Thorikos: Reports and Studies 9789042942707, 9789042642714, 9042942703

Citation preview

THORIKOS REPORTS AND STUDIES XII

PEETERS

THORIKOS REPORTS AND STUDIES XII

École belge d’Athènes Belgische School te Athene βελγική Σχολή Αθηνών

THORIKOS REPORTS AND STUDIES XII

EDITED BY

ROALD F. DOCTER & MAUD WEBSTER

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021

Thorikos Reports and Studies is a peer-reviewed series accommodating archaeological, historical and related studies connected to Thorikos and Attica. Begun in 1967 as Thorikos. Rapport préliminaire, Thorikos Reports and Studies appears irregularly, although one volume every two or three years is aimed at. Manuscripts are read by the editors, one or two members of the Editorial Committee and/or external specialists. Editorial Committee Prof. Dr. Alexandra Alexandridou (Ioannina) Prof. Dr. Johannes Bergemann (Göttingen) Dr. Sylviane Déderix (Athens / Louvain-La-Neuve) Dr. Koen Van Gelder (Gent) Prof. Dr. Panagiotis Iossif (Nijmegen / Athens) Prof. Dr. Andreas Kapetanios (Corfu) Prof. Dr. Robert Laffineur (Liège) Prof. Dr. Denis Morin (Nancy) Dr. Margarita Nazou (Athens) Dr. Nikolas Papadimitriou (Heidelberg) Dr. Floris van den Eijnde (Utrecht) Dr. Winfred van de Put (Athens)

Photo cover: Orthophoto of Industrial Quarter, Thorikos 2014 (Cornelis Stal, TARP Archive)

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

Copyright 2021 by PEETERS PUBLISHERS, Bondgenotenlaan 153, 3000 Leuven All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form without written permisssion from the publisher. D/2021/0602/63 ISBN 978-90-429-4270-7 eISBN 978-90-426-4271-4

TABLE OF CONTENTS R.F. Docter & M. Webster, Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. van den Eijnde, R.F. Docter, A. Brüsewitz, M. Nazou & C. Stal et al., The 2012-2017 Ghent-Utrecht Survey Project at Thorikos: Preliminary Observations on the Final Neolithic and Bronze Age Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Déderix, N. Papadimitriou, A. Balitsari, G. Cantoro, A. Efstathiou, M. Manataki, M. Nazou, A. Sarris & R. Laffineur, Prehistoric Thorikos: Preliminary Report of the 2018 and 2019 Fieldwork Campaigns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Van Gelder, Attic Final Protogeometric Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Verdonck, M. Praet, R.F. Docter, R. Laffineur, A. De Wulf & C. Stal, Geophysical, Topographical, and Remote Sensing Investigations on the Velatouri Hill at Thorikos (2006-2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. van den Eijnde, T. Pieters, R. van Wijk & R.F. Docter, Excavations in a Terrace on the South-East Velatouri at Thorikos and the Discovery of a Slave Burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R.F. Docter, A. Perugini, S. Mortier, W. van de Put, K. Van Gelder & F. van den Eijnde, Finds from Two Sondages on the South-East Velatouri (Thorikos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L. Karali, Shells in the Fill of a Late Archaic or Classical Grave on the South-East Velatouri (Thorikos). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Janot & P. Munaro, Observations on Individual T13-1-15 from the South-East Necropolis at Thorikos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Bergemann, Fragment of a Large 4th-Century BC Marble Grave Naiskos from the Thorikos Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R.F. Docter, Burying the House? ‘Foundation’ Offerings at Thorikos and the Chronology of House 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. De Smet, Hera Teleia at Thorikos: A New Reading of the Evidence of the So-Called Sanctuary of Hygieia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

9

35 59 81 99 109 139 145 151 163 207

PREFACE This volume continues the preliminary reports of Thorikos I-IX and XI, in between which volume X appeared as Thorikos 10 Reports and Studies. The series aims at the publication of both progress reports on larger projects and final reports on smaller interventions, as well as studies of older finds and findings. This volume appears within the 2018-2022 program of fieldwork, and contains several reports resulting from the extensive 2012-2017 survey of the southern Velatouri hill at Thorikos, a preliminary overview of the very recently undertaken survey of the upper and northern Velatouri, as well as in-depth studies of three specific features and assemblages. The eleven contributions, written by no less than 30 authors, testify to the felicitous international and interdisciplinary composition of the teams currently working at Thorikos. As always, we extend our sincere gratitude to the Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica, the Archaeological Museum at Lavrio and the Technological Park and their respective staff, and to the numerous individuals and institutions supporting and facilitating our work. We also greatly appreciate the collaboration with the staff of Peeters Publishers at Leuven and are grateful for their support of the Thorikos series. Roald F. DOCTER & Maud WEBSTER, 2021 For more information on the Thorikos Archaeological Research Project, see our website:https://www.thorikos.be

