Chalki was investigated by Hope Simpson and Lazenby who focused their attention on the rocky ridge of Kastro with the medieval castle on its summit (Fig. 232). The ridge was occupied earlier by an ancient town. Though no prehistoric evidence was recorded by the above mentioned scholars, the area was visited and researched by Sampson who pointed to LN II occupation on the southern slopes of Kastro and on the Ikalos promontory below it.27 This claim is confirmed by the occasional fragments of LN II pottery scattered all the way from the castle down to the sea. Pottery of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group is frequently seen; several sherds noted had obsidian/vol-canic glass in the fabric, a characteristic which clearly indicates the central Dodecanesian origin of the pots (Kos, Giali, Nisyros). This conclusion is further supported by a Giali obsidian flake, but Melian obsidian was also seen. Melas surveyed the island and identified several sites dated to LN II (Melas LCh) and/or EBA, the most important of which seem to be Pefkia, Plakera and Pontamos–Ayioi Anargiroi.28

24 Sampson 1987, 104.25 Sampson 1987, 79–86.26 Melas 1988, 302–304.27 Sampson 1987, 113.28 Melas 1988, 304–307.




Kos (Fig. 233 and 234)

Kos is the second largest Dodecanesian island after Rhodes. It is separated from the Anatolian coast by a narrow strait, ca. 3.5 miles in width. This closeness influenced the settlement history of the island. During the latest Neolithic period and the beginning of the EBA Kos seems to have been especially densely occupied, with a number of small- to medium-sized sites (1000–6000 m2). LN II settlements were identified in most geographical zones, with some sites close to the coast, others on the low hills on the edge of the coastal plains and a few in the upland areas, close to the mountainous zone.

The rocky knolls above Agios Fokas, on the southeastern coast, constitute very characteris-tic landmarks when seen from the narrow strait that separates Kos from the Reshadiye Peninsula (Fig. 234:1 and 235). The highest of them was an ideal place for a defensible settlement, which could control this strategic sea route while having access to some arable land and plenty of pasturages around. This was an important EBA I–II settlement with the LN II roots, as indicated by pottery of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group including “cheese pots” fragments.

The Agios Fokas site lies in a strategic, but somewhat remote and mountainous corner of the island. More fertile land stretches along the northern coast. A series of settlements of LN II and/or EBA I date were identified along the northern foothills of the central mountainous massif of Kos. The hill of Troulli (Fig. 234:2; Pl. 65), about 120 by 90 m in size, is a low, but distinguished landmark with steep slopes at the northeast edge of the island. It was investigated by Hope Simpson and Lazenby.29 The site was badly destroyed by military construction, early in the twentieth century, and then by erosion. The pottery was described as “either Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age”, and four fragments of Giali obsidian were found together with the pottery. High on the slopes of the main mountainous massif of Kos, above Asklepieion, is the site of Tsilimbiri (Fig. 234:3), ca. 50 by 80 m in size, with pottery described as follows: “coarse orange-brown clay with added white


Fig. 232: Map of Chalki (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 156, fig. 6).




Fig. 233: Central and northern Dodecanese.




crystalline grits … with traces of striation marks and/or smoothing. One rim sherd has a horizon-tal band of holes below the rim” (Pl. 65:lower 8).30 The description of the pottery indicates that it belonged to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, the most common in the LN and LCh in the central Dodecanese and the neighbouring Anatolian coast. Another early site was mentioned on the rocky spur of Misinisi (Fig. 234:4) west of and above the village of Zia.31 The site covered the top of the hill, ca. 150 by 40 m, and steep terraces immediately northwest of the summit. The location had a clearly defensive character with one relatively easy access point on the south, where a narrow neck joins the hill with the slopes of the Mount Dikaios massif. One group of the pottery from this site dated to the EBA and was described as “often crumbly and full of grits”, some with “smoothed surfaces”. This group of pottery has a dark grey to yellowish brown core and a red to reddish brown and brown to dark grey surface. Four Melian obsidian blades and three Giali obsidian flakes, which I observed at the site, probably belong to the earlier phase (LN II) of the site’s use, represented by several sherds. The pottery recorded at other defensible location, immediately below the castle of Palaiopyli (Fig. 234:5), seems to belong either to the LN II or the beginning of the BA. It was

30 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58.31 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 58.

Fig. 234: Map of Kos, Giali and Nisyros.




described as having a “coarse gritty fabric with brown-black interior and orange-brown exterior surfaces”.32 Two other sites were identified at Linopotis Piyi (Fig. 234:6) and Vouno at Mastichari (Fig. 234:7; Pl. 65:lower 9); though dated by Hope Simpson and Lazenby to EBA,33 they can now be better dated to the end of LN II.

A very similar topography is seen at two small LN II settlements, each ca. 50 m in diameter, identified in the vicinity of Agios Stefanos. The first site is situated on the hills between Kamari and Agios Stefanos, about 1 km northwest of the coast (Fig. 234:8). Among the surface sherds, the majority of which belonged to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, were “cheese pot” fragments and handles with holes (similar to the examples recorded at Mastichari Vouno, above, and Xer-okampos Kastri on Crete). Chipped stone was represented by Melian and Giali obsidian and black chert. The second site lies on the hilltop about 1 km east-northeast of Agios Stefanos (Fig. 234:9), 1.2 km south of the bay of Chochilari, in the narrowest point of the isthmus between the main part of Kos and the Kefalos Peninsula. This settlement overlooked the northern coast and coastal plain, but the view towards the bay of Kefalos was hidden by slightly higher hills to the south. The pottery, yellowish-grey to reddish-brown, and well burnished, may indicate a pre-LN IIb date; one “cheese pot” fragment, one fragment of Melos obsidian and one Giali obsidian piece were also recorded. The third site, in the vicinity of Agios Stefanos, was situated in a topographically contrasting loca-tion, on a rocky defensible promontory (Fig. 234:10), about 500 m east of the coastal area of the village. On my visit, the promontory was almost completely eroded, with the only part, preserving some soil deposit restricted to the very summit of the ridge, ca 30–35 by 15–20 m in size. LN II pottery of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group was visible around the eroded sides of this deposit; one Melian and one Giali obsidian piece were also seen.

A new picture of LN IIb settlement on the southern coast was revealed in a survey recently carried out by Georgiadis.34 The coastal plain near ancient Halasarna was bounded on the north by a range of low hills; almost every hill was occupied by a small settlement of that date (Fig. 234:11–16). The sites were situated at a distance of between several hundred metres and about two kilom-eters from the sea. In some cases settlements founded in LN II continued through EB I and EB II,

32 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 60.33 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 60.34 Georgiadis 2009; 2012.

Fig. 235: Eastern coast of Kos and Agios Fokas.




or even longer. The sites may be divided into two groups with regarding to size: 1) extensive settle-ments about 5000 to 6000 m2, and 2) hamlets or very small settlements (two to four households?) up to 1000 m2. A similar pattern was identified in Crete, though the smallest group on that island lay within the range 500–2000 m2; additionally, in Crete, apart from the medium-sized settlements like those represented by the first Kos group, there was a third group of very large settlements, about 8000 to 10,000 m2 or more. Other similarities between Kos and Crete include frequent con-tinuity of settlement between LN IIb/FN II and EB I, and some dispersal of population during the EB I period.

Interesting observations concerning LN/LCh pottery fabrics have been made in various loca-tions on the island. Translucent quartz of two types (one neutral and another slightly yellowish in colour) is very common in the soil. Also common, e.g. in thick deposits of volcanic ash, are particles of translucent brown volcanic glass, either with sharp edges, or with edges worn by water. These can be also found in thick deposits of ash on Kos. Two types of mica (silver and golden) can be seen in soil and rocks everywhere on the island. All these aforementioned rocks are very characteristic among the LN II/FN II/LCh 3–4/5 fabrics in the central Dodecanese. This is a very helpful factor for the identification of the origin of pottery with such fabrics when found in the areas with very different geology, as for example in Crete.

Kalymnos (Fig. 236)

A Neolithic deposit in the Ag. Varvara cave was mentioned by Hope Simpson and Lazenby.35 Melian and Giali obsidian was recorded by them in the Vathi valley at Embolas.36 Mee mentioned four Neo-lithic and EBA sites, three of which were caves.37 Benzi published a selection of pottery from these caves, mainly from Vathi.38 Benzi’s analysis indicated that the sites were used in the LN IIa and IIb periods, but the bulk of the material was dated to LN IIb.

The island’s complicated topography must have influenced the prehistoric settlement pattern. The arable valleys are separated from each other by limestone massifs which form obstacles to internal communication. The largest valley cuts the narrowest part of the island along the south-east–northwest axis. This valley is the main settlement area and this was probably the case in the prehistoric period. In medieval times a castle was erected on a high ridge on the northern edge of the valley, on the earlier (ancient) ruins (Fig. 236:3). I noted several LN IIb sherds among the ancient and medieval to modern pottery, close to the highest point of the castle. It is probable that an extensive LN II settlement, with defensive characteristics, was located at this place. Another open-air LN II settlement with better surface visibility of material is situated on the Chrisochairoi castle hill (between 70 and 100 m asl) (Fig. 236:2 and Fig. 237). The topography of this site may have been similar to the arrangement of the medieval castle, with an upper settlement on the highest terrace, and a lower one on the southeastern slope immediately below the castle. The settlement extended, for about 120 m between the southern gate of the castle and the area immediately above the windmills. Pottery is dark brown, occasionally dark red to reddish-brown, with a core darker than a surface, sometimes black. Translucent quartz and chaff temper are the most characteristic inclusions.

35 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 172.36 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 173.37 Mee 1975, 311.38 Benzi 2008.




Fig. 237: Kalymnos Chrysocheroi from south.

Fig. 236: Map of Kalymnos and Leros.




Leros (Fig. 236)

Hope Simpson and Lazenby mentioned “prehistoric coarse ware” on the middle of the promonto-ries in Partheni Bay. This pottery is farther described as “not well fired, and contains thick grits”;39 the interiors are often scored with irregular striations (straw impressions?).40 Two obsidian pieces were also found. The pottery was dated by the British scholars to the EBA or MBA with the former seen as more likely. The site of Partheni was later excavated by Sampson,41 and it appeared that the earliest occupation (the site was heavily used in the Classical–Hellenistic period, too) was even earlier than that suggested by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, namely LN II/LCh 3–4(5) (Pl. 67 and 68).

At least two other sites with the pottery similar to that from the Partheni promontory were reported: 1) a cave (Chosto Spilaio) located in a valley to the west of the Partheni plain (Fig. 236:2), and 2) a site on a low hillock, about 1 km southwest, on the western edge of the plain (Fig. 236:3).42 From the second site, only pithos sherds were reported, with the fabric characterized as follows: “the same grey core, thick black and white grits, and orange-brown exterior surfaces”. The interior surfaces were grey-black, with the same striation marks as noted on the promontory site. The site was only 30 m in diameter and was interpreted as a cemetery belonging to the promontory settle-ment. However, in the context of our present knowledge of the settlement pattern in the Dodeca-nese and Crete, it is more plausible that it was a small habitation site, similar to many of this kind sites recorded elsewhere in the Dodecanese, Cyclades and Crete. The dominance of pithoi in the pottery assemblage is intriguing and suggests that the site belongs to a slightly later phase, already in EBA.

