tankosic and mathioudaki 2011 aynikolaos

8/2/2019 Tankosic and Mathioudaki 2011 AyNikolaos

1/42

THE FINDS FROM THE PREHISTORIC SITE OF AYIOSNIKOLAOS MYLON, SOUTHERN EUBOEA, GREECE

byarko Tankosic* and Iro Mathioudaki

With a contribution on lithics by Catherine Perls

*Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, USAUniversity of Athens, Greece

In this paper we present the unpublished finds from the survey of Ayios Nikolaos Mylon. The siteis located on one of the foothills of Mount Ochi, on a strategic defensive position overlooking theBay of Karystos. The site, although unexcavated, is important for establishing the chronologicalsequence of events in southern Euboean prehistory, as it is the only locality in the area that has

produced evidence for habitation which can be dated to the Middle Bronze Age. In the paper weanalyse the material and offer some tentative interpretations not only of the archaeologicalevidence but also of the place of Ayios Nikolaos Mylon in the wider prehistoric world of the

Aegean.

INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of this paper is to present and examine the material collected from thesurface of the site of Ayios Nikolaos Mylon (hereafter Ay. Nikolaos). According to thedata from other archaeological surveys conducted in southern Euboea thus far, Ay.Nikolaos is the only inhabited site of Middle Bronze date in the area (Cullen et al.

A great number of people have in some way participated in the shaping of this article and,although we cannot mention them all, we owe them a debt of gratitude. We would like toparticularly thank Dr Donald Keller and the Southern Euboea Exploration Project forgenerously allowing us to study and publish the material from Ay. Nikolaos and for hiscomments on earlier drafts of this paper. Without the generous financial support from theE. A. Schrader Endowment for Classical Archaeology at Indiana University our work would nothave been possible. We would also like to thank Dr Catherine Perls for deciding to participatein this paper with her brief but disproportionately significant contribution. We owe many thanksto a number of people who found time out of their busy schedules to read and comment onvarious drafts of this paper, namely Karen D. Vitelli, Tracey Cullen, Jere Wickens, WalterGauss, and Fanis Mavridis; without them this paper would have been much poorer. Weparticularly thank Professor Oliver Dickinson and an anonymous BSA reviewer for their

invaluable comments, suggestions, and edits. Nonetheless, all errors and transgressions in thispaper remain absolutely our own and we alone take full responsibility for each and every one ofthem.

The Annual of the British School at Athens, (), , pp. The Council, British School at Athensdoi:./S


2/42

forthcoming; Keller , ; Tankosic ). Therefore, the study of the materialfrom this site, even if it lacks stratigraphic information, can still contribute not only tofuture pottery studies in the area but also to the general knowledge of prehistory in thispart of the Aegean.

Southern Euboea has been the subject of organised archaeological research for severaldecades. The first systematic survey of the entire island was conducted by several scholarsfor a prolonged period of time; it began in , but was not published until , since itwas interrupted, among other things, by the outbreak of World War II (Sackett et al.). The Karystia was also a part of extensive pan-Euboean surveys by Theocharis() and Sampson (). The first systematic survey work focused on the Karystiaitself was carried out by Donald Keller () in the late s as part of field researchfor his doctoral dissertation at Indiana University, and was continued by the SouthernEuboea Exploration Project (SEEP), which was founded by Keller and the lateMalcolm Wallace in to promote research on the Karystian past. SEEP hasconducted three systematic intensive surveys in the area since its establishment: the

survey of the Paximadhi Peninsula (Cullen et al. forthcoming), the route survey ofthe portions of the Bouros-Kastri region located east of the Bay of Karystos, and thesurvey of the Karystian Plain (Kampos) (Tankosic ). The knowledge of the areaspast obtained from the archaeological surface surveys has been greatly augmented bythe numerous and dedicated rescue excavations of the th Ephorate for Prehistoricand Classical Antiquities from Chalkis and by SEEPs excavations at Plakari (Cullenet al. forthcoming; Talalay et al. ) and in the Ayia Triadha Cave (Mavridis andTankosic ), organised in collaboration with the th Ephorate and the Ephoratefor Paleoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece, respectively.

The huge leaps forward in the last few years notwithstanding, the prehistoric

chronological sequence in the Karystia is still insufficiently understood, particularly forthe long time span between the end of Early Bronze II and the Geometric period. Thisis the reason we will attempt to put forward some ideas about general prehistoricdevelopments in the region around the Bay of Karystos, but also including the northernCycladic islands of Andros and Keos and the eastern coast of Attica. Thus, in thefollowing pages we present, describe, and analyse surface finds from Ay. Nikolaos andinterpret them in conjunction with evidence of the Middle Bronze Age known elsewherein Greece, since comparative material is absent from the immediate vicinity of the site.

THE LOCATION OF THE SITE

The site of Ay. Nikolaos is located in the southernmost part of the island of Euboea,northeast of the town of Karystos, above the village of Myloi (Fig. ). SouthernEuboea is frequently defined as the area south of the modern town of Styra. Thisregion is also referred to as the Karystia, after the name of its main and largestsettlement and current administrative centre, Karystos. A salient and distinguishingfeature of the Karystia is the twin peaks of Mount Ochi. The mountain rises north of

The international conference on the Middle Bronze Age titledMESOHELLADIKA: TheGreek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age (held March , ) does not change the

picture as far as Euboea is concerned.

ARKO TANKOSIC AND IRO MATHIOUDAKI


3/42

the Bay of Karystos to the height of m above sea level, and effectively separates thesouthernmost part of the Karystia from the rest of Euboea, serving as both geographicaland cultural barrier, and gives this section of the island its distinctive character. The

southern part of the Karystia, separated from the rest of the region by the mountainranges of Lykorema, Ochi, and Koukouvayia, consists of four very broadly definedgeographical units: the Paximadhi Peninsula, which forms the western boundary of theBay of Karystos; the Bouros-Kastri region/peninsula, which borders the bay to the east;the Karystian Kampos, a large alluvial plain that runs approximately westeast andopens at the head of the bay, forming the basin where the town of Karystos is located;and the foothills of Mount Ochi, which slowly rise to the north of the Kampos and theKarystos basin (Fig. ).

To the south of the Karystia lie the Cycladic islands. The two closest islands areAndros, located c. km southeast of the Bouros-Kastri Peninsula at its closest, andKeos, about km south of the tip of the Paximadhi Peninsula. West of the Karystia,across c. km of the southern Euboean Channel, lie Attica and the Greek mainland.The closest Cycladic islands and the mainland can usually be seen from anywhere

Fig. . Southern Euboea in its geographical context.

THE FINDS FROM AYIOS NIKOLAOS MYLON


4/42

around the Bay of Karystos under most weather conditions, provided that the view is notphysically obstructed. On most days when humidity is low, even the second tier of theCyclades (i.e. Tinos and Siphnos) can be seen from the southern part of the Karystia.

The mountains that separate southern Euboea from the rest of the island also have astrong influence on the climate of the area. They combine with the Euboean Channel,which is at its widest between southern Euboea and Attica, to make the climate in thesouthern Karystia more similar to that prevailing in the Aegean islands, particularly thenorthern Cyclades, than to the rest of Euboea or the mainland. The winds, which blowprimarily from the north and northeast throughout most of the year and which are often

quite strong, form another salient feature of the Karystia. The Ochi range serves as abarrier to these winds; however, instead of reducing their strength it increases it byallowing the winds to accumulate on its northern slopes and then funnel down at greatvelocities over the southern slopes of the mountain and parts of the Kampos. Theprevailing sea currents surrounding the Karystia also move from northeast to southwest.The force of the winds and the currents comes together most markedly along the easternshores of the Karystia in the Kafiraeus Channel, which separates southern Euboea fromAndros. Strong winds and currents make this area very hard to navigate even today.

The site of Ay. Nikolaos occupies a commanding position on top of a rocky ridge(elevation c. m above sea level) (Fig. ). At the southwestern end of the ridge, a

small plateau (c. m) is sheltered from the infamous Karystian north winds by alarge rocky outcrop. The cultural deposits are most easily distinguishable at thislocation (Fig. ). On the westernmost edge of the plateau a small chapel to AyiosNikolaos was built at some point in the relatively recent past (probably during thenineteenth century). Prehistoric deposits were damaged and stone quarried during theconstruction of the chapel. Another somewhat larger plateau extends to the southeastand below the first one. On its northern side are a modern sheep pen and anotherchapel, built in the second half of the twentieth century. At the foot of the ridge wherethe Ay. Nikolaos chapel is situated, on its southwestern side, is a modern stone quarryand a Greek Orthodox monastery. The prehistoric site lacks natural protection only onthe southeastern side, where the slope is gentler, and on the east, where the plateau isconnected to other foothills of Ochi. The main access to the site seems to have beenalong a relatively narrow ridge to the east of the main plateau area.

Fig. . South Karystia, topographic.



5/42

Water sources abound in the vicinity of the site: there is a spring c. m below thesummit and a perennial stream located roughly to the west of the Ay. Nikolaos hill(about minutes walking distance downhill). This stream has its source in the Ochi

Mountains and is fed, especially in the early spring, by snowmelt. Easily accessible

Fig. . Location of Ay. Nikolaos and the extent of the material scatter. North is up.

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. View of the main plateau from east.



6/42

arable land exists at the foot of the hill, along the northeastern end of the alluvialKarystian Plain. At present, the southern and western slopes of the hill are coveredwith agricultural terraces of indeterminable date. It is hard to tell whether such landuse arrangements existed in prehistory, since terracing is notoriously hard to date (e.g.French and Whitelaw ). Currently, Ay. Nikolaos and the area around it are usedmostly for grazing sheep and goats; a modern sheep pen lies c. m to the east of themain plateau, at the beginning of the access ridge. Additionally, the area is currentlypartitioned by several barbed wire fences used to contain the animals.