THE 2012-2017 GHENT-UTRECHT SURVEY PROJECT AT THORIKOS: PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS ON THE FINAL NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT Floris VAN DEN EIJNDE, Roald F. DOCTER, Amber BRÜSEWITZ, Margarita NAZOU, Cornelis STAL et al.1* Introduction Between 2012 and 2015, a team from Ghent and Utrecht universities conducted an intensive survey of the southern slopes of the Velatouri hill, covering the area of the lower settlement of Thorikos (Industrial Quarter) as well as parts of the Thorikos acropolis (Fig. 1).2 This project was completed in 2015, after

*

1

2

Dr. Floris van den Eijnde: Utrecht University, Department of History and Art History. Prof. Dr. Roald F. Docter, Andrea Perugini, Sophie Mortier, Sophie Duchène, Silke De Smet, Carina Hasenzagl: Ghent University, Department of Archaeology. Amber Brüsewitz: Ghent University, Department of History. Prof. Dr. Alain De Wulf: Ghent University, Department of Geography. Dr. Margarita Nazou: Institute of Historical Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation. Dr. Cornelis Stal: Ghent University College, Department of Real Estate and Applied Geomatics / Ghent University, Department of Geography. Dr. Winfred van de Put: The Netherlands Institute at Athens. Dr. Alexandra Alexandridou: University of Ioannina, Department of History and Archaeology. Winfred van de Put, Andrea Perugini, Sophie Mortier, Alexandra Alexandridou, Sophie Duchène, Silke De Smet, Carina Hasenzagl & Alain De Wulf. The Thorikos Survey Project (TSP) was directed by Floris van den Eijnde and Roald F. Docter. The former has been responsible for conducting the field survey, assisted by Amber Brüsewitz (then Utrecht University, now Ghent) who also prepared the first draft of this paper, partly based upon van den Eijnde et al. forthcoming (on aims and methodology). Roald F. Docter, Margarita Nazou, Winfred van de Put, Sophie Mortier, Alexandra Alexandridou, Andrea Perugini, Sophie Duchène, Carina Hasenzagl and Silke de Smet were responsible for the pottery analysis upon which the preliminary conclusions in this article are based. Cornelis Stal was responsible for the survey-grid, based upon the work of Alain De Wulf, and for creating the distribution maps. The project’s logistics over the years have been in the hands of Guy Dierkens, aided by Gunnar De Boel (2012) and Inge Claerhout (2013). First discussions of the Thorikos Survey Project can be found in van den Eijnde et al. 2018 and Nazou et al. 2018, 136, 140, fig. 4.

10

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 1. The 2012-2015 Thorikos Survey on the southern Velatouri hill: annual progress (C. Stal/A. Brüsewitz).

which the inventory and study of the 56,901 finds continued through 20162017. In 2018, a team from Louvain-la-Neuve and Liège extended the survey to the north with an aim to complete the surface investigation of the entire Velatouri hill.3 Awaiting the comprehensive publication, it is deemed appropriate to present in the meantime some preliminary results, based on the inventory and study of all finds collected during the 2012-2015 Ghent-Utrecht southern slope survey. In this preliminary report, we will thus outline both the scientific aims of the Thorikos Survey Project and the methodology employed, and focus on the evidence of the Neolithic and Bronze Age occupation on the Velatouri as a case. 3

See van den Eijnde et al. 2018 and Déderix et al., elsewhere in this volume.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