The site of Kastro (Fig. 236:4) was an important LB settlement, but no material earlier than MB was reported by Hope Simpson and Lazenby.43 However, a few sherds seen by the author on the slope below the medieval fortification dated to the LN II period.

A stone axe of “a hard and heavy brown stone” was reported from the place of Katakrotiri, and was dated to the Neolithic–EBA.44

Patmos and Lipsoi (Fig. 238)

The northernmost group of the Dodecanese consists of three small islands situated close to each other: Patmos, Lipsoi and Arkoi. The fourth one, Agathonisi, is located in some distance to the northeast, closer to the Anatolian coast. LN II occupation has been confirmed on Patmos and Lipsoi, but the recorded archaeological evidence was very poor.

The only important ancient settlement on Patmos was Kastelli, the high hill immediately above the modern village of Skala and harbour of Chora (Fig. 238:1 and 239). According to Hope Simpson and Lazenby the earliest evidence dated to MBA and LBA,45 but I noted a few sherds of LN II to EBA I date in the southeastern part of the acropolis (C), and a single fragment was seen in the centre of the northwestern elevation (A) (Fig. 240). Another small site of LN II date was recorded on the hill of Kalyva, dominating the bay of Kampos in the northern part of the island (Fig. 238:2 and 241). Pottery is characterized by heavy chaff temper, several sherds have numerous translucent quartz inclusions. A “cheese pot” fragment and a single flake of Melian obsidian were recorded. Sampson

39 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 52.40 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 52.41 Sampson, 1987, 111 and 185.42 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 52–53.43 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 54.44 Hope Simpson and Lazenby, 1970, 54.45 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 48 and 49.




mentioned an LN II site at Kallikratsou (Fig. 238: Patmos 3), at the bay of Grigos in the southern part of the island.46

46 Sampson 1987, 113 and fig. 152.

Fig. 238: Map of Patmos, Lipsoi and Arkoi.

Fig. 239: Patmos, general view to Chora and Kastelli.




Fig. 240: Sketch of Patmos Kastelli (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 49, fig. 2).




Lipsoi is an island smaller than Patmos, but as pointed out by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, its eastern part has plenty of cultivable soil. The hill of Kastro (107 m asl) in this area was the most important ancient habitation place (Fig. 238: Lipsoi 1; Fig. 242). The earliest pottery mentioned by Hope Simpson and Lazenby belonged to MBA and LBA.47 Several LN II–EBA I sherds, including a pithos fragment with much chaff temper, were seen, however, by the author on the summit.

Another LN II site is located on the top of the ridge which rises immediately north of the Lipsoi village, between the harbour bay and the northern coast (Fig. 238: Lipsoi 2). Occasional sherds were seen in eroded spots on the slope and on terraces facing to the east. Either this was a small short-lasting site, or the evidence represents only the remains of a more substantial site which has been almost completely destroyed.

47 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 51–52.

Fig. 241: Patmos: Kampos Bay and Kalyva from southwest.

Fig. 242: Lipsoi Kastro from northwest.




Nisyros (Fig. 234)

Hope Simpson and Lazenby pointed to Kastro above Mandraki as the main prehistoric site. They mentioned several chips of Giali obsidian.48 Melas identified some poor LN (LCh) evidence at Zotikou and Dhali, in the broader area of Mandraki.49 At Kastro, I was unable to identify material dating to LN during my visit, but the location is of the kind preferred by LN II settlers. Some LN II sherds can be seen at Palaikastro at the site of the Dorian acropolis, not far west of Mandraki Kastro. A large chunk of Giali obsidian, and chipped flakes of Giali and Milos obsidian were seen on the highest elevation of Emborios, which is crowned with a chapel. Several LN II sherds and a large flake of Giali obsidian, 300 m east of Emborios village, indicate a presence of another settlement of this period somewhere in the vicinity.

Tilos (Fig. 243)

Hope Simpson and Lazenby mentioned several prehistoric sites on this island, but only one, Livadia Kastello (Fig. 244), is related to the period analysed in this book. The pottery was described as follows “surfaces were sometimes smoothed, and all the fragments have added grits, usually white. Their date is uncertain, but the Early Bronze Age seems the most probable”.50 Kastro above Megalo Chorio, the ancient town and medieval castle (Fig. 245), was mentioned by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, but no prehistoric finds were reported from the site.51 Melas reported only “some scrappy sherds” of probably third or second millennium BC date.52 Sampson mentioned a small site at the location of Lakkes, near Megalo Chorio, with pottery, and obsidian of Melian and Giali origin.53

48 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 169.49 Melas 1988, 290.50 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 68.51 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 63 and 66.52 Melas 1988, 293.53 Sampson 1987, 115.

Fig. 243: Map of Tilos.




Tilos deserves special attention when analysing settlement changes, given its key position in the communication network between Rhodes, Kos and the Reshadiye Peninsula. The island offers also favorable environmental conditions: thanks to an abundance of arable land and water resources, it could support a relatively large community/ies. No wonder that the island was densely occupied during LN II; at least five settlements and several smaller sites are datable to that period. LN sites on Tilos can be grouped into two different settlement systems which probably succeeded each other. Both systems show a concern with security, although the earlier one was focused more on visual dominance, the later on the specific defensible features of the locations chosen for habi-tation sites. The exact chronology of the earlier pattern is difficult to reconstruct because there are no published parallels from other Dodecanesian islands. The most disturbing question is whether the later pattern followed the earlier one immediately or whether there was some gap between them. The earlier phase is represented by one large, and well-exposed settlement and a limited amount of evidence from another site.

Fig. 244: Tilos Kas-tello from north.

Fig. 245: Tilos Megalo Chorio from southeast.




Kreati (1)

A large Neolithic settlement was identified on the summit of Kreati, a hill (239 m asl) dominating the northern side of Livadia Bay (Fig 246). A great number of potsherds and chipped stone frag-ments covered an area ca. 120 by 60 m on the flat summit of the hill (Fig. 247:A), its southern (D) and northern gently slopes (B). No prehistoric architectural remains are visible on the surface, but they may be sealed in later terraces, covered with soil on the slopes, and completely eroded on the summit. On the east, and to lesser degree on the west, the site was protected by a cliff.

Pottery’s fabrics at Kreati are different from most of the LN IIb pottery recorded on Tilos and on other Dodecanesian sites, but the main petrographic component – translucent quartz (yellowish and neutral in colour) is the same. In some cases quartz constitutes 30–40% of the paste. Pottery is red to reddish-brown on surface, often burnished. Shapes, like fabric, are different from the stand-ard LN IIb ones (Pls. 69 and 70). Almost all the bases are flat (TKR 28–33, 38, and 39), sometimes sunk (TKR 31 and 35), or with a ring attached to the rounded bottom (TKR 27). The best parallels are from Emporio X–VIII.54 Very few bases were rounded (TKR 40 and 41). Among the character-istic shapes at Kreati are bowls and cups with everted rims (TKR 1–20) – unknown or very rare at other LN IIb sites in the Dodecanese, but similar to examples from Emporio X–VIII. Strap handles are often thin/very thin (TKR 43–45, 47–50), and more “delicate” that typical LN IIb strap handles in the Dodecanese and Crete. A complete absence of “cheese pots” is especially significant for the chronological analysis of Kreati. Considering that the site was in general rich in diagnostic frag-ments it is hard to believe that “cheese pots” were accidentally missed in the surface material. This single fact might suggest that the settlement at Kreati belongs to the pre-Emporio X horizon, but probably not much earlier. Other features typical for LN IIb pottery in the region are also absent; among them are crescent-section handles, open bowls with thick rims, and collar-necked jars.

54 Hood 1981, 289, fig. 136.

Fig. 246: Tilos Kreati from southwest.




Chipped stone is very frequent, with Giali obsidian outnumbering Melian obsidian in propor-tion 4:1 to 6:1 in different parts of the site; red chert constitute about 3 to 4%. Among the chipped stone scrapers, made of various types of Giali obsidian flakes, are very common. All the blades are of Melian obsidian.

To sum up, the settlement at Kreati seems to be close in date to, or earlier than, horizon X at Emporio on Chios, and its chronological relation to the group of sites described below is uncertain. The site can be provisionally dated to a period not later than LN Ib (or LCh1) but it could also be somewhat earlier. If such a date is accepted, a gap of 500 to 1000 years must be considered between Kreati’s abandonment and the foundation of the LN IIb sites. This gap is difficult to explain on the basis of available evidence. Was the high location of the Kreati site caused by lack of security along the west Anatolia – the Dodecanese interface already in the fifth millennium BC? From the settlement pattern point of view it would make more sense if Kreati was occupied during the LN Ib and LN IIa periods, and immediately followed by the LN IIb sites, but such a scenario is difficult to accept on the basis of present knowledge of the pottery sequence in the Dodecanese.

Fig. 247: Sketch-plan of Tilos Kreati.




The LN IIb (LCh 3–4/5) period is represented on Tilos by several settlements. Faneromeni and Kastello are most important in the coastal area of Livadia Bay. Two high ridges (Profitis Elias and Amali) constituted the core settlement system in the medieval period, with the villages of Megalo Chorio and Mikro Chorio housing most of the island’s population. Both were associated with medi-eval castles, but Megalo Chorio was (as the name itself indicates) much larger and its roots go back to the ancient period. Both sites were also occupied during the LN II period.

Livadia Faneromeni (5)

The site is situated on the rocky outcrop of Faneromeni on the southern side of the bay of Livadia, at an altitude of about 180 m (Fig. 248). The highest terraces (A and B) are occupied by the ruins of a fortified structure and a chapel of medieval–modern date (Fig. 249). This part of the site is very destroyed. Better preserved are probably the lower terraces (E–K), west of A and B, with walls built of large boulders, and frequent pottery, chipped stone and occasional ground stone tools on the surface. Individual house-units may have occupied individual terraces in the way known from the FN site at Katalimata on Crete. Numerous potsherds and chipped stone fragments can be also seen along the foot of the northern cliff of the ridge (M). Without excavation it is difficult to say if this material’s distribution results from erosion of the terraces above, or there was a proper lower set-tlement here. In total, the estimated area of the settlement is ca. 60 by 80 m, about 4500–5000 m2. The settlement was probably partly fortified and remains of walls constructed of large boulders can be seen filling the gaps between cliffs. A wall ca. 1.5 m thick closes off the easiest access to the site from southeast.

Fig. 248: Tilos Faneromeni from north.




Pottery of LN IIb/LCh 3–4/5 date belongs to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group; it is yel-lowish-red, red, reddish-brown and brown in colour, often having a dark grey or black core with frequent chaff temper. Several fragments of “cheese pot” (Pl. 71:TFA 21, 22, and 25), rounded bases (Pl. 71:TFA 30 and 34), collar-necked jars (TFA 9 and 10), and strap handles with crescent sections (TFA 38 and 39) were among the diagnostic sherds. Chipped stone is very frequent with the ratio between Giali and Milos obsidian about 4:1; a few red and grey chert pieces were seen, too. Many pumice pieces (of Giali–Nisyros origin, yellowish in colour) observed at the site must have been brought there by the inhabitants.