The original survey of Ay. Nikolaos was conducted in by Dr Donald Keller aspart of his doctoral research at Indiana University and under the auspices of theAmerican School of Classical Studies at Athens. Dr Keller collected a number ofpottery sherds, chipped stone fragments, and several metal objects from the site, andhe also left behind a detailed description of the condition of the site both in hisunpublished dissertation and in the original field notes (Keller , ).Subsequent visitations to the site were carried out in and as part of a larger

revisitation project of sites surveyed by SEEP in the eastern part of the Bay ofKarystos. At that time more sherds were collected from the surface of the site andcloser inspection was made of the features visible on the surface. Although additionalsherds were collected primarily to prevent their loss due to ongoing erosion on the hillwhere Ay. Nikolaos is located, they proved to be a valuable source of additionalinformation on the chronological sequence of the site. Our analysis is based on thematerial collected on those two occasions.

ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

Although on the surface the deposits on the plateau consist chiefly of rubble, it is stillpossible to discern the outlines of several walls (Fig. ). Unfortunately, we were notable to create a proper sketch of the architectural remains that are visible in the field;therefore, the architecture is currently best seen from the photographs. We do markthe approximate position of the walls we were able to discern on the general sketch ofthe site (Fig. ).

The westernmost edge of the plateau is bordered by a double-faced curving wall thatroughly follows the upper contour of the slope (Figs. a and ). This wall, although

partially reconstructed in modern times (especially below and, most likely, in relation tothe construction of the modern chapel), seems to have originated at an earlier, possiblyprehistoric date. This wall probably enveloped part or most of the southern andsouthwestern edge of the plateau originally, because some of its surviving sections canstill be seen protruding from the ground and the rubble. The construction of the lowercourses and the general appearance of this wall are similar to the more securely identifiedprehistoric walls among the rubble and material at the centre of the plateau. The wallruns under and hence possibly pre-dates the rubble of some of the collapsedprehistoric structures on the plateau. Its function is not altogether clear at present;however, it is tempting to suggest, especially in view of its location, that this wall hadfunctions other than as a simple retaining wall, e.g. it may have served as a defensive wall.

Other architectural remains on the plateau include at least three straight and twocurved double-faced walls (Figs. b, c, d), all built by the same technique. They were



7/42

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. Walls visible on the surface.

Fig. . Location of visible walls on the plateau (topographic enlarged).



8/42

constructed by arranging medium-sized, flattish boulders and slabs of rock (almostexclusively local schist) in two parallel rows with the rocks touching or overlapping atthe centre of the wall. Usually the narrower sides of the rocks were turned to theinside. The walls were probably constructed entirely of stone, although other types ofsuperstructure cannot be ruled out.

The two straight parallel walls roughly at the centre of the plateau and just above thedamaged area of the site are likely to be parts of two adjacent buildings with a narrowpassage between them (Fig. d). These sorts of arrangements are not uncommon inareas exposed to damaging and constant winds, as they reduce the strength of the windby breaking it up, thus providing better shelter. One of the curved walls is positionedin front of the modern access to the plateau, with its inner side facing away from theplateau (Fig. b). Its function is unclear, because it appears too slight to be afoundation wall. If the access to the site and the main plateau was at the same place inprehistory as it is today, which seems likely due to the configuration of the terrain, thiswall may have served to restrict or direct access to the site, as it appears to have been

too feeble to serve serious defensive purposes.Another larger curved wall, or a part of it, can be seen just below the southeastern part

of the main plateau (Fig. c). Compared to the other curved wall at the plateausentrance, this one is much more solid and more carefully built and was definitely apart of a structure a fairly large apsidal building, which is still mostly covered byrubble. The building technique of this wall is fairly typical for the Middle Bronze Ageand has parallels from other Middle Bronze sites (e.g. Goldman ). Apsidalbuildings are one of the hallmarks of Middle Bronze architecture in Greece (Dickinson, ), although apsidal structures are not unknown from the preceding EarlyBronze Age or even Final Neolithic (e.g. at Strofilas on Andros [Televantou ,

]). Combined with the movable finds (primarily pottery), the visible architecture onthe site supports a strong Middle Bronze presence on Ay. Nikolaos.

THE FINDS

Aside from the nineteenth-century chapel and some evidence of a Classical presence onthe site, the assemblage consists almost exclusively of prehistoric material, among whichthe bulk can be dated to the Middle Bronze Age, although low amounts of earlier and

later material are also present in the surface collection. In addition to pottery, there arechipped stone tools, fragments of ground stone tools, a fragment of bronze tweezers, apiece of bronze wire, a piece of amorphous lead, a fragment of a bronze ingot and arelatively large lump of transparent crystal (i.e. quartz) that possibly exhibits signs ofdeliberate alteration (C. Runnels pers. comm.). Several objects made of ground stonewere also collected by D. Keller; however, larger objects like saddle querns or doorpivot stones were left on the site. Some slag was also found on the main plateau of thesite. The present paper focuses on the pottery and stone tools recovered from thesurface of the site. The chipped and ground stone tools presented in this paper werestudied by Dr Catherine Perls.

The greatest concentration of surface material on Ay. Nikolaos can be found on themain plateau, where it is intermingled with the large amounts of rubble. Outside themain plateau, the archaeological material is densely scattered on the more gentle



9/42

western and southern slopes of the Ay. Nikolaos ridge, which are also intersected by aseries of retaining walls. It is probable, however, that some or most of the materialcurrently found on the slopes was re-deposited there through the action of erosion

from the deposits on the top of the plateau. According to the results of the originalsurvey, the area southeast of the main plateau yielded some quantities of slag, but littleother material. However, our revisitations have failed to discover any significantamounts of slag, and the only sign of ancient presence in the area is a slab of localconglomerate rock of the kind used for typical prehistoric quern stones in the area(Fig. ). This particular specimen, however, most likely had a different purpose, as ithas a relatively deep and narrow, slightly tapering hole located roughly in its middle.This points to its use as a door pivot stone, and it is possible that it was re-depositedat its current location at a later date. The difference between the situation as recordedin the original survey and that visible today can be best explained by the extensive

modifications of the surface in this part of the Ay. Nikolaos hill. The area now has anobvious agricultural use (it had been recently ploughed the last time we visited, in), and several heaps of rocks suggest that the soil had been cleared of obstaclesbeforehand. This may have removed most traces of prehistoric use.

POTTERY CLASSIFICATION

A sample of pottery collected from the surface of Ay. Nikolaos is presented in thecatalogue below. The catalogue illustrates sherds, which are the most diagnosticfinds from Ay. Nikolaos. A total of sherds was collected from the surface of thesite: these are now stored in the Karystos Museum. Most of them are heavily worn,

Fig. . Pivot stone.



10/42

weathered, and undiagnostic, as expected from a surface assemblage. Statistical analysiswas not conducted due to the collection methods, which produced a sample unsuitablefor this type of analysis. During the original survey, there was no systematic collection;only a grab-bag sample was taken from the site. The same method was used duringsubsequent revisitations of the site. Even though some general observations onpercentages of pottery types are presented later on, they should not be consideredindicative of the general situation on the site. The material has been inspected onlymacroscopically, using a geological magnifying lens.

The catalogue of pottery is arranged chronologically. We decided to catalogue theceramic finds according to fabric, combined with ware characteristics (e.g. surfacetreatment, texture, use) and not according to shape, in order to clarify the character ofthe local assemblage. The classification system used here is based on the one developedby Zerner, in which pottery is named and classified according to fabric and clayattributes (Zerner , ). A similar way of forming pottery categories was followedby Wilson (, ) in the analysis of the material from Keos. An additional advantage

of this classification is the potential to categorise all the material, including body sherds.The pottery is further classified according to shape and parts of vessel that arepresented. Items from the catalogue are illustrated with either a photograph ora drawing, and in some cases with both. The catalogue also includes a non-comprehensive list of references and parallels when we were able to find them. Thefunctional and analytical perspectives of the ceramic assemblage are discussed afterwards.

In order to clarify certain aspects of the cataloguing some comments concerning thefabric analysis are in order. We divided the Middle Bronze Age material into three broadcategories, i.e. Karystian, Mainland, and Cycladic wares, according to observations onfabric. The Karystian wares were further divided into three ware categories: plain,

slipped and burnished, and household wares. Mainland wares, as they areconventionally called, which constitute two well-known groups, Matt-Painted and GreyMinyan pottery, are considered as non-local in the assemblage. This decision is basedon observations made while working with prehistoric Karystian pottery from severaldifferent periods, but needs to be supported by petrographical or chemical analysis.The clays available locally in the Karystia never produce the colours of surface and/orbiscuit that are typical of Matt-Painted and Grey Minyan ceramics found at Ay.Nikolaos. Moreover, if inclusions are present in otherwise very well levigated clays ofthe two ware types, they do not belong to the rocks/minerals typically found mixedwith local clays (i.e. quartzite and schist). The Cycladic wares are divided into two

groups according to clay attributes (i.e. presence of sparkling silvery mica, schistflakes), colour, and texture of surface (Davis and Williams , ; Vaughan, ; Vaughan and Williams , ).

The majority of the pottery can be fairly confidently identified as having been madelocally. The fabric has inclusions of local rocks/minerals, and colours of the clay aregenerally light, varying from yellow-red (YR/) to brown-red (.YR/). Non-localpieces can be recognised by either containing inclusions that do not exist in southernEuboea or having a fabric whose composition differs from the norm. Macroscopicdifferentiation between local and other wares is hampered by the fact that southern

The term household is being used here conventionally as a defining term for the category ofcoarse and unslipped vessels, which were probably used for cooking or serving purposes.