11

Aims At the outset of the Thorikos Survey Project, we formulated several aims. The main goal was to draw the various dispersed excavations on the Velatouri together, incorporating them into a unified narrative of the settlement’s historical development.4 Determining the full chronological extent of the site’s use is crucial for understanding its settlement patterns through time. The comprehensive field-walking approach (see below) particularly aimed to shed light on remains from the less studied periods, notably the pre- and the post-Classical period: 1. Determining the location and extent of the settlement in the Prehistoric, Geometric and Archaic periods held special interest, given the limited record of pre-Classical domestic architecture. While there is much evidence from some of these periods in the form of pottery and graves, by contrast only few domestic remains have been uncovered to date. 2. Although post-Classical material is regularly found (albeit in smaller numbers than earlier material) and some evidence of contemporary activity in the mines exists, the occupation of the site in this period is still not fully understood, partly due to a near complete lack of architectural remains.5 The survey has allowed us to detect shifts in settlement patterns that were previously unknown. In these pages we will restrict our attention to the Neolithic and the Bronze Age; a more comprehensive all-period publication is projected to follow. At a more general level, the aim of the survey has been to increase our understanding of the socio-economic history of Thorikos as the main centre of silver mining in Attica. Not only did the survey support the view that mining activities might have started earlier and been more intense than previously thought;6 they also seem to have continued for longer. A concomitant exploration of Cistern no. 1, near Mine no. 2, has drawn attention to the presence of Late Antique and Early Byzantine material, suggesting a renewed period

4

5

6

See the excavation reports in the Thorikos volumes I-XI as well as the series of comprehensive studies on Thorikos (bibliographical overview in Docter & Webster 2018, 58-59). For convenient overviews of the Belgian excavation efforts from the 1960s through the 1980s, see Mussche 1998, and for the more international recent investigations, see Docter & Webster 2018. Spitaels 1978, 103-106, figs. 60-63; Butcher 1982; Bingen 1990; Mussche 1998, 65; Docter et al. 2010, 49-51, fig. 20; Mattern 2010; Van Liefferinge et al. 2011, 71-72; Docter, Monsieur & van de Put 2011, 95, 100-101, 106-111, 118-120, figs. 19, 31-36, 42; Konstantinidou, Monsieur & Hasenzagl 2018. See Νάζου 2013; 2014; 2020; forthcoming (a-b).

12

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

of metallurgical (?) activity at Thorikos.7 The survey results also reinforce the notion that a small, Late Antique revival may indeed have taken place around the Industrial Quarter. Methods and techniques The field-walking technique used throughout the 2012-2015 campaigns was designed to fulfill the specific requirements of this type of intra-site inquiry. We were able to use the pre-existing universal grid system at the site, set up by the Belgian excavators in the early 1960s,8 which greatly facilitated the process. This grid consists of 50 × 50 m macrosquares defined by letters and numbers, aligned on the north-south axis, and materialised on the site using small posts of reinforced concrete in their north-west corners. These posts are positioned on the vertex of each cell with a mutual orthogonal distance of 50 m. The coordinates of the vertices were measured by theodolite- and GNSS measurements during different previous campaigns on the Velatouri hill, starting in the 60s of the last century.9 Unfortunately, but as expected, some concrete poles had eroded since. Using GPS, the pre-existing grid on the Velatouri was (temporarily) restored, complemented and used to determine the target areas for the intensive field survey in 2012-2015. For the purpose of the survey, however, higher spatial resolution was required, and new points were added to divide the existing 50 × 50 m grid into smaller sections. The macrosquares were thus each divided into four sectors measuring 25 × 25 m: north-west (1), north-east (2), south-west (3) and southeast (4). These are called mesosquares to differentiate them from the 50 × 50 m macrosquares and from the 5 × 5 m microsquares previously used at Thorikos. In order to materialise the 25 × 25 m mesosquares, new points had to be added and missing, lost or eroded poles had to be replaced. Measured points were temporarily marked using paint or stacks of rocks in order to avoid environmental damage. While this is not a durable solution, it was deemed sufficient for the limited purpose of the survey, since a later revisiting of these squares would only be necessary in rare cases (cf. below, contexts T12-124, T13-124, T14-124 and T15-124). The combination of concrete poles and temporary 7

8

9

Van Liefferinge et al. 2011, 71-72, showing that the Late Antique and Early Byzantine material (6th-8th century CE) may have been be the result of intentional dumping, as it appeared to be lacking from the surface material in the cistern’s immediate vicinity. See also n. 6 and Νάζου et al. 2018, 134-135, 140, fig. 3. Van Liefferinge, Stal & De Wulf 2011; De Wulf & Stal 2018, with fig.; De Wulf & Stal forthcoming; Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume. De Geyter 1967a-b.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