Livadia Kastello (4)

Kastello is a rocky ridge, about 60 m asl, partly defended by nature (cliffs and rocky outcrops) and situated about 600 m from the sea. It was chosen for a fortified settlement during the Late Bronze Age and in the later Archaic–Classical period. Prehistoric pottery was reported by Hope Simpson and Lazenby on the northern end of the ridge (Fig. 250:A).55 Fifty years later the preservation of the site seems to be the same and this early pottery can be seen on the northern and northwest-ern terraces only, whereas the Late Bronze Age and Archaic–Classical sites cover the entire ridge (A–D). LN IIb sherds and chipped stone are visible over an area ca. 60 by 50 m. Pottery belongs to


Fig. 249: Sketch-plan of Tilos Faneromeni.




the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group; chaff temper is very common. “Cheese pot” fragments are numerous (Pl. 72:TKS 4 and 5), as are open bowls and vessels with rounded bases (TKS 6). Chipped stone is represented by Giali obsidian, red, green and grey chert. The settlement on Kastello may have been contemporary with the sites at Livadia Faneromeni, Mikro Chorio and Megalo Chorio.

Agria Sykia Kastro (7)

A few LN II sherds were seen on the slopes around this medieval castle (and its dependencies to the northwest) (Fig. 251). Probably a settlement of that date existed on the rocky ridge occupied now by the castle, and the sherds represent only the erosion or redeposition processes and not the actual location of the prehistoric site.

Fig. 250: Sketch-plan of Tilos Kastello (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 67, fig.11).




Megalo Chorio Kastro (3)

A large medieval castle occupies the summit of the long ridge of Profitis Elias (Fig. 252:D) which rises immediately west-northwest of what was once the largest village on Tilos. The castle was erected on the ruins of a Classical acropolis. Such intensive use of the place through many centuries has considerably changed the appearance of the ridge surface. Despite this, numerous LN II sherds can be still seen half way between the village and the castle along and above the new paved path leading to the castle (Fig. 252:A). Pottery belongs mostly to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Several pieces of Giali obsidian were seen in the same area. Because the entire ridge has been “reshaped” over time, the interpretation of the LN II evidence distribution is difficult. The most probable location of the settlement is the summit of the ridge occupied by the medieval castle (D). This hypothesis may be also supported by the second cluster of LN II pottery on the terrace south of the castle, but within the fortification of the ancient town (C).

Fig. 251: Tilos Agria Sykia Kastro from south.




Mikro Chorio (2)

Once the second most important village of Tilos was located on the eastern slope of the Amali Mountain. The most defensible rocky spur was occupied by a medieval castle (Fig. 253) adjoined on the slope to the south by a village (at present almost completely ruined). I observed LN IIb sherds on the castle ridge and occasionally also among the ruins of the houses below the cemetery. A few sherds had characteristics similar to the pottery from Kreati and may indicate a pre-LN II occupa-tion, contemporary with the settlement on Kreati. No chipped stone was observed.

Fig. 252: Sketch-plan of Tilos Megalo Chorio (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 65, fig.10).




Pano Meroi (6)

The site is located on the top of the ridge (Fig. 254) towering over the bay of Zacharias and the abandoned seasonal village of Gera, in the southeastern part of the island. LN II settlement covered the south-southwestern terraces of the hill which gently descend to the extensive plateau of Pano Meroi, to the west. The site offered a splendid view to Symi and the Reshadiye Peninsula. Pottery is frequent on the surface (Pl. 72:TPM 1–4) over an area ca. 30–40 m in diameter. Chipped stone pieces are distributed even over a larger area with the ratio between Giali and Melian obsidian 2:1. There were also numerous pieces of red chert and flint. Red chert can be of a local origin; outcrops of this rock can be seen on the Pano Meroi plateau. The pottery of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group shows similarities to the material from Livadia Faneromeni.

Fig. 253: Tilos Mikro Chorio from north.

Fig. 254: Tilos Pano Meroi from south.




A small LN II site with a few sherds and about 20 pieces of Giali and Melian obsidian was recorded on a low saddle, about 1 km south of Gera, close to the spring at Despoti Nero. This site offered an excellent view to the south, with the islands of Rhodes, Chalki and Karpathos clearly visible in the distance.

Symi (Fig. 255)

Hope Simpson and Lazenby pointed to the Kastro (Chora) (1) as the most favorable settlement loca-tion on the whole island.56 They found several sherds dating to the LN II or the very beginning of the EBA.57 Sampson mentioned an LN II site on the small peninsula of Panormitis (4) and on the small offshore island of Seskli (5) near the southern coast.58 A more intensive survey in the area of Panormitis was undertaken by Melas who has identified here ten archaeological sites.59 It seems, however, that Melas missed the most important LN II–EB settlement in the area (Site 3 below). The LN II/LCh 3–4(5) pottery on the Panormitis peninsula is rare and clustered in a number of small sites, and does not allow secure identification of a proper settlement here. It is either the evidence of a few loosely scattered houses, now completely eroded, or it indicates some settlement activity above the bay, as seen at Site 3.

56 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 168–169.57 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 63, pl. 18d.58 Sampson 1987, 105–106.59 Melas 1988, 294–299.

Fig. 255: Map of Symi.




Symi is of special interest for its location between the Bozburun and Reshadiye Peninsulas – much closer to the Anatolian coast than to any other Dodecanesian island (Fig. 256). This must have had strong implications for Symi’s settlement history and cultural development. There are several LN II settlements on Symi with apparent defensible characteristics. The best-located, and perhaps the largest, was the aforementioned Kastro Chora.

Kastro Chora (1)

This characteristic rocky ridge, about 160 m asl, dominates the area between the harbour town of modern Symi and the plain of Pedi (Fig. 257). It is the perfect place for any defensible installation and for this reason was chosen as the site for a Frankish stronghold. The ridge was also occupied earlier, as testified to by frequent Greco-Roman pottery fragments. LN II/LCh 3–4(5) sherds were most numerous on the summit of the ridge between the churches and on the northern and eastern terraces immediately below the summit (Fig. 258:A and C). This early pottery is of brown and red-dish-brown colour, often with dark gray to black core, and with translucent quartz inclusions (the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group); chaff temper is very common. A fragment with mat impression was seen on the lower terrace immediately north of the chapel (Area A).

Fig. 256: Map of Symi, Tilos, Bozburun and Reshadiye.




Fig. 257: Symi Kastro from southwest.

Fig. 258: Sketch of Symi Kastro (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 64, fig. 8).




Pedi Gria (2)

A second settlement is located on the rocky spur of Gria, about 190 m asl, high above and facing Pedi Bay (Fig. 259), on its southern side, about 20 minutes’ climbing from the sea. The LN II/LCh 3–4(5) settlement occupied rocky terraces (Fig. 260:B–J) descending steeply to the north from the highest terrace (A) which rises immediately north of an abandoned metochi (N). The best access to the site seems to be via the northeastern terraces (K, I, H, and G). Here the settlement may have been defended by a wall, which closes the spaces between rocky cliffs. The other three sides were well protected by cliffs. The irregular shape of terraces makes the estimation of the site’s total size difficult, but approximately it covers an area about 80 by 25–30 m, ca 2000–2500 m2.

The pottery is of brown and reddish-brown colour, often with dark grey and black core. It belongs to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group: the amount of quartz inclusions reaches 30 to 40% of clay matrix. Among the diagnostic shapes were several rim fragments of “cheese pots” (Pl. 73:SPE 12–18), open bowls (SPE 1–6), and a base with a matt impression (SPE 32) A spindle whorl seen on Terrace F (SPE 33) was of a flat conical type, somewhat similar to one of the spindle whorls recorded at Palaiochora Nerovolakoi. A large loom weight (SPE 34) resembles the example published from LCh Elmali,60 and LCh 3 Afrodisias,61 while the characteristic rim of an open bowl (SPE 25–26) has good parallels in LCh 4 and EBA 1 Afrodisias (Pl. 84:APH 405.6).62 Chipped stone is represented by obsidian from Melos (frequent) and Giali (moderate) and red and green chert (occa-sional). Traces of a later, probably EB I or EB II settlement, were recorded down the northern slope, below the LN II site in a distance of about 300 m and about 120–150 m lower.

60 Eslick 1992, Pl. 58 nos. 256–258.61 Joukowsky 1986ii, 555 no. 34.62 Joukowsky 1986ii, 559 no. 1 and 563 no. 6.

Fig. 259: Symi Pedi from northwest.




Panormitis (3)

A third settlement has been recorded on a hill, about 160 m asl, towering over Panormitis Bay (Fig. 261) about 700 m southeast of the Panormitis Monastery, and a similar distance northeast of the hill of Troullos. The hill dominates this part of the island and offers an excellent view to the little island of Seskli, where Sampson reported an LN II site.63 The highest part of the hill is formed by a limestone ridge with narrow terraces on its northern slope facing Panormitis Bay.

Pottery was seen on the highest terraces, over an area ca. 100 by 50 m (Fig. 262:A–H). Sherds were also frequent on the northeastern slope (N) descending to the saddle. Occasional LN II and EB I sherds can be seen all the way down between the settlement and the Panormitis Monastery; in the area between 100 and 300 m from the sea the LN II–EB I sherds become more frequent – an indication of more intensive activity or a proper settlement with sparsely distributed houses. This pattern, and the sequence of changes between the higher LN II settlement and its probable lower successor are similar to the case of Pedi.

63 Sampson 1987, 106.

Fig. 260: Sketch-plan of Symi Pedi.




Fig. 261: Symi Panormitis from southwest.

Fig. 262: Sketch-plan of Symi Panormitis.




Pottery is mostly of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, but other fabrics appear as well. Among the diagnostic shapes are open bowls (Pl. 75:SPR 1–4), “cheese pots” (SPR 6), and jars with rounded bases (SPR 16). A single sherd with everted rim (SPR 9) shows some similarities to the pottery from Tilos Kreati and may be earlier from the main phase of the site. Chipped stone is very frequent and includes Giali obsidian, Melian obsidian (numerous blades), two or three pieces of probably Anatolian obsidian, and red and grey chert. Ground stone tools were represented only by a few cobble stones.

Numerous LN II and EB potsherds were seen on the slope below Site 3, roughly in the areas of Melas’ Sites IV and VI, and immediately south and southwest of them.

Karpathos (Fig. 263)

The best source of information is E. Melas’ project, undertaken in the 1970s and 1980s.64 This exten-sive survey could not record all the sites of the Neolithic and EBA date, but gave a good reference point for further investigations. A new project, also directed by Melas, involves an intensive survey, and covers the entire southern part of the island: the first preliminary reports already document a number of new LN II (FN) sites.65

LN II settlements on Karpathos are numerous, and mostly situated on the coast or very close to it. Two strategically located promontories, Pigadhia, on the eastern outskirts of the modern capital of Karpathos, and Arkasa, on the western coast, may have played a significant role already in this early period, long before they became fortified Greek citadels.