11/42

Euboea has a geological composition which is very similar to that of the northernCyclades and eastern Attica. There is some petrographic information concerning southEuboean pottery from the Final Neolithic period, analysed and published by De Paepe() in an attempt to characterise and combine contemporary examples fromKarystos and Thorikos. The results of the analysis of the Karystian examples showedrelative abundance of mineral and rock fragments, while the lithic fraction isdistinctly coarser than the norm (De Paepe , ); these are two of thecharacteristics that are also encountered in the survey material. A large proportion(nearly %) of the local pottery is coarse to very coarse, with tabular-shaped orelongated rock fragments and silver-coloured flakes of mica, schist, and/or quartziteinclusions. Since mica is a common inclusion in the area of Karystos, micaceous waresare not necessarily imported. Nonetheless, highly micaceous examples or sherds withlarge mica platelets are not considered local, mainly due to similarities in fabricconsistency with Cycladic (i.e. Keian) or Aeginetan pottery, respectively. Generally, theuniformity of the Karystian fabric is a determining factor in distinguishing local from

imported wares.

CATALOGUE OF POTTERY

Final Neolithic

Deep bowl (c.)

Small rim fragment; incurving walls, rolled rim to exterior. Fine brown to dark brown (.YR/;YR/ at core), hard fired with few whitish inclusions; slipped and burnished surfaces, somesheen visible externally. Diam. c. cm, preserved H. cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Coleman , pl. .N, O; Wilson , pl. .-.

Scoop (?) (c.) (Fig. )

Handle and body fragment; vertical strap handle, curved walls. Coarse yellowish red mottled(YR/; YR/ at core), unevenly fired with many whitish and yellow-white inclusions,quartz, mica and schist; evened surfaces. Incised decoration of vertically and diagonallyarranged grooves externally. Dimensions . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Sackett et al. , pl. a; Immerwahr , pl. .,

; Coleman , pl. , b, c, g.

Deep bowl (?) (c.) (Fig. )

Part of an elephant lug (?) attached to body. Semi-fine yellowish brown (YR/), hard firedwith some whitish inclusions; hand smoothed. Dimensions . . cm.

Cf. Coleman , pl. B.

Early Bronze Age

Barrel jar (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment of a barrel jar; thickened offset rim, flattened on top, straight conical walls. Coarseyellowish red to brown (YR/ internally; .YR/ externally; YR/ at core), hard fired with



12/42

many whitish inclusions and mica; handmade, evened to smoothed surfaces. Diam. c. cm,preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

Possibly of Cycladic origin.

Cf. Barber , and fig. ..

Deep bowl (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment of a deep bowl; incurving walls, thick T-rim with pointy edges. Semi-fine yellowishred (YR/; YR/ at core), hard fired with whitish inclusions; handmade. Diam. c. cm,preserved H. cm, Th. . to . cm.

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: a, and b.



13/42

Cf. Kunze , fig. b; Caskey and Caskey, , fig. III.; Sampson , fig. .K and fig. .K.

Pyxis (c.) (Fig. )

Body fragment with handle preserved; rounded incurving walls, cylindrical tubular lug verticallypierced, leaves knob-like protrusion on interior. Coarse reddish brown (.YR/), hard firedwith whitish inclusions, some schist and mica also; handmade; red-slipped (.YR/)smoothly burnished exterior. Dimensions . . cm, Th. .. cm.

Cf. Caskey , fig. .B; Wilson , pl. .II-, ; Televantou , fig. ;Rambach (vol. I), pl. VI.T a; Renfrew and Evans , fig. .., .

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: c, d, and .



14/42

Middle Bronze AgeKarystian plain wareCoarse yellow-red (YR/, /, /)

ad Pithos (c. and ) (Figs. )

Four non-joining fragments; concave neck with thickened slightly outturned rim. a, b: rimand neck fragments; rim made by a separate adjoined coil of uneven width. Diam. > cm,

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: , , , and .



15/42

preserved H. a . cm and b . cm, Th. . cm. c, d: parts of neck and shoulder withapplied band around lower neck; band decorated by finger-impressed rope pattern.Dimensions: c. . . cm and d . cm, Th. .. cm. Coarse orange-red buff(YR/), a clean paste with large mostly whitish inclusions, well fired; handmade, interiorcrudely smoothed, partly coil-built construction. Plain.

Cf. Hanschmann and Milojcic , pl. ., pl. . and pl. ., ; Christmann, pl. XIX., fig. .; Wilson , pl. .II-.

Pithos (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment with upper part of cylindrical neck; spreading and thickened rim, flattened ontop, two vertical perforations that run through rim. Coarse yellowish red (YR/; YR/ at

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: , , .



16/42

core), well fired throughout with whitish inclusions; handmade/coil construction; evened,worn surfaces. Diam. > cm, preserved H. ., Th. . cm.

Pithos (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment with upper part of cylindrical neck; spreading and thickened rim, slightlyflattened on top, three vertical perforations that run through rim. Semi-coarse yellowish red(YR/), well fired with whitish inclusions and mica; handmade, evened surface. Diam. cm,preserved H. cm, Th. . cm.

Pithos (c.) (Fig. , )

Rim and neck fragment; spreading and thickened rim, flattened on top, four verticalperforations that run through rim. Coarse yellowish red (YR/), well fired with whitish

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: , , .



17/42

inclusions; handmade, crudely evened and flaking surface. Diam. c. cm, preserved H. cm,Th. . cm.

Coarse light red or red (.YR/, /)

Jar/pithoid jar (c.) (Fig. )

Large base fragment; broad raised ridge at lower body. Coarse light red (.YR/), hard fired withwhitish inclusions; handmade, worn with heavy accretions. Diam. cm, preserved H. . cm.

Semi-fine yellow-red or red (YR/, /, /)

Jar (c.) (Fig. , )

Rim fragment with part of handle preserved; straight rim joined with vertical oval-sectionedhandle, the latter diagonally pierced in two places. Fine to semi-fine reddish yellow ( YR/;YR/ at core) with whitish inclusions and mica; handmade, smoothed surfaces. Diam.c. cm, handle dimensions . cm, preserved H. . cm.

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: , and .



18/42

Jar (c.)

Small rim fragment with part of handle preserved; straight rim joined with vertical oval-sectioned handle, one vertical perforation through handle. Semi-fine reddish yellow (YR/)with whitish inclusions and mica; handmade, evened surfaces. Dimensions . . cm(Diam. unclear).

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Small rim fragment with part of handle preserved; straight rim joined with verticaloval-sectioned handle, which is vertically pierced in one place. Semi-coarse reddish yellow

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (Scale :). Catalogue items: , , and .



19/42

(YR/) with whitish and yellow-white inclusions; handmade, worn surface. Diam. c. cm,handle dimensions . cm.

Fine yellow-red or red (YR/, /, /)

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Large rim, neck and body fragment; mended from eight sherds; flaring thickened square-sectioned rim, tall cylindrical neck, smooth transition from neck to body. Fine reddish

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (photos): Catalogue items: a and b, , , and .



20/42

yellow (YR/), well fired; wheelmade, worn surfaces. Diam. cm, preserved H. c. cm, Th.. cm.

Cf. Demakopoulou and Konsola , fig. .; Davis , pl. .AJ-; Rutter , fig..; Maran a, pl. .; Sampson , figs. ., ..

Jar (c.)

Body fragment with horizontal handle preserved; curved walls, thick handle of circular sectionvertically perforated at both sides. Fine gritty reddish yellow (YR/) with whitish inclusions,hard fired; handmade, smoothed exterior. Dimensions . cm, handle diam. . cm,

Th. . cm.

Cf. Lindblom , fig. ..

Fig. . Catalogued pottery (photos): Catalogue items: , , , , , and .



21/42

Bowl (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment with part of handle preserved; slightly everted rim flattened on top, horizontalhandle of oval section rising above rim. Fine to semi-fine yellowish brown (YR/) withwhitish inclusions; possibly wheelmade, smoothed surface internally/externally. Diam. hard to

measure, preserved H. (with handle) . cm, Th. .

. cm.Cf. Maran a, pl. .; b, pls. . and . .

Bowl (c.)

Rim fragment; straight everted rim, shallow horizontal groove at rimbody transition. Fine red(YR/) with whitish inclusions; possibly wheelmade, worn surface. Diam. hard to measure,preserved H. cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Zerner , fig. ...

Bowl/krater (c.)

Base and lower body fragment; ring-base, convex bottom. Fine yellowish red (YR/); possiblywheelmade, worn surface. Diam. cm, preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Goldman , fig. .; Tzavella-Evjen , pl. , ; Sampson , fig. ..

Lid(?) (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment; thickened, slightly upturned rim, conical body, fragmented perforationabove rim. Fine reddish yellow (YR/) well fired; possibly wheelmade; worn surface. Diam. cm, preserved H. . cm.

Karystian slipped and burnished wareFine/semi-fine yellow-red or red (YR/)

Deep bowl (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment; thickened rounded rim, small part of body preserved. Fine to semi-fine reddishyellow (YR/), hard fired with whitish inclusions and mica; handmade polished surfaces withtraces of yellowish brown slip. Diam. cm, preserved H. cm, Th. .. cm.

Deep bowl (c.) (Fig. , )

Rim fragment; thickened, slightly flattened rim, conical walls. Semi-fine red (.YR/), hard

fired with whitish inclusions; handmade; slipped (YR/) and burnished exterior, mottledand blackened interior. Diam.


22/42

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Goldman , fig. ; Deshayes , fig. , pl.XXXVII (top row in the middle); Sackett et al. , fig. ., pl. a; Zerner , figs.., ., .; Overbeck , pl. . (Group S) and pl. . (Group T).