13

markers made it possible to further materialise the grid system on the ground by simply using marker tape to establish right angles and 25 m lines on sight. The resulting (small) inaccuracy of this approach was deemed insignificant in relation to the purpose of the survey; in addition, imprecisions were kept to a minimum by using GPS to double-check the markers’ locations. In line with the earlier survey experiences of one of the field directors (Docter) in the Laconia Survey and the Malta Survey, and after consultation with several colleagues working with survey archaeology (in particular Prof. John Bintliff, at that time at Leiden University), the following artefact collection strategy was decided upon.10 As a rule, four students walked each mesosquare for 20 minutes. In rare cases, when teams of four could not be formed, two students walked one square for 40 minutes. The standard method was for the four to set out from one corner each and ‘hover’ toward the square’s approximate centre (Fig. 2). This enabled the team to scan the entire surface for finds, avoiding dangerous areas – bushes, mine shafts, cliffs etc., and still pay equal attention to each individual square. Aside from observing the artefactscatter, close attention was paid to architectural remains, mine shafts and entrances, as well as rock graffiti. This aspect of the survey adds to the topographical measuring campaign of 2008 on the lower Velatouri hill.11 A supervisor was present at all times, recording all finds and features on fieldsheets (using an iPad equipped with Filemaker) and documenting factors such as visibility, slope gradient, land use, topography, surface conditions, soil types and vegetation for each individual mesosquare. All finds were then counted and bagged in the field, per stuFigure 2: Schematic rendering dent, and registered in the finds of the method of field-walking with lab at the Archaeological Museum four students ‘hovering’ one mesosquare (25 × 25 m) (J. Angenon). of Lavrio under a single context

10 11

On the subject of intra-site artefact survey, see Bintliff 2013. Van Liefferinge, Stal & De Wulf 2011.

14

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

number.12 The 2012-2015 campaigns were followed up by material processing campaigns until 2017, in which the 56,901 finds were inventoried and studied by specialists and students from several European universities.13 Of these, 5016 fragments were left out in preparing the distribution maps of Figs. 3-7 since they stemmed from the systematic re-survey of survey context 124 (see below) and a few other mesosquares. The finds consisted primarily of ceramics (fragments of vessels and building material), but also lithics (such as obsidian, pebbles and grinding tools), sea shell, metals and metallurgical residues in the form of slags and litharge. The pottery chronology spans a wide period, from the Final Neolithic to early modern times. Of the total number of finds, 23,493 (41.3%) were kept and 33,412 (58.7%) were discarded during the inventory process.14 While the main focus of previous excavations had been on the Bronze Age through Classical remains, no such discrimination was made in the examination of the finds collected in the field survey, since one of the main reasons for conducting an intensive intra-site survey was to establish the full chronological extent of the site as well as to detect shifts in habitational patterns through all its periods of use. Stages of the Survey The survey effort of 2012 focused on three areas: first and foremost, we succeeded in examining a full east-west transect of just under one kilometer in length and one macrosquare (50 m) in width across the southern slope of the Velatouri. This transect includes all macrosquares situated directly south of the 51st latitudinal line, from the dirt road encircling the Velatouri at its western footing (C’51) to the coastal asphalt road abutting it to the east (P51). Transect 51 had the benefit of limited previous excavations, ensuring a relatively

12

13

14

E.g. T12-101-1, indicating the season (2012) and denoting both the macrosquare (A’51 = survey context 101) as well as the mesosquare (north-west sector: 1) to create a unique tag. See also van den Eijnde et al. 2018, 20 with fig. See acknowledgments below. In part, the study of the finds took shape as a Fieldschool of Greek material culture, organised for students of the U4 collaboration between Ghent University, the Georg-August University Göttingen, Groningen University and Uppsala University. The non-diagnostic finds were grouped by fabric (plain, painted, black glaze, etc.) and – if possible – functional category (tile, amphora, beehive, open or closed shape, etc.) as well as by sherd size; they were then counted and entered in the database per category and then discarded in an area designated by the archaeological service on the premises of the Archaeological Museum at Lavrio. Natural rocks and finds of very recent date (post-1960, ca.), were also discarded but without further recording.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

15

Figure 3. Distribution map of the 2012-2015 Thorikos survey on the southern Velatouri hill, based upon the total of inventoried finds (C. Stal).

Figure 4. Adjusted find count and approximative number of sherds/annum (× 1000) (F. van den Eijnde).