Pigadhia (1)

The rocky promontory ridge of “Acropolis” was suggested by Hope Simpson and Lazenby as the best place for any “Mycenaean stronghold” commanding the best natural harbour of Karpathos.66 However, the ridge was intensively occupied during the ancient and modern periods and the ear-liest traces of occupation seem to have been destroyed by this later activity and additionally by intensive erosion of the rocky ridge. The only evidence for an LN site here are a few sherds seen by the author and an obsidian blade mentioned by Melas.67

Two further sites were recorded by Melas along the eastern coast, south of Pigadhia. These are Gigla and Vouno.68

Gigla (2)

Gigla is a rocky spur towering over the main road between Pigadhia and the southern coast, about 130 m above, and 300 m from the coast (Fig. 264). Its strategic location is well illustrated by an Italian military installation on the summit (Fig. 265:1). The LN II site, shown to me by E. Melas, was very small, restricted probably to the spur’s summit, ca. 7 by 5 m in size (A). The northern and southern sides are protected by cliffs, and the eastern side descends steeply to the coast. The remains of a wall built of large boulders, preserved on the western side of the summit (2), may

64 Melas 1985.65 Melas 2011; Klys 2011.66 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 159.67 Melas 1985, 30.68 Melas 1985.




indicate that the site was fortified, at least on the side of easiest access from the gentle saddle on the west. Similar walls were identified at three other LN IIb sites of the same type (Lefkos, Meso-chori and the site south of Spoa). Gigla’s location, size and other topographic characteristics place it within a specialized group of LN “lookouts” identified in several places above the coast (see below).

Fig. 263: Map of Karpathos and Kasos.




Fig. 264: Karpathos Gigla from north.

Fig. 265: Sketch-plan of Karpathos Gigla.




The pottery has a dark grey core and a light red to reddish-brown surface sometimes with scoring marks on the inner side. Several sherds belonged to the Calcite-Tempered Fabric Group. Among chipped stone were two obsidian flakes and many pieces of black, red, and yellowish-brown chert.

Vouno (3)

This site is located on a coastal promontory (ca. 70 m asl) and represents a small settlement, ca. 30 by 20 m in size, linked to sea activity. Pottery of LN IIb–EB I (II?) type and a great number of chipped Melian obsidian fragments were recorded by Melas.69 The large amount of obsidian (including large blades) indicates that the inhabitants had access to this raw material, often dis-tributed in a very unequal way at LN IIb/FN and EB I sites in Crete and in the Dodecanese. The differences in amount of obsidian between Gigla and Vouno may be meaningful in this context.

Agria Pyla to Vouno (4)

This rocky ridge lies about 1 km from the coast, west-northwest of Vouno. The flat top of the ridge measures ca. 40 by 15–20 m, and is well defended by high cliffs on the south, west and east. The only access to the site leads from the north. LN II potsherds were seen along the southern edge of the summit and around a trench dug in its western part. The pottery is reddish, red brown and light brown on the surface with a dark grey or black core. One chipped chert piece was recorded. The site represents a short-lived habitation place similar to those identified above Lefkos, near Mesochori and south of Spoa (12, 13 and 14).

Arkasa Palaikastro (9)

The western coast of southern Karpathos, north of Agios Theodoros, is characterized by a wide coastal plain, stretching as far as Finiki, and several promontories with bays useful as natural har-bours. The most important ancient settlement in this region was Arkasa, investigated and described by Hope Simpson and Lazenby70 and at present being researched by Melas.71 Its general topograph-ical characteristics are similar to those of Pigadhia, but the ancient settlement commanded the western coast and was exposed to fierce northwestern winds (Fig. 266).

Hope Simpson and Lazenby mentioned only “five or six flakes of obsidian” and two or three possible Mycenaean sherds, but no prehistoric pottery.72 Melas, on the other hand, discovered “hand-made coarse and friable wares not unlike those from Leftoporos [LN IIb/FN]” and a few pieces of Giali obsidian.73 LN II/FN II sherds were seen by the author close to the highest terrace of the citadel (ca. 90 m asl), over an area ca. 100 by 20–40 m in size, especially north and northwest of the datum point, and in several places to the southwest, on the way down to the bay. Four sherds were of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group which must be of central Dodecanesian or coastal Anatolian origin. The site is very rich in prehistoric chipped stone. On the same highest terrace more than 50 chipped stone pieces were recorded, but only five of them were blades and flakes of Melian obsidian; one was Giali obsidian; the majority were grey chert, the next most frequent

69 Melas 1985.70 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 162–163.71 Melas 2011; Klys 2011.72 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 162.73 Melas 1985, 38.




were dark grey and red brown chert pieces. Two Melian obsidian flakes and one Giali obsidian were recorded on the southwestern slope of the ridge, about 400 to 500 m west of the datum point. Also on this slope, a few sherds of the type similar to the Cretan Red Ware Fabric Group were seen. Because of later ancient occupation of the Arkasa promontory, it is difficult to reconstruct the size and character of the LN IIb settlement. The abundance of LN IIb pottery and chipped stone on the highest terrace indicates that the settlement was at least 100 by 20–40 m in size, but probably two or three times larger.

Moulas (8)

On the southern side of the same little bay of Arkasa there is a high rocky promontory called Moulas (ca. 80 m asl) (Fig. 267).74 The place was occupied during the LH IIIC period, and then visited for ritual reasons during the Archaic–Classical period, but LN IIb and EB I pottery is well exposed on the surface, especially in the eastern part of the ridge and on the steep southern slopes.”Cheese pot” fragments (Pl 76:KRM 12 and 13) and matt-impressed pottery (Pl. 77:KRM 17) were among the diagnostic FN II evidence. Some pottery belongs to a more technologically advanced group, much harder and fired at higher temperature. Wares of light grey and pale brown colours prevail in this group – these are without doubt early EB I. Several characteristic rims (KRM 2 and 6) are almost identical to those recorded at the LN IIb–EB I site near Sikelao (Site 11) and similar to the rims from Elmali in Anatolia (Pl. 85: El 33.84).75 The chipped stone pieces include very frequent Melian obsid-ian (blades and flakes), but many pieces are of local red and grey chert. Several clay fragments burnt at a high temperature and with bloated pores, are similar to those published from Petras Kefala in east Crete;76 they are evidence for metallurgical activity related either to the FN or EB I phase of the site’s use.

74 Nowicki 2003, 68.75 Eslick 1992, pl. 33 nos. 84–86.76 Papadatos 2007, 161–162.

Fig. 266: Karpa-thos Arkasa from southeast.




Leftoporos (7)

About 1.2 km farther to the southwest is a long and low promontory of Leftoporos (ca. 30 m asl) (Fig. 268) with traces of Italian military installations on the top. The highest elevation of the prom-ontory was occupied by an LN II settlement identified and described by Melas and Sampson.77 The summit was covered by prehistoric buildings, but neither their plans nor extent of the settlement can be easily traced on the surface. The settlement’ s size can be estimated at 20–30 by 30–50 m. The illustrated pithos fragment (Pl. 78:KRLF 1) may come from the same vessel as two fragments published by Melas;78 a rounded base vessel79 has numerous parallels in Crete. One sherd seen on my visit was of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Apart from numerous Melian obsidian pieces (very frequent blades) there are also many chipped chert pieces visible on the surface.

77 Melas 1985, 36; Sampson 1987, 107.78 Melas 1985, fig. 35: 785 and 786.79 Melas 1985, fig, 35: 790.

Fig. 267: Karpa-thos Moulas from northwest.

Fig. 268: Karpathos Leftoporos from north.




Agios Theodoros (6)

Beyond Leftoporos, the western coastline of Karpathos continues southwards and about 2 km south of Leftoporos turns sharply to the east. The most characteristic landmark of this corner of the island is the low hill of Ag. Theodoros, after the name of the church situated at the southeastern foothills of the hill. Only very few prehistoric sherds were seen on the rocky ridge immediately north of the church. More pottery from various periods can be seen, however, on the gently slopes and flat area between the ridge and the church and at the eastern foot of the ridge. Here, among several tens of LN II sherds, three fragments were of the Red Ware Fabric Group, with the same characteristics as FN II pottery from the East Siteia area on Crete. Another four sherds belonged to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. LN II pottery was observed over an area ca. 150 by 60 m in size.

Akrotiri (5)

A number of LN II sites were identified along the southern coast in the recent survey by Melas.80 One cluster of pottery in this series of sites was seen by the author about 3.5 km southeast (126o) of Agios Theodoros, on an eroded coastal terrace, over an area ca. 60 by 30 m. Several fragments were of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. The topography of this cluster and other sites along the southern coast of Karpathos, recorded by Melas, shows close similarity to the location and topography of the LN II sites along the northwestern coast of Kasos and on Koufonisi near Crete.

Finiki (10)

Continuing along the western coast north of Arkasa, the next habitable place is Finiki. Limited evidence of LN IIb activity has been recorded on the top of the southern rocky knoll (ca. 30 m asl), immediately above the church of Agios Nikolaos, and on the terraces around the knoll.81 The south-ern terraces were occupied by an EB I–II settlement and LN II pottery can be seen only occasionally here. More LN II sherds, however, are scattered on the terraces north of the knoll (Fig. 269). The EB settlement covered an area at least 50 by 30 to 40 m, on the southern terrace, and 50 by 20 m on the northern terrace. The LN II site was probably smaller. The LN II pottery includes reddish-brown and brown sherds with calcareous inclusions and chaff impressions. Several sherds belong to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Chipped obsidian and red chert are frequent on the top of the knoll and within the borders of the settlement. The dating of this type of material is uncertain, obsidian probably belongs mostly to the EB phases of occupation, but red chert may be related to the LN IIb activity. The links with the central Dodecanese are supported by the pottery with trans-lucent quartz inclusions and by the two Giali obsidian pieces.

80 Melas 2011.81 Melas 1985, 38.




Sikelao (11)

An interesting parallel to the FN II–EM I transition in Crete is represented by the settlement on a hill (ca. 90 m asl) close to the coast north of Sikelao (Fig. 270). The site’s general topographic char-acteristics and location recall those of Petras Kefala on Crete. It is located immediately above the coast, next to a moderately large plain, on a hill partly defended by steep slopes. Pottery and the poor remains of stone walls are visible on the summit (Fig. 271:A), the western terraces (B–E) and the eastern terraces (H–J), covering an area about 70–80 by 40–50 m.

Fig. 269: Karpathos Finiki from north.

Fig. 270: Karpa-thos Sikelao from northeast.




The pottery is very numerous and can be divided into two general groups. The first has a red-dish-brown surface and dark grey core, with calcareous inclusions. This group can be tentatively dated to the LN IIb/FN II–EB I period. The second is of a yellowish-red, light red, or pink colour with pinkish inclusions, fine and hard. Occasionally a yellow slip is visible on the surface – this group is almost certainly of EB I date. Several “cheese pot” fragments belong probably to the ear-liest phase of occupation (Pl. 79:KRS 9 and 10). Rims of large jars with flat tops, similar to the example illustrated from Moulas (KRM 2 and 6) and paralleled at Elmali (Pl. 84, El 33.84), were very common (KRS 1–3). Handles were of oval/thin strap and circular section types (KRS 15–19 and 22, 23). A vessel with sharply inverted rim (KRS 12) is probably of EB 1 or later date. Chipped stone is rare and not very instructive in its representation: one Melian obsidian piece, one red brown chert piece, one light red chert and one grey chert piece were noted.