Bowl (c.) (Fig. )

Part of a vertical strap handle mended from two sherds. Coarse red (.YR/; .YR/ atcore), hard fired with whitish inclusions; handmade, smoothed and slightly polished surface.Incised decoration of shallow grooves forming a vertically arranged herring-bone pattern.Handle dimensions . . cm, preserved H. . cm.

Coarse/semi-coarse yellow-red (YR/, /)

Cooking pot (c.) (Fig. )

Body fragment with vertical handle preserved; part belonging to upper body, two knobs due topushed-in handle visible internally. Semi-fine yellowish red (YR/), hard fired with whitishinclusions; handmade, crudely smoothed exterior. Dimensions . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Caskey , fig. .D, pl. .D; Overbeck , pls. . (Group M), .(Group N), . (Group X), . (Group AX), . (Group CE).

Cooking pot (c.) (Fig. )

Part of foot and lower body; three parallel incised grooves (depth . cm) vertically arranged onfoot. Coarse yellowish red (YR/), hard fired with whitish to yellow-white inclusions andmica; handmade, smoothed surfaces. Dimensions . cm.

Cf. Overbeck , pls. . (Group C), . (Group E).

Matt-painted wareFine yellow-red or brown (.YR/, /; YR/); dark brown paint (YR/)

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Rim and shoulder fragment; offset thick squared-sectioned rim with perforation, flange atinterior lower rim to support lid; fine reddish yellow (.YR/), well fired; possiblywheelmade, smoothed exterior/interior; dark-on-light decoration externally, dark brown(YR/) band around neck, underneath which is a vertically arranged group of diagonaland vertical bands. Diam. cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Caskey , figs. .D and .D (for shape only); Maran a, pl. ..

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Neck and body fragment. Fine reddish yellow (.YR/; YR/ at core), well fired; possiblywheelmade, smoothed. Dark-on-light decoration externally, fugitive dark brown (YR/)band around neck, underneath which is another diagonal (hard to discern). Diam. (neck)c.. cm, preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

We used the ASCSA and BSA Sherd Collections to compare our pottery with sherds fromother Euboean sites. We thank the American School of Classical Studies and the British Schoolat Athens for permission to see relevant material.



23/42

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Two joined body fragments; slightly curved walls belonging to lower body. Fine to semi-fine,pale brown (YR/), medium fired, light paste with small whitish and orange inclusions(possibly sandstone); handmade, smoothed exterior surface, while interior heavily eroded;

dark-on-light decoration externally, horizontal dark brown (YR/) band, on which part ofanother vertical visible (very small part of decoration preserved). Dimensions . . cm,Th. . cm.

Grey Minyan wareFine light grey or grey (Y/, /; YR/, /)

Goblet (c.) (Fig. )

Small rim fragment with part of handle preserved; horizontal loop handle rising above rim. Fine

grey (YR/), well fired; wheelmade. Handle dimensions . . cm, preserved H. . cm(Diam. unclear).

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Sackett et al. , fig. ., pl. a; Overbeck, pls.. (Group X), . (Group BD); Maran a, pls. ., .; Sampson , figs. .,.; Sarri , and pls. .

Footed goblet (c.) (Fig. )

Part of ridged stem; four horizontal ridges preserved, widely spaced. Fine light grey ( Y/),medium fired; wheelmade, of soapy texture. Dimensions . . cm.

Cf. Sarri , and pls. .

Footed goblet (c.)

Part of ridged stem; two horizontal ridges preserved, widely spaced and worn. Fine light grey(Y/), medium fired; wheelmade. Dimensions . . cm.

Cf. Sarri , and pls. .


Part of discoid base and stem; plain(?) flaring stem with smooth ridge at the edge, wide base.Fine light grey (YR/), well fired; wheelmade, striations internally; burnished surface,sheen partly preserved externally. Diam. cm, preserved H. . cm.

Cf. Sackett et al. , fig. .; Caskey, fig. .D; Rutter , fig. ., ;Sampson , fig. ..


Lower body fragment; part where stem was attached, three parallel horizontal ridges preserved.Fine grey (YR/), well fired; wheelmade, smoothed surfaces. Upper stem diam. . cm,preserved H. c. cm, Th. .. cm.

Cf. Sackett et al. , fig. ..

Bass bowl (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment; offset flaring rim, smooth horizontal depression on rimshoulder transition.Fine light grey (Y/), hard fired with darkish inclusions; wheelmade, striations parallel to



24/42

interior rim; burnished surface, dull sheen partly preserved externally. Diam. cm, preservedH. . cm.

Cf. Caskey, figs. .D, D; Zerner , fig. .; Maran a, pls. ., ., .,., ..

Bowl (c.)

Part of discoid base and lower body of a bowl; splayed and hollowed base, no stem. Fine lightgrey (YR/), well fired with whitish inclusions visible in fracture; wheelmade; worn surface,unclear edges. Preserved H. c.. cm; Diam. unclear.

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Lindblom , fig. ..

Cycladic plain wareCoarse yellow-red, brown or red (YR/; .YR/; .YR/)

Pithos (c.) (Fig. , )

Rim fragment; straight offset rim, sharp flange at interior lower rim to support lid, conical wallsas preserved. Coarse red (.YR/; .YR/ at core), hard fired, with whitish inclusions, somequartz and mica; handmade, smoothed but worn surfaces. Diam. c. cm, preserved H. cm,Th. cm.

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Caskey, figs. .D, .D (for the shape); Siedentopf, fig. ..

Pithos (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment; straight offset rim with rounded edge, small ledge at interior angle to support lid,conical walls as preserved. Coarse yellowish red (YR/; .YR/ at core), hard fired, grittywith whitish inclusions and mica; handmade, smoothed surfaces. Diam. cm, preservedH. . cm, Th. cm.

Cf. Caskey , figs. .D, .D (for the shape); Siedentopf , fig. ..

Pithos (c.) (Fig. )

Rim fragment; straight offset rim with rounded lip, sharp flange at interior lower rim to supportlid, straight walls as preserved; part of vertical perforation through rim. Coarse brown (.YR/),hard fired with whitish inclusions, schist and mica; handmade, crudely smoothed surfaces. Diam.

c. cm, preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.Cf. Overbeck , pl. . (Group AE); Siedentopf , fig. . (for the shape); Marana, pl. ..

Pithos (c.) (Fig. )

Body fragment; part of neckshoulder transition decorated with horizontal relief band of ropepattern. Coarse brown (.YR/) with whitish inclusions; handmade, smoothed surfaces.Dimensions . cm, Th. . cm.

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Body fragment with handle preserved; horizontal crescent-shaped handle vertically pierced,broad knobs due to pushed-in handle visible internally. Coarse brown to dark brown mottled



25/42

(.YR/), hard fired with whitish inclusions and schist; handmade, smoothed externally.Dimensions . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Davis , pl. :U-; Maran a, pl. :.

Jar (c.) (Fig. )Rim and neck fragment; flaring rim slightly flattened on top, straight walls. Coarse reddish grey(YR/), hard fired with whitish inclusions and schist; handmade, smoothed surfaces. Diam. cm, preserved H. ., Th. . cm.

Cf. Overbeck, pl. . (Group AC); Barber , fig. ...

Stand(?) (c.) (Fig. )

Base fragment; broad ring-base, flattened interior. Coarse red (.YR/) hard fired withwhitish inclusions and mica, some also gold; dark grey core; handmade, evened surfaces.Diam. < cm, preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

Semi-fine red (.YR/, /)

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Rim and neck fragment; straight rim, slightly splaying on edge. Semi-fine red (.YR/), wellfired with whitish inclusions and schist; handmade, smoothed exterior, worn interior. Stampeddecoration of curved parallel ridges diagonally arranged on interior rim. Diam. c. cm,preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

Jar (c.) (Fig. )

Body fragment with handle preserved; horizontal crescent-shaped handle vertically pierced.Semi-fine light red (.YR/), hard fired with whitish inclusions and grog; handmade,polished exterior surface. Dimensions . . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. BSA Sherd Collection Nea Styra; Davis , pl. .U-; Maran a, pl. .; Lindblom, fig. ..

Non-local plain wareFine brown (YR/)

Krater or deep bowl (c.) (Fig. )Base and lower body fragment mended from four sherds; ring-base, slightly convex bottom.Fine pale brown (YR/), soft fired; wheelmade, very worn surfaces. Diam. . cm,preserved H. cm, Th. .. cm.

Cf. Sackett et al. , fig. .III-; Caskey , fig. .D (for the shape).

Late Bronze Age

Kylix (c.) (Fig. , )

Stem fragment with part of discoid base. Fine brown (.YR/). Diam. stem . cm, preservedH. . cm.



26/42

Kylix (c.) (Fig. )

Stem fragment with part of lower body. Fine reddish yellow (YR/). Diam. stem . cm,preserved H. c. cm.

Kylix (c.)Stem fragment with part of lower body. Fine reddish yellow (.YR/); worn surface. Diam.stem . cm, preserved H. . cm.

Deep bowl or krater (c.) (Fig. )

Rim and body fragment; everted, slightly flattened rim, straight conical walls. Fine reddishyellow (YR/; YR/ at core) with whitish inclusions; wheelmade smoothed surfaces.Diam. c. cm, preserved H. . cm, Th. . cm.

Cf. Caskey , fig. .M.