16

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 5. Distribution maps of finds: A. Final Neolithic; B. Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age; C. Neolithic/Bronze Age (C. Stal, on the basis of first attributions in database).

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

Figure 6. Distribution maps of finds: A. Bronze Age; B. Early Bronze Age; C. Early Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age (C. Stal, on the basis of first attributions in database).

17

18

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 7. Distribution maps of finds: A. Middle Bronze Age; B. Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age; C. Late Bronze Age (C. Stal, on the basis of first attributions in database).

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

19

undisturbed sample.15 The second inspected area was a roughly triangular field adjoining the coastal road, which was chosen for its location close to the sea and the presence of a monumental Late Classical or Hellenistic structure excavated in the early 70s of the last century by A.G. Liangouras and E. Kakavogiannis.16 Finally, an area on the southern slope was selected, because an extensive geophysical survey by a team under the direction of Robert Laffineur of the University of Liège (2010) had given strong evidence for a large building on this relatively flat plateau.17 It was thus expected that the survey would provide indications for a chronology that might or might not warrant the organisation of a future excavation. The 2013 campaign sought to fill in the gaps between these three separate areas as well as explore the area on the eastern plateau of the acropolis toward the modern coastal road.18 During the third and fourth seasons, in 2014 and 2015, the survey effort concentrated on the areas left on the south-west slope between the previously excavated areas of the Industrial Quarter and the earlier surveyed squares.19 In all, 60,936 objects were collected, 56,901 of which (93.38%) were processed in the Lavrio Museum (Table 1) after discarding natural rocks, other non-humanmade items and very recent finds (post-1960, ca.). As noted, of the processed finds, 23,493 were kept for storage in the Lavrio Museum, the rest having been discarded after careful examination and recording. Some 4587 objects, or roughly 8% of all processed finds, were photographed (and when deemed necessary also drawn) with a view to further study and publication.

15

16 17 18 19

There are two exceptions: the excavation of the South Necropolis (Servais 1968; Mussche 1998, 22-23) and the excavation of Cistern no. 1 (Van Liefferinge et al. 2011). Λιάγκουρας & Κακαβογιάννης 1972. See Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume. The second campaign was conducted between July 8-25, 2013. The third and fourth survey campaigns were conducted between July 1-23, 2014 and July 4-8, 2015 respectively.

20

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Table 1. TSP 2012-2015 finds processing.20 Processed finds Year

Field count

Stored

% of total processed

Discarded

% processed vs. % of total Total Field processed processed count

2012 2013 2014 2015

18408 20505 20792 1231

5029 9078 9023 363

30.01% 46.66% 46.27% 30.61%

11727 10379 10479 823

69.99% 53.34% 53.73% 69.39%

16756 19457 19502 1186

91.03% 94.89% 93.80% 96.34%

Total

60936

23493

41.29%

33408

58.71%

56901

93.38%

Geomorphology and natural condition of the Velatouri hill In relation to the methodology of the survey, a short note on the geomorphology and natural condition of the Velatouri is in order. The surface conditions of this part of the Velatouri are generally consistent. The gravel-dirt soil is thoroughly mixed with slabs of greenschist as a result of extensive erosion of the top layer of the Attic Cycladic crystalline belt.21 Since the geomorphological history of the Velatouri is characterised by erosion, its slopes increase in steepness toward the top, impeding the survey effort, as well as – theoretically – rendering habitation near the summit more difficult. The exception to this pattern is the eastern plateau, commonly referred to as the acropolis (Fig. 1, macrosquares H-J53), where a large part of the prehistoric finds has been collected (see below; Fig. 8). The visibility and natural overgrowth vary throughout the site. The terrain is punctuated by the occasional (wild) olive and is otherwise covered with herbaceous vegetation and the generic Mediterranean shrubs that thrive on this type of dry and rocky terrain. The less steep southern slope is generally quite grassy, while the thick, thorny phrygana scrub obstructs easy navigation of the steeper east/south-east slope. As far as grassy or overgrown areas are concerned, visibility varied much throughout the 2012-2015 campaigns depending on precipitation levels in the preceding months. 20

21

After the first survey in 2012, macrosquare / survey context 124 was systematically revisited in 2013, 2014 and 2015. This methodological case study has been the subject of a recent Bachelor’s thesis at Ghent University (Toch 2019) and will be presented separately elsewhere. The numbers in Table 1 are without the revisits, so only the finds of 2012 (T12-124) have been taken into account here. Baziotis, Proyer & Mposkos 2009, 133-134; Scheffer et al. 2018.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

21

Figure 8. Distribution map of finds: Late Neolithic to Late Bronze Age, including the generic ‘Prehistoric’ (C. Stal, on the basis of first attributions in database).