The site represents the transitional period, being founded in LN IIb (Cretan FN II) and contin-uing through the early EB I period. It was partly or entirely contemporary with the settlement on Moulas.

Lefkos (12)

Farther to the north, on the western coast, there are two LN II sites in the Lefkos area. The first is of the “lookout” type. It is situated on a rocky knoll dominating over entire region (Fig. 272), with an excellent view to the coast below and to the west. It was probably fortified on the northeast – the only accessible side. The wall construction here (Fig. 273) is similar to that of FN II structures in eastern Crete, such as Goudouras Kastello, Kastellas Xerokampias, and Mertoriza, and on other

Fig. 271: Sketch-plan of Karpathos Sikelao.




Dodecanesian islands, such as Tilos Faneromeni, Symi Pedi and Panormitis. The second site in the Lefkos area represents a hamlet or a short-lasting village. It is located around rocky outcrops close to the sea, on the southern side of the bay, in the area called Kampos. LN pottery and chipped stone (Melian obsidian and chert) are scattered over an area ca. 50 by 20 m, but the site may have been badly destroyed by later occupation. One sherd belongs to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, and two sherds are almost identical with the Cretan Red Ware Fabric Group. Roman, Byzantine and modern pottery indicates intensive activity in this area in much later periods.

Fig. 272: Karpa-thos, LN II site above Lefkos from southeast.

Fig. 273: Karpathos, LN II site above Lefkos: a defensive wall.




Mesochori (13)

A small defensible site, similar to Gigla and the upper site of Lefkos, was identified in the vicinity of Mesochori (ca. 700 m northeast: 44o). It is located on a rocky knoll high above the coast, with an excellent view to the sea and the area between the sea and the mountainous central massif of Karpathos. LN II pottery and chipped stone (two Melian obsidian pieces and one chert piece) were seen on the top of the knoll, ca. 10 by 8 m in size, and on the terraces immediately below the knoll to the east and south.

Spoa (14)

A small defensible LN II site is located on a rocky knoll (ca. 300 m asl), above the bay of Agios Ioannis, between Spoa and Apela (Fig. 274). The summit of the knoll is only 10 by 7 m in size, and pottery is rare. The site’s location and characteristics are similar to Gigla and Mesochori; it may represent a single house occupied by a short period only. Among the pottery are fragments with rounded bases in a fabric very similar, or identical, to the Cretan Red Ware Fabric Group.

Kasos

Kasos, being the last island before Crete on the way from Anatolia, deserves special attention here. Almost everything known about its archaeology during the discussed period comes from Melas’ survey.82 Hope Simpson and Lazenby only briefly mentioned an EBA site on the hill of Kastro, above modern village of Poli.83 Sampson’s maps have several points indicating Neolithic sites,84

82 Melas 1985.83 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 69.84 Sampson 1987.

Fig. 274: Karpathos, the site near Spoa from northwest.




but no discussion was presented on their details. Melas reported LN II pottery at Chelatros, on the southern coast, and along the northern edge of the village above Fry.85

The settlement pattern on Kasos during the last Neolithic period is intriguing. There is solid evidence for the identification of two extensive settlements, of very different topographical char-acteristics (inland defensible and coastal non-defensible), which originated probably in the LN II and continued through EB I or even EB II. The most curious pattern, however, can be found in the coastal area north and west of the village of Agia Marina, southwest of the airport, in a zone ca. 300–500 m wide, extending from the sea upslope.

Poli “acropolis” (1)

One of the two major settlements on Kasos was situated on the rocky ridge of the “acropolis” above Poli (Fig. 35). This is probably the most defensible habitable hill to be found in the entire island. It is defended by cliffs on the north, east and northeast and steeply descends to the northwest, where it faces the coastal plain around Fry. The summit is eroded down to bare rock, and only in the depressions and crevices is there some deposit of soil. The site’s preservation is slightly better on the northwestern slope, which is arranged in a series of terraces. The vast majority of the pottery from the “acropolis” belongs to the Archaic–Classical periods, but some sherds are earlier, dating to the EBA (e.g. an EBA II handle) and at least five fragments date to LN IIb (Cretan FN II) including one sherd with translucent quartz inclusions, which indicates its central Dodecanesian origin (Kos, Giali, Nisyros?).

Chelatros (3)

The second settlement is located in a small bay on the southern coast of Kasos, at Trapeza Chelatros (Fig. 275). During my visit the site was badly and recently bulldozed, but thanks to this lots of fresh material was exposed on the surface. Among the diagnostic potsherds were fragments of “cheese pots” and vessels with matt-impressed bases – common features in LN II in the east Aegean.

85 Melas 1985, 46 and 48.

Fig. 275: Kasos Chelatros from north.




West coast (2)

The most interesting of all LN IIb/FN II archaeological evidence on Kasos is a series of sites on the coastal plain and hills behind it, in the area between the airport, on the northeast, the monument recording the Turkish slaughter of 1824 on the southwest, and the cave of Ellinospilio on the south (Fig. 276). Occasional LN II sherds can be found as high as the Profitis Elias hill and the outskirts of the village of Agia Marina. The concentrations of pottery represent either individual small sites or the remains of an enormous settlement consisting of a great number of units dispersed irregularly throughout the entire coastal plain. The evidence recorded here constitutes only a part (and prob-ably a minor part) of the settlement system and it complements Melas’ finding from the same part of Kasos.86 Below is a brief description of individual clusters, which may have originally formed a more or less continuous area covered with houses and/or temporary shelters.

Cluster 1. A few LN IIb/FN II sherds seen together with ancient/medieval/modern pottery. An old very eroded terrace, 200 m from the coast, ca. 20 m asl. 35o25.208’, 026o54.614’.

Cluster 2. An LN IIb/FN II sherd and a pithos fragment (with plastic decoration – ribs) of EBA I date, 100–120 m from the coast, ca. 12 m asl. 262o and 640 m from No.1.

Cluster 3. A few LN IIb/FN II sherds, including one of the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group of the central Dodecanesian origin, 100 m from the coast, ca. 10 m asl. 35o25.085’, 026o54.135’, 249o and 760 m from No.1.

Cluster 4a. Numerous LN IIb/FN II sherds scattered over an area ca. 50 m in diameter at the junction of the main coastal road and the road going to Agia Marina, 100 m from the coast, ca. 5 m asl; two obsidian blades and one flake; three black chert flakes. 35o25.027’, 026o54.080’, 244o and 875 m from No. 1.

Cluster 4b. The southern part of the same site, on the southern side of the road to Agia Marina, at least 150 to 180 m from the central point of No. 4a, up to a small dry streambed. Clusters 4a and 4b measured as one site would cover an area about 200 by 50 to 60 m.

86 Malas 1985, 48.

Fig. 276: Northwest-ern coast of Kasos.




Cluster 5. A dense concentration of LN IIb/FN II pottery, ca. 20 to 30 m in diameter, 50 m from the sea, 5 m asl. Pottery with chaff impressions on the surface, occasional quartz grits, rounded purple to brown inclusions, dark grey to black core, brown to reddish-brown surface, equivalent to the Cretan Red Ware Fabric Group. 241o and 1.12 km from No.1.

Cluster 6. Probably a continuation of No. 5, ca. 130 m from it (197o), on a bulldozed and eroded slope, between 50 and 100 m from the coast.

Cluster 7. More than 20 LN IIb/FN II sherds, 230 m from No. 6 (196o), 100 m from the sea, ca. 5 m asl, on a bulldozed and eroded slope, 230o and 1.39 km from No.1.

Cluster 8. A number of very eroded LN IIb/FN II sherds visible on a promontory over an area ca. 30 m in diameter, a few tens of meters north of the chapel of Agios Konstantinos, ca. 5 m asl. Fabric light brown to reddish-brown, but much eroded by salt water; one piece of obsidian recorded.

Cluster 9. Several LN IIb/FN II sherds visible on a ploughed field, 360 m from No. 8 (189o), ca. 50 m from the sea, 10 m asl. 222o and 2.12 km from No.1.

Cluster 10. A small concentration of LN IIb/FN II sherds farther south of No. 9.Cluster 11. A small concentration of LN IIb /FN II sherds on a flat area southwest of the chapel.

219o and 2.53 km from No.1.Cluster 12. A small concentration of LN IIb/FN II sherds in a short distance south of No. 11.Cluster 13. A few LN IIb/FN II sherds on the northwestern slope of Profitis Elias facing the

coastal plain. 95o and 1.19 km from No. 11.Cluster 14. A concentration of LN IIb/FN II sherds, about 20 by 30 m in size, on the northwest-

ern slope of a gentle hill on the edge of the coastal plain; two obsidian blades and three black chert flakes. 35o24.784’, 026o54.046’, 183o and 454 m from No.4.

Cluster 15. About 20 LN IIb/FN II sherds on a completely eroded terrace on the edge of the coastal plain, seen in an area ca. 20 m in diameter, about 10 m higher than No. 4. 190o and 265 m from No. 4.

Cluster 16. A small concentration of LN IIb/FN II sherds over an area ca. 30 m in diameter; prob-ably an extension of No. 4 on the higher slope, 110o and 100 m from No. 4.

The majority of pottery at all these sites belongs to the category described in Crete as the Red Ware Fabric Group, some fragments were of the Calcite-Tempered Fabric Group, and a few sherds represented the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. In the Red Ware Fabric Group both of the types differentiated in Crete (one with a grey to black core, and one with core of the same colour as the surface) were represented, but the later type, well fired through the section, was more common. This observation is also supported by the presence of pithos fragments with rib decoration, similar to the pithoi published from EM I contexts in Crete (Pl. 80:KS2). Horizontal lug handles are very common (KS 5 and 6), as they are in the Siteia region, for example at Palaikastro Maridathi (Site 7 on Crete), Zakros Gorge Kato Kastello (Site 31), Xerokampos North (Site 40), Xerokampos Kastri (Site 42), and Koufonisi (Site 70 and 71).

This unusual distribution pattern of LN II/FN II sites, identified on the northwestern coast of Kasos, seems to have been unique in the Dodecanese and is unknown in Crete either. There is, however, one almost exact parallel to this pattern along the northern coast of Koufonisi, a few miles away from the south-eastern coast of Crete. The second case of a similar pattern can be perhaps the group of FN sites identified recently by M. Melas on the southern coast of Karpathos, between Akrotiri Bay and Agios Theodoros.87

87 Melas 2011.




Kastellorizo/Megisti

The archaeology of this small island is only very little known and the reconstruction of the links with the rest of the Dodecanese will require more systematic studies.88 It is very difficult to make links with the archaeological sequence on the opposite Anatolian coast, because nothing has been published from that region regarding the fourth millennium BC. The island is, however, a very interesting case study for the further research on the possible interrelations of people living on the mainland and small off-shore islands during the periods of disturbances and possible migration in the Aegean LN II/FN II.

The best locations for any prehistoric site must have been those also occupied by the medie-val and post-medieval castles and the village (Fig. 277). The earliest sites are probably completely destroyed or sealed under thick later deposits. Elsewhere on the island one can expect only poor evidence of secondary and/or temporary sites. One of them is a small LCh site, ca. 40 by 10 m in size (1), situated on the top of the ridge which rises like a huge screen behind the Chora and above the

88 Ashton 1995. Unfortunately fieldwork on the island covered the period from the beginning of the Hellenistic pe-riod to ca. 200 AD.