THE CHARACTER OF THE CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE

From the available evidence it is possible to determine, albeit tentatively, the periods ofthe occupation of the site. Judging from the pottery finds, Ay. Nikolaos was firstoccupied in the Final Neolithic. The Final Neolithic finds are scanty and seem tobelong to the later part of this period, since some of the typical forms common at thenearby site of Kephala on Keos, as well as at other Final Neolithic sites in theKarystia, e.g. cheese-pots, crusted pottery, pattern-burnished decoration, ceramicswith red-slipped and burnished surfaces, are absent from Ay. Nikolaos (Coleman ;

Keller ; Talalayet al. , ). We suggest that the closest chronological parallelsfor the Final Neolithic material should perhaps be sought among Ay. Irini s period Ideposits (Wilson , ). However, the fragment that possibly belongs to a scoop ()finds its parallels at Kephala and not at Ay. Irini (Coleman , , pls. , ).

Many of the Karystian Final Neolithic sites continued to be occupied in the EarlyBronze Age and Ay. Nikolaos seems to follow this pattern (Keller ; , ;Talalayet al. ). Early Bronze pottery is rare among the material collected from Ay.Nikolaos. Ring bases like are found both in Early and Middle Bronze Ageassemblages (Goldman , , fig. .; Tzavella-Evjen , ). The only rimfragment of a barrel jar () is dated either to the last stages of the Early Bronze Age or

to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, corresponding to a pre-Ay. Irini IVbperiod (Overbeck , ). The T-rim bowl () occurs over a broad chronologicalrange from Early Bronze I to advanced Early Bronze II, according to similar findsfrom Eutresis (Caskey and Caskey , , fig. .III.) and Manika (Sampson, , ). belongs to a Cycladic-type pyxis (Rambach [vol. I], pl. VI Ta;Renfrew and Evans , ; Televantou , fig. ), found also in EarlyBronze I and II contexts in Tsepi at Marathon and Loutsa on the eastern coast ofAttica (Efstratiou, Stathi and Mathioudaki ; Pantelidou-Gofa , pls. ., .;, ; Petrakos , fig. ).

The Middle Bronze Age is represented by local pottery and typical Middle Bronzewares: Grey Minyan, Matt-Painted and coarse incised ware. The bulk of the pottery,c.% of the total, consists of local Karystian wares that form a fairly homogenousgroup. Two main categories of plain pottery, a coarser and a finer one, are presented



27/42

in the catalogued material. Coarse to semi-fine fabrics, varying in colour from yellow-redto red (YR/-/-/), were used for pithoid vessels, jars, or deep bowls. To this fabric-based group belongs an interestingly uniform category of large vessels for storage, themain characteristic of which is a row of vertical perforations on a thickened rim ().Multiple perforations occur commonly also on handles of jars, suggesting their possibleuse as sealed containers for goods (). K.D. Vitelli, who examined the perforatedpieces, suggested that the perforations were perhaps used in the drying or firing stageof pottery making (K.D. Vitelli pers. comm.). Such perforations can be traced back atleast to Neolithic times, as attested at Kephala (Coleman , pl. P, R). Theperforated handles () belong possibly to oval-mouthed jars like those produced incoarse red fabrics in Ay. Irini periods IV and V (Davis , pl. .AA-; Overbeck, , pl. . [Group AB]). The only example of a similar vessel from Euboeacomes from Manika and bears perforations of the same type ( ASCSA Sherd Collection:Drawer no. , Box C). To the same fabric group belong four fragments of a largepithos with plastic rope band on the neckshoulder transition (ad). Pithoid vessels

decorated in a similar way are commonly found in Euboean sites such as Amarynthos-Palaiochora, Asmyni-Divouni, and Porto Kastri (ASCSA Sherd Collection: Drawer no., Box C, Drawer no. , Box C and Drawer no. , Box C, respectively).Numerous examples are also encountered in other central Greek sites, such as theAthenian Acropolis (Hansen , and fig. f), and this type of decoration onpithoid vessels and large bowls is common in Middle Bronze Thessaly as well, both atArgissa-Magoula and Pefkakia (Hanschmann and Milojcic , pls. ., . and., ; Maran a, pls. ., ., ..). The dating of our piece isuncertain, since plastic rope decoration was used from at least the Final Neolithicthrough the Late Bronze periods and later (for Early Bronze Age examples see: Kunze

, , pl. XXXIII.; Tzavella-Evjen , pl. a; Wilson , pl. .II-. ForLate Bronze examples see Maran b, pls. ., . (LH I)).

Crescent handles on jars or pithoid vessels also make their appearance in the coarsematerial of Ay. Nikolaos, in both local and non-local fabrics (e.g. ). On Euboea,crescent handles frequently appear at Manika and Nea Styra ( ASCSA Sherd Collection:Drawer no. , Box C and BSA Sherd Collection, respectively). Jars with crescenthandles are also common at Plaka, the Middle Bronze site of Andros (Televantou, , figs. ), and at Ay. Irini periods IV and V (Davis , pl. .U-;Overbeck, pl. . [Group AB]).

The second category of plain wares is characterised by finer fabrics, again yellow-red

to red in colour and in the form of small to medium-sized bowls or jars (). Theexterior surface is smoothed with a slight burnish in a few cases. Of special interest

is the jar (), representing a clearly defined Euboean ware category of wheelmade,light-coloured vessels that appear in advanced Middle Bronze (or Late Helladic I)phases. This category of pottery is especially common at Kalogerovrysi and Pefkakia(Maran a, , no. and ; , ; Sampson , ). The sitesprovide exact parallels to in shape and fabric and are broadly assigned to the lateMiddle Bronze Age (Maran a, pl. .; Sampson , figs. ., .).

Among Grey Minyan forms, the one almost exclusively present is the stemmed gobletwith both plain and ridged stems (). The goblets are all of the well-developedangular types that are common in the developed and final Middle Bronze stages(Dickinson , ). is more probably a Bass bowl, like bowl of type EI fromPefkakia, that has a long life-span there, covering phases to Middle (Maran a,



28/42

pls. ., ., . and .). The so-called Bass bowl is also common in Lefkandiphase (Popham and Sackett , ) and Keos (Caskey , , fig. .D,D), appearing usually in dark burnished wares. , a goblet with tall horizontalloop handles, is a common central Greek shape of the mature Minyan phase, likethose from Pefkakia (Maran a, pls. . , .) or Keos (Overbeck , , pl.. [Group X], , pl. . [Group BD]; Overbeck , , , fig. .BD-,BD-), present in phases to Middle and Ay. Irini IVa-b, respectively. This type ofgoblet, related to the later Pteleos-type goblets (Pavuk , fig. .), appearsalso at other Euboean sites like Yialtra, Nea Styra, and Kalogerovrysi (Sackett et al., fig. . and pl. a; Sampson , figs. ., .). Howellattributes the abundance of Grey Minyan pottery at Euboean sites such as Aliveri andNea Styra, and the variation of fabric characteristics among them, to their localproduction (Sackett et al. , , ). The same is suggested by Sampson for theGrey Minyan pottery of Kalogerovrysi (Sampson , ). The Karystian examples,however, do not seem local. Their origin could be one of the Euboean centres such as

Lefkandi or Manika. The abundance and excellent quality of Minyan vessels atManika, according to Theocharis reports, suggest that the region of the Euripos was acentre of production (Theocharis , , ).

Only three sherds of large jars or pithoid vessels bearing Matt-Painted decoration werefound at Ay. Nikolaos. The profile of is not found among known Aeginetan examples.It resembles rim profiles of central and northern Greek pithoi like those from Pefkakia(Maran a, pl. .). The curved profile of the upper body is a chronologicallyearly element. At Ay. Irini similar profiles of pithoi appear in early Middle Bronze redburnished ware (Caskey , figs. .D, .D). The profile and fineness of arereminiscent of Siedentopfs nos. and (Siedentopf , pls. and ,

respectively), except that the clay is not Aeginetan. Both sherds lack gold mica (biotite as opposed to muscovite), and are lighter in weight than, and different in texturefrom, the Aeginetan Matt-Painted pottery.

Coarse incised ware, common in Middle Bronze assemblages, is also attested at Ay.Nikolaos by a large, possibly one-handled bowl and a strap handle that belongs toanother vessel of the same type (). Both pieces are treated here as a variety oflocal household or cooking pottery, and stand among the very few examples of incisedware of this period on Euboea. Nea Styra and Amarynthos are two other Euboeansites where the ware is attested (Sackett et al. , , , fig. ., pl. a).Coarse incised pottery is present at Ay. Irini on Keos (Overbeck , pls. .

[Group S] and . [Group T]), Eutresis (Goldman , fig. .

), theAspis at Argos (Deshayes , fig. [upper row in the middle], pl. XXXVII;Touchais , fig. ., ), and Lerna (Zerner , , and , figs.., . and .), among others. Two other pieces of local household ware, apushed-in handle of a jar and part of a foot (), belong to cooking pots. hasmany parallels among large household vessels from Ay. Irini (Caskey , pl. .Dand fig. .D). Coarse wide-mouthed jars, functioning as cooking pots, are commonin the shape repertoire of the early Middle Bronze Age and continued to be in use fora long time, since later they become the well-known pedestalled and more delicatecooking jars of the late Middle Bronze and Late Bronze I periods (Rutter , figs.., .; Rutter , fig. ). The early Middle Bronze type, represented byour , is commonly attested in the two earliest phases of Ay. Irini IV in coarse darkred-brown to grey fabrics (Overbeck , , pls. . [Group M], . [Group



29/42

N], . [Group X], . [Group AX], . [Group CE]). , a foot of a cooking potthat bears three deep parallel incisions, also has its parallels among Keian examples of Ay.Irini IVb period (Overbeck, , pl. . [Group C], . [Group E]; both pieceshave two vertical slashes at the top of their external surface). The link with Keos, as far asthis cooking pot type is concerned, is reinforced by the presence of similar fragments withdeep vertical slashes in the survey material of northern Keos (Cherry, Davis andMantzourani , ).