The varying degree of overgrowth in particular poses an important methodological question. How reliable is the sherd count in a given mesosquare in relation to another square with different overgrowth and hence variant visibility? To account for differences in visibility between different areas or even the same areas over different periods, conditions were recorded for each mesosquare in the fieldsheets in terms of a percentage of full visibility (i.e. 100%). In the future, the final sherd count may be adjusted to accommodate for the attested variation. In particular, the survey on the east slope suffered from poor accessibility as a result of the phrygana, which is likely to have suppressed the yield per mesosquare (Fig. 3). Finally, regarding the coastal geomorphology, a reconnaissance geophysical survey in the area has shown that the ancient coastline of Thorikos looked quite different in the past than it does today. The now silted-up Adami plain and lower Potami valley would have formed an estuary in Antiquity, sheltering the settlement to the south and south-west.22 Preliminary results After studying the surface finds and merging them into distribution maps (see above), it is now possible to offer some preliminary observations on 22

Paepe 1969; Paepe 1971, esp. 15-16; Mussche 1998, 58; Apostolopoulos et al. 2014.

22

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Thorikos’ settlement history, limiting ourselves here to the earliest phases. The first distribution map presented here refers to the total number of finds (all periods) collected in the field and inventoried in the finds laboratory (Fig. 3). It is apparent that the acropolis and the steep slopes just south of it, as well as and in particular the lower slopes to the south-east, yielded strong concentrations of finds. Since the latter concentration consisted predominantly of Classical and Hellenistic finds, it was conjectured that this may have been an important part of the settlement during that period.23 Prehistoric finds proved to be largely limited to the acropolis. Perhaps surprisingly, a significant number of finds from this period was not found on but just below the acropolis plateau, on the steep slopes immediately to the south. Rather than indicating that habitation was concentrated on these more inhospitable slopes, we may surmise that this material washed down from the upper levels as a result of natural erosion from the plateau. A particularly strong concentration in and around macrosquare I52 (survey context T13-153-4) can be partially explained by the fact that this area was used as a dump for earlier excavations by Jean Servais on the acropolis (1965 and 1968), the material of which has since eroded further down.24 A strong concentration on the greater summit of the Velatouri may be interpreted as stemming from the eroded stratigraphy at the confines of Valerios Staïs’ excavations (1893).25 This concerns macrosquares G53 and H53 (survey contexts T13-151-1, T13-151-3, T14-207-1, T14-207-3 and T14-207-4). A note on period assignation and adjusted find count The process of studying finds naturally had to deal with the limitations of the quality of the finds. Whereas in some cases, it is possible to assign a defined phase (e.g. Final Neolithic, Early Bronze Age etc.), the general aspect of the finds did not commonly allow for such precision, necessitating approximations in terms of overlapping phases (see Table 2). Also, some phases, such as Early Bronze Age or Bronze Age encompass more refined subdivisions such as Early Bronze Age I or Late Bronze Age. It should also be noted that whereas one of the authors (M. Nazou) was able to assign ceramic fragments to the (Final) Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods relatively easily, on the basis of her knowledge of this material in Mine no. 3,26 her familiarity with Middle 23 24

25 26

Van den Eijnde et al. forthcoming; see also above, n 16. For a summary of the excavations on the acropolis, see Van Gelder 2011 with references; Déderix et al., elsewhere in this volume. Στάης 1893; 1895; Papadimitriou 2020; Déderix et al., elsewhere in this volume. Nazou 2013; 2014; 2020; Νάζου et al. 2018, 137-138; Nazou forthcoming (a-b). The finds from at least the acropolis have been inventoried and partly studied by her; the material from