Fig. 277: Map of Kastellorizo/Megisti (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1970, 74, fig. 16).




bay, immediately southwest of it (Fig. 278). The northern side of the site is well protected by a cliff. The same ridge was used for the World War II military post, the ruins of which are visible on the southern edge of the site. LCh pottery fragments are occasional, with red surface and black core, and with white angular inclusions, much tempered with chaff and other organic material; chaff impressions are well seen on the pot surface. One sherd had golden mica and another translucent quartz inclusions.

Another LCh site is situated on the west slope of the east promontory (Megalos Niftis), east of Chora (2). The top of the ridge which crowns the promontory is covered with World War II installa-tions. The construction of gun positions completely destroyed this area, and LCh potsherds, visible on the slope below, may have come from a site which originally occupied the summit of the ridge. A single Melian obsidian blade and a flake of Giali obsidian prove contacts with the Aegean, includ-ing the central Dodecanese. A third site with a few LCh sherds lies on a rocky knoll (Ypsili Tapia) (3) fortified probably in the EIA or later, and situated 1.4 km northeast (38o) of Megisti Panagia. The fourth, and probably the most important site with the same pottery of at least two classes (the chaff fabric with red surface and black core, and the fabric with translucent quartz inclusions) was identified on the eroded highest slopes of Kastello (4), which was an ancient acropolis and a medieval castle.

The topography of LCh sites on Kastellorizo indicates concerns about security similar to those known from FN Crete and the LN II Dodecanese. The chronological sequence of the Kastellorizo sites cannot be precisely established without proper and detailed studies, and comparisons with the sites from the Anatolian coast in the southern Lycia (especially the Kaş region) and from Rhodes.

Astypalaia

LN and earliest BA settlement shows a complicated pattern (Fig. 279) with numerous sites located in very different topographically places. On one hand, there is an excellent defensible LN II settle-

Fig. 278: Kastello-rizo/Megisti Chora and the site above it from north.




ment on the rocky summit of Kastro Ag. Ioanniou, and on the other much more accessible (though still somewhat protected) settlements on low hills and promontories, such as Vai and Vathi. The LN IIb settlement in Agrilioi Bay is located on a gentle slope only a few hundred metres from the sea, whereas another settlement of the same date was situated on a rocky hill high above Panormos Bay (ca. 170 m asl). The below described sites represent probably the entire LN IIb period with some being founded as early as the late LN IIa, and abandoned as late as the beginning of the BA. They were probably contemporary with Cretan sites of FN I, FN II, and the earliest EM I date.

Because both the settlement types (defenible and non-defensible) also show evidence of EBA occupation it is not easy to draw a chronological scheme of the settlement changes during the LN II period. To achieve that, more evidence of a well-stratified nature, is needed. Below, I present brief descriptions of the sites identified by Hope Simpson and Lazenby, which were classified by these scholars as of “the Late Chalcolithic or earliest Early Bronze Age (E.B. I)”.89 Regarding this period C. Mee wrote that “almost none of the EBA sherds are diagnostic”.90 Perhaps this was the case in the 1970s, but today we can be much more accurate in allocating the material to one of the LN or EB periods.

89 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 167.90 Mee 1975, 303.

Fig. 279: Map of Astypalaia.




Kastro Ag. Ioanniou (1)

The site is well defended on all sides by very steep slopes and cliffs (Fig. 280). It is accessible, however, by means of a natural narrow neck on the east and by ascending the steep western and southwestern slopes from the direction of a small bay that may have been used as a natural harbour (Fig. 281). The view from the summit is spectacular, with the islands of Anafi and Amorgos seen to the southwest and northwest. The ridge of Kastro was occupied by an LH III settlement and a Frankish castle. Hope Simpson and Lazenby recorded sherds of “the latest Chalcolithic and earliest Early Bronze Age of Anatolia”, classified by them as EB I, “with grey or brown cores, containing fairly large white, grey, or purple-brown stone grits, and with smoothed orange-brown surfaces, often with marks from straw tempering”.91 Eight chips and a blade of Melian obsidian were also recorded. Mee described pottery from Kastro Ag. Ioanniou as follows: “the majority of the sherds are of the usual EBA fabric, coarse, gritty with smoothed orange brown surface and in some cases marks of straw tempering”.92


Fig. 280: Astypalaia Agios Ioannis Kastro from southeast.




The Kastro pottery’s characteristics are in accordance with those of LN II pottery in the Dode-canese and are similar to FN II pottery (but not FN I) from many sites in Crete (Palaikastro Petsofas, Itanos, Cape Mavros) though some sherds represent indeed later EBA phases. “Cheese pots” are very common (Pl. 81:ASK 5–8). An important group of pottery fabrics from Kastro seems to have been missed by the British scholars – this is the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Inclusions of translucent quartz do not correspond to the geology on Astypalaia, and indicate a central Dode-canesian or coastal Anatolian origin. Chaff temper is very common, the Marble Ware/Calcite-Tem-pered Fabric Group, on contrary, is rare, though it is probably the most common fabric in the latest Neolithic and EB I on the neighbouring Amorgos and Naxos. Chipped stone is represented by several Melian obsidian flakes and blades. Some sherds, of later date (EBA II) (Pl. 81:ASK 4), indi-cate that either Kastro Ag. Ioanniou, once founded in the LN II period, continued through EBA, or that two episodes of use (LN II and EBA) were separated by some length of time during which less defensible hills and promontories, such as Vathi and Vai, were preferred (see below).

Panormos Bay (2)

A small site southwest and above the Ag. Nikolaos chapel at Panormos Bay shows different topo-graphical characteristics. Hope Simpson and Lazenby mentioned that the pottery, scattered over an area ca. 8 by 50 m, was of the type found on Kastro Ag. Ioanniou, with “grey or brown core, pur-ple-brown or white grits and orange or light-brown surfaces, sometimes with striations from brush wiping and smoothing inside”.93 Mee mentioned from Panormos pottery “of a coarse gritty fabric with a grey brown core and orange or light brown surfaces”.94

I was unable to relocate the above mentioned site, but there is another LN II (–EB I ?) settle-ment above Panormos Bay, not mentioned by the British archaeologists, the location of which sug-


Fig. 281: Sketch-plan of Astypalaia Agios Ioannis (after Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 162, fig. 8).




gests a stronger concern with security. The site is situated in the southern part of a rocky ridge shutting the small coastal plain of Panormos on its southeast (Fig. 282). LN II pottery (Pl. 81:ASP 1–3) and very numerous obsidian pieces were recorded over an area ca. 80 by 50 m, mostly on flat terraces between rocky outcrops.

Vai (3)

In the eastern part of Astypalaia, a large settlement, with pottery recorded over an area ca. 100 by 150 m was identified by Hope Simpson and Lazenby on a promontory at the northern side of Vai Bay (Fig. 283).95 The pottery was classified as of the Kastro Ag. Ioanniou type with “grits of pur-ple-brown, white, or grey stone, and orange to brown surface … with occasional traces of smooth-ing or burnishing on exteriors and brush wiping on interiors”. A fragment of a “cheese pot” was illustrated.96 Melian obsidian was also recorded. The site is very abundant in pottery, with the best diagnostic pieces of LN II recorded on the western slope about 20 m below the large stone con-struction which once occupied the summit of the hill (Kastro), and was of much later date than the prehistoric settlement. Most of the sherds have reddish-brown and light brown surface, sometimes with a dark grey to black core. Among the sherds are fragments of Calcite-Tempered Fabric Group and Translucent Quartz Fabric Group, the latter additionally with some volcanic glass which is characteristic for the Kos–Nisyros group of the Dodecanese. Chaff temper is very common. The settlement was occupied also during the early phase of EBA. Hope Simpson and Lazenby proposed the LN II settlement’s size as about 150 by 100 m, and such an estimation is supported by the surface evidence.

95 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 164–165.96 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 165, pl. 44b.

Fig. 282: Astypalaia Panormos from northwest.




Agrilioi (4)

A scatter of “Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age” pottery, over an area ca. 90 by 50 m, was identified by Hope Simpson and Lazenby at Agrelidhi Kangelo, about 1 km southeast of Vai,97 and another one was noted on the promontory with a chapel of Ag. Nikolaos, on the west side of Agrelidhi Bay.98 I was unable to relocate these sites, but a large LN II–EBA I settlement was identified on the ter-races sloping towards the small coastal plain at Agrilioi Bay (as it is named on the modern maps), between the coast and the road leading to Vathy Bay. The site lies a few hundred metres from the sea, on two sides of a small ravine (Fig. 284), and covers an area at least 60 m in diameter, without any natural borders. The pottery is very numerous (Pl. 82) and represents several fabric groups, among them the reddish light brown group with “white and brown inclusions” described often by Hope Simpson and Lazenby. The Calcite-Tempered Fabic Group seems to dominate; several sherds were of Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. Solid lugs (ASA 9 and 10) and rolled rims (ASA 1–3) are among the most characteristic diagnostic fragments. Chipped stone is numerous and represented by obsidian flakes, but only very few blades were seen.

97 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 167.98 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 167.

Fig. 283: Astypalaia Vai from south.




Vathi Bay (5)

An important settlement of “Chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age” date was identified by Hope Simpson and Lazenby on the promontory which shuts the western entrance to Vathi Bay on its northern side.99 The eastern tip of the promontory was a site of a Classical or Hellenistic fortified structure that partly covered an extensive EB settlement with diagnostic pottery indicating EB I–II occupa-tion. This early pottery can be seen all around the eastern coastline of the promontory which was not destroyed by the later occupation, and the settlement’s size in that period can be tentatively estimated as about 80–100 by 40–50 m. The EB pottery is accompanied by even earlier evidence of LN II date. The pottery of this group is characterized by reddish-brown to brown surface, often with dark grey to black core, with coarse grits and chaff temper. The second group of the LN II pottery belongs to the Translucent Quartz Fabric Group. The Marble Ware/Calcite-Tempered Ware Group and very numerous obsidian blades and flakes may be related to EBA activity rather than to the LN II phase.

Moura (6)

An LN II/EBA(?) site in the western part of the island was mentioned by Hope Simpson and Lazenby above the Moura spring, southeast of Livadia.100 The pottery was described as “of the usual ‘oatmeal’ fabric, containing white and purple-brown grits, and with orange-brown surface”.101 The site’s description does not allow us to reconstruct the size and character of this early occupation, and I was unable to identify the site.

99 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 166.100 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 160.101 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973, 161.

Fig. 284: Astyp-alaia Agrilioi from northwest.