Imported coarse to semi-fine wares of Cycladic origin constitute c.% of the totalassemblage. belong to the category of Cycladic plain wares, which is furtherdivided into two groups according to the colour of the clay. The majority of the sherdsare of coarse yellow-red, brown, or red fabric with many whitish inclusions (quartz orquartzite schist), and a lot of mica grits. Large or medium-sized vessels dominate thepottery assemblage. Some of them may be of northern or central Cycladic provenance.The fabric corresponds in most cases to that of Keian semi-fine to coarse red-brownware defined in the Early Bronze Age pottery assemblages (Wilson , ). The

Keian provenance is further supported by the similarity of the fabric composition to thatof the majority of the sherds collected during the survey of northern Keos (Cherry,Davis and Mantzourani , ). Cycladic pithoid vessels are encountered in limitedquantities, mostly distinguished by offset perforated or unperforated rims with interiorflanges (). Pithoi or pithoid jars of this type have many parallels in the redburnished wares of Keos IV, and in the survey material of northern Keos, a fact thatsuggests a Cycladic origin for our pieces (Caskey , fig. .D and fig. .D; Overbeck , , pl. . a [Group AE]; Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani , fig. .b.-, OS-). Rim fragments that belong to similar vessels have been foundat Nea Styra (BSA Sherd Collection). Large storage vessels with crescent-shaped handles

and restricted necks of Cycladic type are also present ( and ). An interestingfragment of possible Cycladic origin is , which belongs to a jar with stampeddecoration on its rim. Stamped decoration is commonly attested on rims of EarlyBronze Age bowls (Tzavella-Evjen , type B bowls, fig. , , , , , pl. ;Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani , fig. -). An almost identical fragmentdecorated in such a manner comes from Pefkakia and is dated to the transitionalEarly Bronze to Middle Bronze period (Maran a, pl. .). Nevertheless, the piecefrom Pefkakia is a bowl, while the Karystian fragment may belong to a closed vessel.Of particular interest and definite Cycladic origin is , a possible fragment of astand, whose red, highly micaceous fabric points to central Cycladic parallels (e.g. to

Naxos or Ios).Finally, our scanty Late Bronze fragments are limited to three kylix stems and one rimfragment of a deep bowl or krater (). The kylix stems cover the periods of LateHelladic IIB to Late Helladic IIIA according to the height of the stem. is moreprobably a krater, as is indicated by an exact parallel from Keos (Caskey , fig..M).

The difficulties occurring when trying to date survey material are well known andthoroughly treated elsewhere (Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani , ; Keller andRupp ). We tried to date the material more precisely, rather than just assigning itto a general chronological frame. If Sampsons (, ) proposition that underpresent circumstances a bipartite division of the MBA Euboea is possible proves valid,the majority of the Middle Bronze material from Ay. Nikolaos should be dated to thesecond half of the period (Middle Helladic II and onwards). Nevertheless, coarse



30/42

incised wares () are most common in earlier assemblages, as indicated by Keianincised wide-mouthed jars assigned to Ay. Irini phase IVb (Overbeck , pl.. [Group C] and pl. .[Group E]). Also, sherds of coarse incised andusually burnished ware appear regularly in deposits of late Lerna IV (House D) andconstitute a common feature of Early Helladic as well as Middle Helladic deposits(Zerner , and figs. ., . and .). Grey Minyan goblet stems likeour and are dated in the advanced Middle Bronze Age (Sarri , and pls.) and the same goes for goblets with horizontal loop handles () (Sarri , and pls. ). The local slipped and burnished ware () should be dated to thestage subsequent to Lerna IV-V and VA as indicated by the absence of similar profilesin both phases. Plain burnished wares have a long duration in northern Keos, but aremost characteristic of Ay. Irini phase IV (Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani , ).

STONE TOOLS (BY CATHERINE PERLS) (Table )

The lithic assemblage from Ay. Nikolaos shows a sharp contrast between casuallyproduced flakes of flint and obsidian, sometimes cortical, and very rare pressure-flakedobsidian bladelets. It is characterised by the use of a hard hammer for the removal ofthe flakes as well as the frequent use of bipolar flaking, resulting in numerous pieces ofdebris and splinters (Fig. ., , ). The absence of rectilinear ridges on the fewelongated pieces (bladelets and blades) indicates that they too are by-products of aflake production (Fig. .). Overall the workmanship shows ample evidence ofunskilled work: several flakes present traces of failed removal attempts due to

inadequately controlled percussion. The only obsidian core shows no preparation andthe simple removal of a small series of flakes on one face. The last removal presents ahinged fracture, after which the core was abandoned (Fig. .). A fragmentary flatflint flake core, with centripetal removals (Fig. .), as well as a fragmentary jasperflake, indicates that flint or jasper was also worked locally for a flake production. Thesmall flakes detached from the flint core could easily have gone unnoticed during asurvey, which may explain why they are absent from the collection. There are noretouched pieces in either flint or obsidian, and, chronologically speaking, thisassemblage is by itself completely undiagnostic.

Table . Chipped stone assemblage from c (Ay. Nikolaos). (Author: C. Perls.)

Flint Jasper Obsidian

Cores Debris, splinter, small flake fragments Fragmentary flakes, cortical Fragmentary flakes, non-cortical Pseudo-bladelet Irregular bladelet Irregular blade

Pressure-flaked bladelet Pressure-flaked blade



31/42

The rare pressure-flaked unretouched obsidian bladelets (Fig. .), as well as a bladethat removed a superb pyramidion from a pressure-flaked conical core, typical of theBronze Age (Fig. . ), come as a sharp contrast. Given the complete absence oftechnical pieces relating to a pressure blade/bladelet reducing sequence, it can besurmised that these pieces were not produced locally. However, the pyramidion blade,

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. Chipped stone tools.



32/42

which recalls Bronze Age Cycladic cores (Carter ; Torrence ), is absolutelyfresh, whereas all the other pieces are heavily patinated. This suggests that some of theoriginal settlement is still buried, and opens up the possibility of an earlier (EarlyBronze Age) component.

Whatever the case, we are clearly dealing with two distinct productions: a local,unskilled production working on small fragments of flint and obsidian, and rare piecesimported as finished products from highly skilled producers. If the respectiveproportions can be relied upon in a surface assemblage, access to these specialisedproducts was restricted. This opposition between specialised and domestic productionsis not specific to sites located far from the sources: it was also documented by Carter() on Milos itself. On the other hand, the inhabitants from Ay. Nikolaos did haveaccess to some obsidian, and, in this case, it could not be found locally. The presenceof cortical flakes suggests that they had access either to raw material or possibly tolarge cortical preparation flakes discarded from specialised workshops, as exemplifiedby Manika in Euboea itself for the Early Bronze Age (Karabatsoli ).

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. Polished celt.

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. Ground stone tool.



33/42

The chipped stone assemblage is accompanied by a fine polished celt (Fig. ) of lightgreenstone (possibly serpentinite), of small size (c. cm). It is triangular in shape, andalmost as wide as it is long; in plane, the cutting edge is convex and slightlyasymmetrical. The section is biconvex with asymmetrical faces, but the cutting edgeitself is straight (this piece was discovered after the study of stone tools was completed,and is here described from photographs).

Finally, ground stone implements are represented by three pieces: a natural beachpebble, possibly marble, with traces of percussion on both ends (Fig. ); afragmentary handstone of a light conglomerate shaped by pecking, of quadrangular





34/42

section, used on at least one surface (Fig. ); and another handstone also manufacturedby pecking, made, in contrast, of a very dense, unidentified rock. It has a circular shapeand a parallelepipedic section with convex sides. Both flat surfaces were used (Fig. ).

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF AY. NIKOLAOS AND ITS PLACE IN THEPREHISTORIC KARYSTIA

It is difficult to say at present if the habitation at Ay. Nikolaos was continuous overthe entire duration of the periods that are represented by the archaeological materialon the site. The Final NeolithicEarly Bronze Age transition in Greece is poorlydocumented as it is and, with the small amount of Final Neolithic pottery we havefrom Ay. Nikolaos, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the nature, extent,and duration of the Final Neolithic use/habitation of the location. From the Karystia as

a whole, however, there is strong evidence for Final Neolithic habitation. The types ofsites dated to the Final Neolithic period range from simple restricted sherd/obsidianscatters to possible fortified sites (e.g. Akri Rozos [Cullen et al. forthcoming]).Unfortunately, only one of the Final Neolithic sites, Plakari, has been excavated thusfar (Cullen et al. forthcoming; Talalay et al. ); despite the very limited size of theexcavation, it yielded fairly large amounts of pottery, most of which has affinities withthe Final Neolithic material found on Kephala on Keos and other contemporary sitesin Attica (e.g. the Agora at Athens [Immerwahr ] and Kitsos Cave [Lambert]). This firmly places at least some of the Final Neolithic sites from the Karystiainto the AtticaKephala cultural circle. The possible scoop () stands as another, albeit

isolated, piece of evidence for the link among sites in the broader region, since thisshape has been found on Kephala, Thorikos, Plakari, Ay. Triadha, and now Ay.Nikolaos of Karystos (Coleman , ; Keller ). Andros also played animportant role as a step to Euboea and Attica, probably as early as Final Neolithictimes, according to analogies in the material evidence of Mikrogiali, a northern sitepurportedly accessible only by sea (Televantou , , ; , ), and Strofilas,a large fortified Final Neolithic settlement (Televantou ).

This may have had something to do with the role that the inhabitants of southernEuboea probably played in the initial population of at least the very northern part ofthe Cyclades (e.g. Andros and Keos), as it is possible that the earliest evidence for

human habitation in the region that includes not only southern Euboea, but Androsand Keos as well, comes from a site in the Karystia the Ayia Triadha Cave (Keller, ; Mavridis and Tankosic ; Sampson , ). During the limitedexcavation conducted in the cave in the joint team from the Ephorate forPaleoanthropology and Speleology of Southern Greece and SEEP recovered potterydated to the very end of the Late Neolithic or the Late NeolithicFinal Neolithictransitional period. However, it is hard to say, solely on the basis of the surveyevidence currently available to us, whether Ay. Nikolaos was a part of this interaction.