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

23

and Late Bronze Age pottery at Thorikos was less profound, affecting the resolution of chronological attributions within this timeframe. It should, moreover, be stressed that the chronological attributions used in the following sections are to be considered preliminary since they are mostly based upon only a first inspection during the processing campaigns; a further study by different specialists is foreseen, enabling more detailed publication in the future. This poses a well-known problem for the extrapolation of reliable quantitative data, especially when judging the intensity of use during a particular phase. In some cases, the numbers may be sufficiently low so as not to affect the data significantly if left out. But what to do, for example, with the 60 Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age sherds, or the 1106 Bronze Age sherds, when comparing variations in sherd numbers between the four main periods selected for this study (e.g. Final Neolithic, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age; see Table 3)? To leave out the Bronze Age sherds would skew totals unrealistically in favour of the Final Neolithic. However, it is also clear that these numbers cannot be divided in even measure over the three phases of Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age. We have therefore opted to divide the sherd numbers of ‘overlapping’ chronological phases (e.g. Final Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age; see Table 2) according to the ratio of the selected nonoverlapping phases (i.e. Final Neolithic, Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age). This was done bottom-up, beginning with the smallest overlapping periods, working our way up toward the broadest. Thus, for example, the five Early Bronze Age I and II sherds were added to the 71 from the Early Bronze Age. Then the six Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, 60 Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age and one Neolithic/Early Bronze Age sherds (67 total) were divided according to the ratio between Final Neolithic (which itself had been adjusted upward by two, to 29, as a result of the Late Neolithic/Final Neolithic being assigned completely to the later phase) and the Early Bronze Age sherds, bringing the latter total to 126.27 This method was repeated for the three Early/Middle Bronze Age sherds, the 1106 Bronze Age sherds and the four combined Late Neolithic/Bronze Age and Neolithic/Bronze Age sherds, bringing the total adjusted find count for the Early Bronze Age to 573. Finally, in order to contextualise the find numbers while taking into account the uneven time span of the four main periods, we have opted to include the

27

the campaigns of 2013-2015 has almost completely been inventoried by her or under her supervision. Note that one single Late Neolithic sherd was omitted as statistically insignificant: TC13.3760, found in context T13-134-2-C (134.2), within the north-eastern sector of macrosquare K1, half-way between the summit and the south-east foot of the Velatouri (Table 2). It could well have originated on the acropolis and washed down in the course of millennia of erosion processes.

24

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

adjusted find count per annum (× 1000 for better visualisation in Fig. 4). Obviously, this method is contingent on current standard periodization, but we believe that potential divergences will not significantly alter the main trends revealed by this approach. The main periods were generalised to 4500-3200 (Final Neolithic), 3200-2050 (Early Bronze Age), 2050-1650 (Middle Bronze Age) and 1650-1100 BCE (Late Bronze Age).28 Most significantly, the extrapolated find count per annum is highest during the Middle Bronze Age, even though its total adjusted find count is slightly smaller than that of the Early Bronze Age. This is due to its much shorter time span. It is interesting to note that the method of using the adjusted find count results in the suppression of the relative share of Final Neolithic sherds from 11 to 3%, even as its total number increases (from 27 to 48). This is a direct result of the great number of sherds (1106) qualified as ‘Bronze Age’. Similarly, the large increase of the share of Early Bronze Age finds (from 30 to 39%), can be attributed to the relatively high number of (Final/Late) Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age finds (67, see above). Table 2. Tally of Neolithic and Bronze Age surface finds. Period Late Neolithic Late Neolithic/Final Neolithic Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Final Neolithic Final Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Neolithic/Bronze Age Neolithic/Early Bronze Age Bronze Age Early Bronze Age Early Bronze Age I Early Bronze Age II Early Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age Late Bronze Age Total

28

Find Count 1 2 6 1 27 60 3 1 1106 71 1 4 3 94 48 44 1472

Cf. also the application of the Chronotype system by Gregory 2004.

25

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

Neolithic Focusing on the Neolithic and Bronze Age materials, some patterns can easily be discerned. Table 2 shows the complete tally for both periods. As mentioned, while some sherds could be dated with the utmost precision by one of the authors, in most cases only a very broad determination spanning multiple (overlapping) periods was possible. Based upon these preliminary data, the occupation of the acropolis may have commenced during the Final Neolithic (ca. 4500 BCE), with a single sherd dated to the Late Neolithic period possibly hinting at an earlier start.29 During the Final Neolithic, the acropolis thus seems to have been settled, although we cannot at present say whether this habitation was uninterrupted. In his excavations of 1965, Jean Servais had already found walls that he attributed to the Final Neolithic period.30 The full publication of the 27 sherds attributable with certainty to this period (as well as the two attributed to the Late Neolithic/Final Neolithic) may shed more light on this matter. The distribution maps (Fig. 5A and B) strongly suggest that habitation was restricted to the acropolis with a western outlier in macrosquare B53 (survey contexts T14-200-2 and T14-200-4), just above a steep slope. Otherwise, what little sherds were collected in the areas immediately below the acropolis can be explained by erosion processes. Table 3. Numbers and percentages of surface finds in wider periodization. Approximate Adjusted number of sherds/ Find annum (× 1000) Count*