SummaryThe above presented review of the published data, combined with new observations and evidence regarding settlement in the Dodecanese, indicates that the region experienced an extraordinary increase of population during the fourth millennium BC, especially in LN IIb – more or less contem-porary with the Cretan FN I and II, as defined in this book. Related to this population boom were substantial changes in settlement patterns, which in general reflected a growing concern about security, though there were some exceptions to this rule, which call for explanation on a basis of improved chronological accuracy. Considering that these two elements (increase of settlement numbers and settlement defensibility) appear more or less at the same time, it seems reasonable to interpret these changes as the result of large scale migrations rather than the development of local communities. The Dodecanesian evidence strongly suggests that the possible LN II newcomers came from Anatolia. The sequence of all the sites discussed here points out to a prolonged process, or processes, lasting at least a half of millennium (the entire LN IIb), but probably longer, going back to the beginning of the fourth or the late fifth millennium BC (LN IIa). Settlement change and population growth in the Dodecanese may have started earlier than in the Cyclades and Crete, but it continued, like in the other two regions, until the beginning of the Bronze Age. It is most likely, therefore, that the settlement changes observed in Crete and the Cyclades originated in the eastern edge of the Aegean and were related to historical processes representing a peripheral version of the social and political transition which led to the foundation of Early Bronze Age complex social and territorial structures in the Near East and Egypt.102

The expansion of settlement in the LN II Dodecanese is well attested on most of the islands, but the southern group is of special interest when interpreting of the transition between the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Crete. The investigations undertaken by Hope Simpson and Lazenby demonstrated that the Dodecanese was “overpopulated” during the late fourth millennium BC.103 Later research, by Sampson, not only confirmed that picture, but revealed even more dense settle-ment patterns, especially between Rhodes and Kos.104 This conclusion has been farther supported by the south Dodecanesian surveys carried out by Melas,105 and the most recent investigations on Karpathos.106 The causes of this “population boom” and the latter’s long-term historical conse-quences, not only in the Dodecanese, but also in the neighbouring regions, are directly related to the settlement changes in Crete during the FN period.

Population increase in the Dodecanese during the LN II period went together with preference for defensive sites, sea-orientation of the majority of settlements, and expansion to small islands, even those with poor “economic value”.107 The same pattern is reflected in FN II settlement in Crete. Some limited inland expansion/retreat from the sea can be seen in the bigger islands, such as Rhodes, Kos and Karpathos. Both patterns are also well known from Crete, but there they reflect the actions of two different population groups: sites of inland retreat were probably founded by the native Late Neolithic inhabitants, and are dated mostly to FN I, whereas those I have interpreted as representing an inland expansion were probably founded by newcomers in FN II (see above Chapter 6). A similar chronological and/or origin-based distinction between sites in the Dodeca-nese is not possible yet, due to poor research on the nature of cultural change through the different phases of the LN II period. Well planned research excavations (not just rescue digging), as sug-gested by Melas,108 are needed at open-air sites, especially settlements, to sort out main phases of

102 Sagona and Zimansky 2009, 144–149.103 Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1973.104 Sampson 1987, 96–115.105 Melas 1988, 309.106 Melas 2011.107 Georgiadis 2012, 169.108 Melas 1988, 310.



Summary 363

their occupation. Some observations I made in this book, however, allow us to draw a preliminary conclusion that in the Dodecanese, as in Crete, there are two groups of sites, more or less contem-porary with Cretan FN II settlements: 1) with exclusively LN II material (e.g. Zakros Kato Kastellas and Palaiochora Nerovolakoi), and 2) with LN II pottery accompanied by very early EB I material (e.g. Petras Kefala and Vainia Stavromenos). In the Dodecanese, the second group seems to be less numerous than the first, but a more significant drop in sites number appears after the early EB I period. If this picture reflects the real situation (and does not result from limited research) it is different from that recorded in Crete and in western Anatolia. Recently Georgiadis presented a review of the EBA versus LN sites on the Doodecanese with the conclusions similar to the above proposed.109

Evidence presented in the first part of this chapter clarifies further points regarding the tran-sition between LN II and EB I in the southernmost group of the Dodecanesian islands. On Karpa-thos, early EB I settlements have been securely identified at Moulas and Sikelao, two west coast sites probably founded towards the end of LN II and following the same topographic “rules” as the coastal FN II–EM I settlements in eastern Crete. The continuation between LN II and EB I (and probably as late as EB II) is also visible at Finiki, between Moulas and Sikelao, and probably at Vouno, on the eastern coast. On Kasos, there was an EB I–II nucleation at the defensible inland ridge of Poli, and probably at the coastal site (with an excellent natural harbour) of Chelatros. The situation on the western coast of Kasos is less clear. Numerous LN IIb/FN II sites dispersed over a coastal area about 2.5–3.0 by 0.4–0.6 km, between the airport and the northern foothills of Mout-sounas, do not show any signs of nucleation into a well defined settlement (or settlements) either in LN IIb/FN II or EB. The few diagnostic shapes and pottery fabric characteristics suggest this dispersed settlement pattern covered the last centuries of LN IIb and the very beginning of EB, and was contemporary with the FN II and the early EM I periods in Crete. The Red Ware from Kasos, and especially pithos fragments with a relief decoration, have their closest parallels in eastern Crete, for example at Palaikastro Maridathi, Xerokampos North, and Chalinomouri – all of FN II–early EM I date. It is difficult to explain such a dense and short-lasting occupation of this coastal area of Kasos as being of the local or even regional (the Dodecanese) origin. The most plausible interpretation of this extraordinary settlement pattern is that it had something to do with the migration route leading from southwestern Anatolia, via the southern Dodecanese, to Crete.

On Symi, the LN II/LCh 3–4/5 defensible sites of Pedi and Panormitis show only very limited EB pottery, and seem to have been gradually replaced (or complemented) in the EB I period, by a more dispersed pattern, with traces of occupation indicating a relocation to the lower slopes of the same ridges, closer to the coast. A similar pattern of shift to less defensible and coastal location can be proposed, on the basis of available evidence, also for Chalki and Astypalaia. Settlement changes on Tilos are more difficult to reconstruct. The defensible settlement at Faneromeni may have con-tinued into EBA, as is indicated by several post-LN IIb shapes, for example a tripod leg (Pl. 72:TFA 44). This late material, however, is occasional and may indicate a very limited occupation, as in the case of Symi Pedi and Panormitis. More frequent sherds of probable EB I date were seen at Kastello, which has a more convenient connection with the sea than Faneromeni.

The transition between LN IIb and EB I on Kos is puzzling again. According to Georgiadis, EB sites are more frequent than LN IIb ones, but his “EB” covers both EB I and EB II. The EB I period is poorly recognized from survey here, and continuation through this period at some sites is simply deduced from the presence of both LN II and EB II evidence, rather than EB I surface material itself.110 In general, the interpretation of the changes between LN II and EBA on Kos, proposed by Georgiadis, shows some similarities with Crete, but there are still several key problems to be solved before concluding if the changes followed a similar path. The most important question is whether

109 Georgiadis 2012, 191–194.110 Georgiadis 2012, 194.




the LN IIb settlement changes in the largest Dodecanesian islands, such as Rhodes and Kos, laid the foundations for more stable later EB I–II settlement patterns and territorial organization, as was the case in many regions of Crete, or whether there was prolonged settlement relocation and instability also during the EB I period.

If the reconstruction of settlement continuity between LN IIb and EB I is difficult, the begin-ning of the population boom in the Dodecanese is even harder to interpret. Unlike Crete, where the distinction between FN I and FN II is relatively easy, the pottery in the Dodecanese either shows no clear difference between the LN IIa and IIb phases, or these differences have not been yet well iden-tified. The first scenario (in which the differences are minor) might suggest that the changes (and hypothetical immigration processes) were gradual, and extended over more than a millennium. The lack of comparable evidence of material culture (not only pottery) between the Dodecanesian islands and the Anatolian coast opposite them precludes speculation on the interrelation between these two regions during the fourth millennium BC. The slow and gradual changes in material culture between LN IIa and IIb might suggest, however, that at the beginning of the migratory process the Dodecanese was treated as a region of permanent retreat, not as a transit point on the way farther to the west. The islands closest to the Anatolian coast (Rhodes, Kos, Symi, and Tilos) might have been gradually seized by the settlers from the mainland joining the relatively few inhabitants (of a similar Anatolian origin) who were present there since the earlier Neolithic phases.

The only evidence to date of early awareness of an “unwelcomed intrusion” from the mainland or from other Dodecanesian islands seems the hilltop settlement of Kreati on Tilos. This relatively large pre-LN IIb settlement was probably located on the highest hill above the bay of Livadia in order to control the most important natural harbour on the eastern coast, and to oversee the sea route between the Anatolian coast and the island. The settlement held a dominant, but not inacces-sible, place. More sites of this (pre-LN IIb) date and with a topography similar to Kreati should be expected on other islands, though field investigations so far suggest a scarce population before the fourth millennium BC. The small pre-LN II populations of the Dodecanese, as represented by sites like Kreati, could not resist much more numerous groups of mainlanders when/if the latter decided to settle on the islands. Conflicts between different groups of “native” inhabitants and “foreign” invaders may also be represented by a series of small defensible sites on rocky ridges high above and at some distance from the coast of Karpathos. Though at present it is impossible to date the sites of Agria Pyla to Vouno (4), Lefkos (12), Mesochori (13) and Spoa (14) precisely within the LN period, they are certainly earlier than the coastal sites of the LN II–EB I transition, such as Moulas, Sikelao and Vouno.

The limited natural resources of the Dodecanese could not serve the requirements of growing LN II population. A substantial increase in settlement numbers, especially in the last phase of the process, in the LN IIb period, must have overstrained the economic system. This problem can be seen in particular on small islands, such as Symi, Tilos, and Kasos, but larger islands such as Kar-pathos also suffered. The Dodecanese seem to have become too densely inhabited for their capacity of their natural resources: the population growth seems unlikely to be of local origin.

The origins, sequence and character of LN II population growth in the Dodecanese are of crucial importance to our understanding of the Neolithic to Early Bronze Age transition in other regions of the insular Aegean, including Crete. However, many unanswered questions in this area remain. The establishment of a reliable comparative chronology between the Dodecanese, Crete, and western Anatolia is still problematic. Another obstacle to research progress is a very poor knowledge of settlement history during the fourth millennium BC on the Anatolian coast, in the region east of the Dodecanese. If there was a relationship between settlement changes in the insular southern Aegean and hypothetical migrations from the east, as I have proposed, the Anatolian sites should be founded first and then followed by the settlements in the Dodecanesian islands, starting with those closest to Anatolia, and somewhat later on the islands more distant, such as Karpathos, Kasos and Astypalaia. The changes observed in Crete in the FN II period would



Summary 365

mark the last phase in this chain of events. Without a thorough knowledge of settlement history on the Lycian and Carian coast any such reconstruction must have a speculative character. Prelim-inary landscape and topographical observations undertaken in a few areas of this region, help to move discussion along.

The sea-straits between Anatolia and the Dodecanese may have been for many centuries a major geographical barrier to any large-scale movement of people between these two regions. Crossing them was relatively easy, but as a clearly defined natural border they separated two differ-ent worlds exposed to different problems and challenges. Such a clear natural geographical divi-sion often creates cultural, social and ethnic diversity. Despite its closeness to the Anatolian coast, therefore, the Dodecanesian islands might keep their own identity, expressed by differences in material culture and social organization. External contacts may have been limited to specialized groups of people connected with exchange and maritime exploitation. This seems highly plausible during periods of stable settlement, when the territories and people were well tied, with only a few “intruders” entering the region from time to time. Even if the relations between the islanders and the inhabitants of the coastal areas were relatively good, there were other factors which may have made the islanders cautious about the land to the east. The vast and remote interior stretching behind inhospitable looking silhouettes of wild mountains visible on the horizon, was populated by numerous groups of people with whom the inhabitants of the Dodecanese were largely unfa-miliar. Any population movement along the Anatolian coast constituted a potential threat to the entire settlement system, including also the Dodecanese, and must have necessitated imminent adaptations by the islanders.