The Early Bronze finds are also inconclusive, because they are too few andundiagnostic to allow any degree of certainty. Other Early Bronze settlements of theKarystia are mainly on, or very near, the coast, and at least the larger ones (AyiaPelagia, Ayios Georgios and Akri Rozos), like their Final Neolithic predecessors, showindications of involvement and participation in the Aegean communication networks of



35/42

the Early Bronze II period in the form of Cycladic imports and shared material culturewith neighbouring areas (Keller , passim; Papageorgiou , ). As is true of thematerial from Ay. Irini phases II and III (Wilson , ), the pottery from theKarystian sites that can be dated to the Early Bronze Age exhibits both mainland andCycladic traits, with the former being more prevalent.

At some point in the Middle Bronze Age only one of the Early Bronze sites wasreoccupied, if indeed it had ever been permanently abandoned (Keller , ). Thissettlement, Ay. Nikolaos, was located far away from the sea (unlike the Final Neolithicand Early Bronze centres such as Plakari, Ay. Pelagia, and Akri Rozos), in an easilydefendable location, and with material culture that generally exhibits mainland MiddleHelladic features, although contacts with the Cyclades, even if indirect, were mostlikely never completely abandoned. It seems that the people of Middle Bronze Ay.Nikolaos were looking towards the mainland for their cultural identity, judging at leastby its material expressions. This can mean one of two things: either that a newpopulation entered the area, or that there was a radical change of the socioeconomic

conditions in the area that could, in turn, have influenced the identity and/or culturalorientation of the population already inhabiting it. If the latter, then it seems possiblethat its causes reach back to the end of Early Bronze II and the disruptions thathappened then (e.g. Angelopoulou ; Rutter ; Sotirakopoulou ).

Keller (, ) stressed the possibility of a nucleation in Middle Bronze southernEuboea, a thought that is supported in Forsns detailed study of the period in the widerGreek context (Forsn , ). We are not able at the present stage of research togive a proper answer to the question of nucleation, although survey evidence points inthat direction. An alternative or even a complementary explanation to nucleation ispopulation decrease. This depopulation would not have been a rapid process, although

it may seem so, since the time period that separates the end of Early Bronze II and thebeginning of the Middle Bronze Age is at least years (Rutter , table ;Shelmerdine , fig. .). We should also bear in mind that we are discussingrelatively small populations, perhaps not more than people for the whole of thesouthern Karystia at any given time during the Early Bronze Age (Broodbank ,). In this period the area seems to have seen the highest population numbers ofall prehistoric periods, at least judging by the number and the size of the located sites(Keller ; Talalay et al. ; Tankosic ). Regardless of the exact cause of thedevelopments that reduced at least fifteen Early Bronze sites to only one MiddleBronze site, they are not unique to this part of Greece. In fact, a reduction of the

number of settlements, whether because of nucleation or depopulation or both, ischaracteristic of the beginning and early stages of the Middle Bronze periodthroughout central and southern mainland Greece (e.g. Rutter ). Be that as itmay, the different character of the location of Ay. Nikolaos in comparison to that ofthe earlier settlements supports the argument for an imposed, possibly external, factorthat acted as at least one instigator of radical changes. Among other things, the site ofAy. Nikolaos was obviously chosen for security reasons and defence purposes (Forsn, ).

Broodbanks population estimates are directly pertinent to the Cycladic islands during the

Early Bronze period. Nonetheless, we believe that they are generally, albeit cautiously, applicableto southern Euboea due to its evident Cycladic orientation during the same prehistoric period aswell as its general Cycladic-like appearance and resource base.



36/42

The survey finds, although inconclusive, suggest that the Middle Bronze community

using Ay. Nikolaos was mostly self-sufficient, with occasional contacts with the rest of theAegean world the northern Cyclades and east Attica in particular. The number ofidentifiable imports is indicative of the latter. There was at least some storage of goodsat the site, to judge by the amount of sherds belonging to large vessels that constitutesc.% of the total, while cooking and serving pots account for % and %respectively. Nevertheless, the above estimates are preliminary, since the identificationof the function of ceramic vessels is mainly based on technological variablesinsufficiently defined for the moment (Mills , ).

Besides defence, the position of the site is well suited for agriculture, since it is locatedin the vicinity of perennial water flows and has relatively easy access to arable land at thefoot of the hill as well as on the terraced slopes (Keller , ). The chipped stonetools were produced locally, although, obviously, obsidian procurement had to be donethrough contact with outsiders. C. Perls argues that the chipped stone objects are ofpoor craftsmanship and may be generally dated to the Middle Bronze Age, althoughvery few of them are diagnostic. This points to local production of a utilitarian nature.One spindle whorl testifies, rather poorly, to the existence of textile production on thesite. The settlement might have been self-sufficient in metallurgical products as well(but not in the raw materials needed for their production), although the question ofon-site metallurgy during the Middle Bronze Age remains open. The slag found on orin the vicinity of what was most likely the centre of the site, as well as a fragment of abronze ingot and a very rare example of a swage block (Keller , ), suggests

that the Bronze Age inhabitants of Ay. Nikolaos were engaged in metallurgy (Fig. ).How to date these activities is somewhat problematic. The only datable metallurgy-related object from the site is the swage block. Its only analogies, distant at that,come mostly from Late Bronze Age contexts. However, we are uncertain that theinterpretation of this artefact as a swage block is the most correct one. Other examplesof swage blocks from the Aegean Bronze Age, whether made of metal or stone, aremuch more complex than the Ay. Nikolaos piece (Schliemann , nos.

Fig. . Ay. Nikolaos. Swage block (Scale :.).

Caution is needed here since large vessels usually fracture in large pieces, which are in turn

more easily spotted on the surface. Thus, a degree of bias can be introduced into the relativenumbers of pottery types, especially where non-systematic collection methods were employedduring the survey.



37/42

and ; Bosanquet and Dawkins , fig. ; Bass , fig. .).Furthermore, they are made of sturdier material, which is essential for that type of toolas it is constantly exposed to high pressure, forceful striking, and continually hightemperatures. The schist, which the Ay. Nikolaos example is made of, is too friable tobe used for those purposes and it tends to flake even under slight pressure. Analternative explanation for this artefact could be its use as a so-called arrow-straightener, a type of object known from Aegean contexts of similar and later datebut also well attested in the ethnographic record worldwide. These artefacts were mostlikely used to make or maintain the shafts of arrows. The fragmented tweezers(Fig. ) and the fragment of a bronze ingot (Keller , ) (Fig. ) are nomore helpful in shedding light on Ay. Nikolaos metallurgical activities. Tweezers ofthis type are hard to date. The Ay. Nikolaos example belongs to Branigans type II(Branigan , pl. ), which is common in the Aegean during both Early andMiddle Bronze Age, probably due to its simplicity. As for the ingot fragment, its verynature suggests on-site smelting. Keller classifies it as part of a Kissenbarren ingot,

which can be dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Keller , ), although the smallsize of the fragment prevents precise identification. This notwithstanding, we believe itis far-fetched to base Karystian indigenous metallurgy solely on one possible ingotfragment. It seems probable that a more substantiated answer to the question of theplausible Middle Bronze Age metallurgy at Ay. Nikolaos and in the Karystia in generalwill not be forthcoming without an excavation.

Finally, material datable to the Late Bronze Age is conspicuously absent fromsouthern Euboea. The only physical remains of Mycenaean Karystos, which ismentioned by Homer and probably referred to in a Linear B tablet from Thebes as ka-ru-to (Aravantinos ), are four fragments of kylix stems and the rim of a krater.

There are very few other traces of Late Bronze Age presence in southern Euboea. Thepossibility remains that more substantial remains of the Late Bronze Age wereobliterated by subsequent activity in the area or that they have yet to be found.

The Late Bronze Age, if we accept the now tenuous claim that the Homeric epics referto this age, is the time when the Karystia, albeit very hazily, emerges from prehistory.Three locations in southern Euboea are mentioned by Homer in the Iliad and theOdyssey: Karystos (Iliad ii.), Styra (Iliad ii.), and Geraistos (Odyssey iii.). Asmentioned above, besides Homer, another piece of written evidence for Late BronzeAge Karystos is its mention on a Linear B sealing from ancient Thebes. Karystos ismentioned there in the form of ka-ru-to, and Aravantinos () is certain it refers to

Euboean Karystos, because another town on Euboea, Amarynthos, is mentioned onanother sealing from the same group.Evidently, the Late Bronze Karystia left some mark in the evidence pertinent to the

period. How can we then explain the absence of more substantial Late Bronze Agearchaeological remains? Notwithstanding the unlikely possibility that the Late Bronzematerial evidence was completely obliterated by subsequent processes, we think thatthe explanation perhaps lies in the change of perspective more than in anything else.The solution to our mystery of missing Mycenaeans might be in changing the way welook at communities in the Late Bronze Age. As Canuto and Yaeger (, passim)have shown, communities are not necessarily site-based entities and they need notcontain a central, archaeologically easily recognisable settlement within their territoryto be defined as such. At the most basic level communities can be simply defined asgroups of people whose members consider themselves as part of such sociopolitical,



38/42


39/42

CONCLUSIONS

The principal goals of this paper were to put the Karystia on the map of Middle BronzeAge Greece by presenting the surface pottery and other finds from the site of Ay.