The biggest problem in reconstructing the processes and events which led to the changes of settlement patterns and material culture in the entire southern Aegean in the fourth millennium BC is the poor state of archaeological research in southwest Anatolia. Nothing has so far been published about settlement on the Anatolian coast opposite to the southern group of the Dode-canese. One site of interesting date is Teichiussa, located on the Anatolian coast at the altitude of Lipsoi, on the northern coast of Mandalya Bay ca. 20 km southeast of Miletus.111 “Alt Teichiussa” was occupied during the later Chalcolithic periods, and among diagnostic pottery shapes “typical baking plates”112 resemble “cheese pots”. A surface find of a similar “cheese pot” was mentioned at Doganbeleni, between Teichiussa and Iasos,113 indicating that this type of vessel was very common on the entire western coast of Asia Minor. This conclusion is also supported by “cheese pot” finds from the region of Datça and Bozburun, farther to the south, and opposite Tilos and Symi. “Cheese pots” appear in the LCh period on the Elmali plain (Pl. 82), where several other vessel shapes, similar to those of FN II on Crete, were recorded, such as flaring bowls with strap handles below the rim (Pl. 82), collar-necked jars (Pl. 83), and horizontal lug handles (Pl. 84).114 The general descrip-tion of the LCh pottery from Teichiussa, as “simple and homogenous”, red monochrome with straw temper, fits to the characteristic of the LN II pottery in the northern Dodecanese. The same similari-ties to LN II/FN II south Aegean pottery, and the use of straw temper, can be seen at Çaltılar Höyük, ca. 70 km northeast of Fethiye,115 and Eceler Höyük in the same region.116 Heavy straw temper with surface impressions is most characteristic in Crete during the FN II period.

The above mentioned sites are too far away to explain settlement changes in the coastal area immediately north and east of the southern group of the Dodecanesian islands, which is the pattern most relevant to the situation in FN II Crete. Preliminary observations, however, indicate that LCh

111 Voigtländer 2004; 2009.112 Voigtländer 2009, 114.113 Voigtländer 2004, 62.114 Eslick 1992.115 Momigliano et al. 2011, 77 and 102 for the pottery groups description.116 Aksoy and Köse 2005.




settlement patterns on the southwestern Anatolian coast were shaped by insecurity similar to that known from the islands. Hilltop settlements are numerous although it is not known whether their location was influenced by insecurity caused by Dodecanesian sea activity or by Anatolian groups moving westwards from the interior, or by very local conflicts. If the inhabitants of the west Ana-tolian region were pressed by other groups of people coming from the inland, western Anatolian peninsulas, such as Bodrum, Reshadiye and Bozburun might become the refuge areas. The LCh set-tlement pattern in this region suggests that this is indeed what happened in the fourth millennium BC on the western coast. Defensible settlements were located on hilltops and rocky ridges, which dominated the neighbouring valleys or coastal plains, sometimes close to a bay which offered a convenient natural harbour. The general locations of settlements in Reshadiye and Bozburun are similar to those of LN II sites in the Dodecanese and FN II sites in Crete. Settlement sizes are also similar, as are the types of defence walls used, paralleled in eastern Crete.117

This settlement pattern was determined by historical circumstances on one hand, but on the other shaped to large degree by the local landscape, which is very similar to the landscape of the Dodecanese. Farther to the east, however, the Lycian coast opens in several places to very extensive and fertile plains, as around Fethiye and the mouth of the Xanthos River. Here, the LCh settlement pattern was probably organized mainly around the tell type habitation places. Population pressure from outside the region may have led either to the shift of LCh settlements to defensible places in the hilly zone along the edges of the plains, and/or to large scale emigration across the sea. This hypothesis must remain tentative as long as more field work is carried in the regions in question; no single LCh settlement is known from the plain of Fethiye and the lower Xanthos valley. Its prob-ability is supported, however, by indirect evidence from the neighbouring regions. The distance between the coastal plain of Fethiye and the Bozburun Peninsula is not far enough to argue that the historical backgrounds influencing settlement patterns were different in both regions. The phe-nomenon of hilltop sites on the Bozburun and Reshadiye peninsulas is paralleled by a similar pattern on Rhodes, the eastern coast of which faces the Fethiye and Patara regions and is located only about 70 km from the Fethiye coast. Looking in the other direction, to the east, only about 30 km separate the coastal part of the Xanthos valley from Kastellorizo, where defensible LCh set-tlements have also been identified.

The last problem to be touched upon in this chapter are the links between the changes in the Dodecanese and Crete and those observed in the second half of the fourth millennium BC in the Cyclades. Due to underestimation of the real geographical range of the processes behind settlement pattern changes, change phenomena concerning the location and history of individual Cycladic sites, were often interpreted as “largely local and isolated” – as in the examples of Paoura and Agia Irini I on Keos.118 There are too many similarities in these changes, as well as their sequence, throughout the entire Aegean to assume, however, that they were results of independent indige-nous processes, and that no large scale population movement was involved. On the contrary, most of the phenomena concerning settlement history in the Cyclades during the fourth millennium can be only reasonably explained when analysed in the broad Aegean context of LN II/FN I–II changes, including the southeast Aegean and Crete.

One of the most disturbing results of this different treatment of the Cyclades in the Aegean context has been the development of a chronology for the region which is fragmented between cultural groups (selected on the basis of very poor evidence) some of which spanned more than a single archaeological period, as for example so called “Grotta–Pelos culture”.119 Some hypothesis concerning chronological problems of FN sites in the Cyclades, though made independently from

117 Yakar 1985, 121.118 Whitelaw 1991, 215; Wilson 1999, 7.119 As Broodbank noticed “The Grotta-Pelos culture is something of a misnomer (although an enshrined one) best used as a convenient shorthand for two sub-phases that cover the later FN and the entire EB I …” (2000, 53).



Summary 367

the Cretan chronology, are in agreement with the latter, and indicate that the region experienced similar sequence of changes. Below a few examples are discussed.

On Keos, the chronology of the defensible site of Paoura is not very clear, mainly due to a lack of proper publication of the surface material. Wilson, however, placed the site as partly contempo-rary with Kefala and only a little earlier than Agia Irini I.120 Agia Irini I, in the same chronological outline, was “later than the Attic–Kephala culture group of Final Neolithic, but still pre-EBA”,121 in the period labeled by Wilson “the Latest Neolithic”.122 Thus, Agia Irini I might have been founded during Paoura’s occupation, but continued until a later phase of the FN period. Kefala, the earliest site in this sequence, is defensible, but less than Paoura, and both sites are followed by settlement on the low promontory of Ayia Irini, which is either dated to the last centuries of the FN, or to the transition between the FN and the very beginning of the BA. Translating this sequence to the Cretan settlement changes during the FN–EM I transition, Kefala was probably contemporary with FN I, Paoura is paralleled by Cretan FN II sites without EM I elements, and Agia Irini I is contemporary with FN II sites which have some material already of EM I date. Topographically, therefore, the sites on Keos followed a sequence of changes similar to those recorded in Crete, covering mostly the second half of the fourth millennium BC.

Another interesting site with deposits illuminating the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age in the Cyclades is Grotta on Naxos. The site was probably located on a large prom-ontory which is now much eroded. Neolithic evidence was recorded in four layers of which the first, uppermost, contained mixed LC, EC and LN.123 The second stratum (probably crucial for the reconstruction of the transition between the latest Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age) yielded a small amount of EC pottery and more LN material (including rolled-rim bowls and a few incised and simple-rim forms of LN bowl). This stratum may have been contemporary with Cretan sites occupied through the latest centuries of FN II and the earliest century of EM I – Frouzi seems a good parallel. Underneath were two “uncontaminated LN strata, separated by a layer of shells and decayed limestone”, with pottery which “at first sight seemed homogenous, with striking sim-ilarities to that from Saliagos”.124 Among the dominant shapes were open bowls with plain rims and flat or rounded bases, and bowls and jars with everted rims. Sharply carinated bowls were rare and appeared only in the lowest level, indicating the earliest phase of the settlement.125 “Cheese pots” were common. In general, the Grotta material resembles the pottery from the Antiparos Cave excavated by Mavridis,126 which represents a long-lasting use of the cave throughout the fourth millennium BC. According to Hadjianastasiou “From a chronological point of view, what appears as a long interval between the abandonment of the Saliagos settlement and the beginning of the EC I period may not in fact have been so long.”127 That may suggest at some Cycladic settlements, including Akrotiri on Thera,128 the persistent continuation of occupation,129 despite general distur-bances in the region, well known from Crete through the FN I, FN II and EB I periods (e.g. Faistos, Knossos, Petras and Vainia Stavromenos). This phenomenon does not change the general picture of the period in which abandonments, relocations, short-lasting occupation, and defensibility played a dominant role in shaping settlement patterns.

120 Wilson 1999, 6 and 227.121 Wilson 1999, 7.122 Wilson 1999, 227.123 Hadjianastasiou 1988.124 Hadjianastasiou 1988, 12.125 Hadjianastasiou 1988, fig. 1:13.126 Mavridis 2010.127 Hadjianastasiou 1988, 19.128 Sotirakopoulou 2008, 122–124.129 Davis 2001, 23.




Settlement defensibility is a key issue when reconstructing settlement changes in the Cyclades, especially in the second half of the fourth millennium (accepting that the Bronze Age starts ca. 3100/3000 BC), though this problem has never been comprehensively researched, in the way seen for Crete. Insecurity and “unsettled conditions”, as I argued earlier for the south Aegean region, have also been proposed as an explanation of the location of some FN settlements in the Cyclades, but systematic comparative studies between the islands have not yet been undertaken.130 The best investigated and probably the most significant Cycladic site of this category is Strofilas on Andros, a fortified large settlement with substantial population showing a social organization more complex than earlier suggested for this period.131

The “unique” characteristics of Strofilas132 fit my picture of the period well if we put them in the context of the changes observed in the same time in the Dodecanese and Crete. Neither the site’s “large size” nor “the density and size of the buildings”, nor even its fortification, are extraordinary in the LN II/FN period in the southern Aegean. Strofilas leaves no doubt that it was a defensive settlement, leading the excavator to the following conclusion:

“The strong defensive wall is proof of the inhabitants’ need for protection against assault, and therefore indi-cates the general situation prevailing during this period in the Aegean, of threat of attack by organized groups, or possibly population movement.”

Though Strofilas probably belonged to the northern group of LN II/FN settlers, Televantou’s inter-pretation of the period fits well with my reconstruction of the transition between the Neolithic and Bronze Age in Crete and the southeastern Aegean as presented in this book.

130 For Keos see Coleman 1977, 111; for Koukounaries on Paros see Katsarou-Tzevelaki and Schilardi 2008; for Amor-gos see Marangou et al. 2006.131 See for example the recent arguments against social complexity before EB II by Cherry (2012).132 Televantou 2008.



final neolithic crete and the southeast aegean () || chapter 7: the final neolithic/late...

Documents