Nikolaos, and to examine the position of Ay. Nikolaos within the Karystian prehistoricsequence. As evident from the data, Ay. Nikolaos is a diachronic site with a significantMiddle Bronze component. It is so far the only location in southern Euboea whereMiddle Bronze and Late Bronze material has been recorded. As such, the site has anenormous potential to shed light on the later prehistoric sequence in southern Euboea,which is, recent advances notwithstanding, still insufficiently understood. We havetried to put forward some ideas about the prehistoric periods in the area, which shouldat this time be regarded more as hypotheses in need of testing than as properexplanations. Despite the wealth of data streaming from the persistent and ongoingarchaeological work in the area, the complete picture of Karystian prehistory will be

hard to reconstruct without the excavation of Ay. Nikolaos.

[email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Angelopoulou, A. . The Kastri Group:Evidence from Korfari ton Amygdalion(Panormos) Naxos, Dhaskalio Keros and

Akrotiri Thera, in Brodie, N., Dole, J.,Gavalas, G., and Renfrew, C. (eds),

Horizon: A Colloquium on the Prehistory ofthe Cyclades (Cambridge), .

Aravantinos, V.L. . Mycenaean placenames from Thebes: The new evidence,in Killen, J.T., Melena, J.L. and Olivier, J.-P. (eds), Studies in Mycenaean andClassical Greek Presented to John Chadwick(Minos XXXXII), .

Barber, R.L.N. . The Middle Cycladicpottery, in Renfrew, A.C. (ed.), Excavationsat Phylakopi in Melos (British Schoolat Athens supp. vol. ), .

Barber, R.L.N. . Unpublished potteryfrom Phylakopi, Annual of the BritishSchool at Athens , .

Barber, R.L.N. and MacGillivray, J.A. .The Early Cycladic period: Matters ofdefinition and terminology, American

Journal of Archaeology(), .Bass, G. . Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age

Shipwreck (Transactions of the AmericanPhilosophical Society ).

Bosanquet, R. and Dawkins, R. .

Palaikastro (British School at Athens supp.vol. ).

Branigan, K. . Aegean Metalwork of theEarly and Middle Bronze Age (Oxford).

Broodbank, C. . An Island Archaeology of

the Early Cyclades (Cambridge).Calligas, P.C. . Euboea and theCyclades, in Fitton, J.L. (ed.), Cycladica:Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris.Proceedings of the seventh British MuseumClassical Colloquium (London), .

Canuto, M.A. and Yaeger, J. (eds) . The Archaeology of Communities: A New WorldPerspective (New York).

Carter, T. . The theatrics of technology:Consuming obsidian in the early Cycladicburial arena, Archaeological Papers of the

American Anthropological Association .,.

Caskey, J.L. . Investigations in Keos, part I:Excavations and explorations, ,Hesperia , .

Caskey, J.L. . Investigations in Keos, partII: A conspectus of the pottery, Hesperia, .

Caskey, J.L. . Ayia Irini, Keos: Thesuccessive periods of occupation,

American Journal of Archaeology, .Caskey, J.L. and Caskey, E.G. . The

earliest settlements at Eutresis:

Supplementary excavations, ,Hesperia , .



40/42


41/42

Maran, J. . Kulturwandelauf dem griechischen Festland und den Kykladen im spten . Jahrtausend v. Chr., Teil I and II,Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischenArchologie Band (Bonn).

Mavridis, F. and Tankosi

c,

. .

The AyiaTriadha cave, southern Euboea: Findsand implications of the earliest humanhabitation in the area (a preliminaryreport), Mediterranean Archaeology and

Archaeometry(), .Mills, B.J. . Integrating functional

analyses of vessels and sherds throughmodels of ceramic assemblage formation,World Archaeology (), .

Overbeck, J.C. . The hub of commerce:Keos and Middle Helladic Greece, TempleUniversity Aegean Symposium , .

Overbeck, J.C. . Keos VIII , Ayia Irini:Period IV(Mainz).

Overbeck, J.C. . The Middle Bronze Agesequences of Kea and Aegina, in Felten,F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R. (eds),

Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms(Vienna), .

Pantelidou-Gofa, M. . T . w (Athens).

Pantelidou-Gofa, M. . The EH I Depositat Tsepi, Marathon: Features, formationand the breakage of the finds, in Renfrew,

A.C., Brodie, N., Gavalas, G. and Doole, J.(eds), Horizon. A Colloquium on thePrehistoryof the Cyclades(Cambridge), .

Papageorgiou, D. . Sea routes in theprehistoric Cyclades, in Renfrew, A.C.,Brodie, N., Gavalas, G. and Doole, J. (eds),Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of theCyclades (Cambridge), .

Pavuk, P. . Troia VI and VIIa. TheBlegen pottery shapes: Towards atypology, Studia Troica , .

Petrakos, B.C. .

(Athens).Popham, M.R., and Sackett, L.H. (eds) .

Excavations at Lefkandi, Euboea : APreliminary Report (London).

Rambach, J. . Kykladen I-II. Die frheBronzezeit. : Grab- und Siedlungsbefunde.: Frhbronzezeitliche Beigabensittenkreiseauf den Kykladen, relative Chronologie undVerbreitung(Bonn).

Renfrew, C. and Evans, R.K. . The EarlyBronze Age pottery, in Renfrew, A.C.(ed.), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (British School at Athens supp.vol. ), .

Rice, P.M. . Rethinking the wareconcept, American Antiquity , .

Rutter, J.B. . Ceramic Change in the AegeanEarly Bronze Age: The Kastri Group,Lefkandi I, and Lerna IV: A Theory

Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic IIICeramics (Occasional Paper No. ,Institute of Archaeology, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles).

Rutter, J.B. . Some observations on theCyclades in the later third and earlysecond millennia, American Journal of

Archaeology, .Rutter, J.B. . The Early Cycladic III

Gap: What it is and how to go about fillingit without making it go away, inMacGillivray and Barber (eds) , .

Rutter, J.B. . Some comments on thenature and significance of the ceramictransition from Early Helladic III toMiddle Helladic, HYDRA , .

Rutter, J.B. . A ceramic definition of LateHelladic I from Tsoungiza, HYDRA ,.

Rutter, J.B. . Pottery groups of the end ofthe Middle Bronze Age from Tsoungiza,Hesperia , .

Rutter, J.B. . Review of Aegean prehistoryII: The prepalatial Bronze Age of thesouthern and central Greek mainland,

American Journal of Archaeology, .Rutter, J.B. . Lerna III, The Pottery of LernaIV (Princeton, New Jersey).

Sackett, L.H., Hankey, V., Howell, R.J.,Jacobsen, T.W. and Popham, M.R. .Prehistoric Euboea: Contributions towarda survey, Annual of the British School at

Athens , .Sampson, A. .

(thens).Sampson, A. . Manika I (Athens).Sampson, A. .

(thens).Sampson, A. . , thensnnals of rchaeology, .

Sampson, A. . . (thens).

Sarri, K. . Orchomenos IV, Orchomenos inder mittleren Bronzezeit (Munich).

Schliemann, H. . Ilios (London).Shelmerdine, C.W. (ed.) . The Cambridge

Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age(Cambridge).



42/42

Siedentopf, H.B. . Alt-gina vol. IV.: Mattbemalte Keramik der mittlerenBronzezeit(Mainz).

Sotirakopoulou, P. . The chronology ofthe Kastri Group reconsidered, Annual

of the British School at Athens ,

.Talalay, L.E., Cullen, T., Keller, D.R. andKarimali, E. . Prehistoric occupationin southern Euboea: An overview, inKennell, N.M. and Tomlinson, J.E. (eds),

Ancient Greece at the Turn of the Millennium: Recent Work and FuturePerspectives (Athens), .

Tankosic, . . The Karystian Kampossurvey project: Results of the fieldworkfrom the seasons of and (paper presented at American Institute ofArchaeology Meetings, Chicago ).

Televantou,C.A. .,, , .

Televantou, C.A. . . O, in Marthari, M.E. (ed.), TheEarly Bronze Age in the Cyclades in the Light ofrecent Research at Settlement Sites. Proceedingsof a one-day colloquium, Hermoupolis, Syros(Hermoupolis, Syros), .

Televantou, C.A. . Strofilas: A Neolithicsettlement on Andros, in Renfrew, A.C.,Brodie, N., Gavalas, G. and Doole, J. (eds),

Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of theCyclades (Cambridge), .

Theocharis, D.R. . , w, w, Part , .

Televantou, C.A. . , , .

Torrence, R. . A technological approachto Cycladic blade industries, in Davis, J.L. and Cherry, J.F. (eds), Papers inCycladic Prehistory (Los Angeles), .

Touchais, G. . Coarse ware from theMiddle Helladic settlement of Aspis,Argos: Local production and imports, inFelten, F., Gauss, W. and Smetana, R.(eds), Middle Helladic Pottery and

Synchronisms (Vienna),

.Tzavella-Evjen, H. . , Publicationsof the ArchDelt no. (thens).

Vaughan, S.J. . Petrographic analysis ofthe early Cycladic wares from Akrotiri,Thera, in Hardy, D.A., Doumas, C.G.,Sakellarakis, J.A. and Warren, P.M. (eds),Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. :

Archaeology. Proceedings of the ThirdInternational Congress, Santorini, Greece, September (London), .

Vaughan, S.J. and Williams, D. . Thepottery fabrics, in Renfrew, A.C. (ed),Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (British School at Athens supp. vol. ),.

Wilson, D.E. . Keos and east Attike inEarly Bronze II: Beyond pottery typology,in Fossey, J.M. (ed.),

McGill: Papers in Greek Archaeology andHistory in Memory of Colin D. Gordon(Amsterdam), .

Wilson,D.E..Keos IX,Ay.Irini:PeriodsIIII,The Neolithic and Early Bronze Ag

tankosic and mathioudaki 2011 aynikolaos

Documents