Period

Simple count

% of total

Final Neolithic Early Bronze Age Middle Bronze Age Late Bronze Age

27 71 94 44

11% 30% 40% 19%

21 62 235 80

Total

236

100%

68

% of total

Approximate number of sherds/ annum (× 1000)

48 573 582 269

3% 39% 40% 18%

37 498 1454 488

1471

100%

426

Bronze Age During the Bronze Age, the settlement on the Velatouri was more intensively occupied (Figs. 5C, 6-7). In this light, it is significant that Staïs already in 1893 uncovered the core of a nucleated prehistoric settlement near the 29 30

See above, n. 27. Servais 1967, 24-27, pl. II; Van Gelder 2011, 17, fig. 2.

26

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

summit.31 It is, again, around the summit that the densest concentrations of Bronze Age finds were noted, probably because of the impact of Staïs’ excavations. While sherd counts are high for the whole Bronze Age, the Middle Bronze Age stands out with the most finds (94) and, on standard chronology, by far the highest number of sherds per annum (Figs. 6-7; Table 3). Significantly, in the Late Bronze Age, the sherd count (roughly extrapolated per annum, see Table 3) drops to approximately the level of the Early Bronze Age. This correlates with the traces of a Middle Bronze Age/early Early Bronze Age settlement encountered by Servais during his excavations on the acropolis plateau in 1965 and 1968.32 The straightforward conclusion would seem to be that the Middle Bronze Age represents a period of great prosperity when compared to the earlier and later phases. While the strong concentration on the acropolis and its upper slopes in connection with the settlement may come as no surprise, other concentrations are perhaps more unexpected, even though the absolute numbers remain relatively low. A concentration of Bronze Age sherds around mine entrance no. 6 is to be noted. In particular, sherds that stylistically and fabric-wise cover the whole Bronze Age have been found here in macrosquares F4 and G4 (Figs. 5C, 6A, 7B, 8).33 This contrasts with the situation around mine entrance no. 3, where evidence for Early Bronze Age activities – undoubtedly connected with the exploitation of the silver resources – has been known already for some 40 years now:34 lying within the area that had already been largely excavated, it is hardly surprising that no finds of this period remained to be found during the survey. The new evidence from Mine no. 6, however, suggests that silver exploitation may have played an even larger role than hitherto envisaged. Silver production (in the form of cupellation) at Thorikos was confirmed for the Middle Bronze Age by the important discovery of litharge in a Middle Bronze Age/early Early Bronze Age house excavated by Servais.35 To this we may now add the indirect evidence of early mining activity at yet another mine. The distribution maps Figs. 5-8 show three other patterns that deserve discussion and interpretation although, again, the absolute numbers remain relatively limited. Firstly, a concentration of ‘Neolithic/Bronze Age’ and generic 31 32 33

34

35

Στάης 1893; 1895. Servais 1967, 20-24, pl. II; Van Gelder 2011, 17, fig. 2. This mine, as well as mine entrances 3 and 4, are currently being investigated by a team from the University of Lorraine (Nancy), see Morin & Delpech 2018; Νάζου et al. 2018, 136137. The sherds from these survey contexts T14-171-1, T14-171-2 and T14-173-1 have been inventoried by or under the supervision of M. Nazou. Spitaels 1984; Waelkens 1990; Laffineur 2010, 26, 36-40; Docter et al. 44-45, fig. 14; Laffineur et al. 2018; Νάζου et al. 2018, 137-138; Nazou 2020; forthcoming (a-b). The Late Helladic ceramic evidence from the mine has been published by P.A. Mountjoy (1995). Servais 1967, 22-24, fig. 16.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

27

‘Bronze Age’ material can be found due south of the summit and at intermediate height (Figs. 5C, 6A, 8).36 Given the lack of a similar concentration on distribution maps of later periods, in combination with the relatively flat terrain, it seems likely that this does not represent down-washing from the acropolis but may perhaps indicate a suburban extension of the main nucleus on the acropolis plateau. If so, a Final Neolithic (?) and Early to Middle Bronze Age chronology may tentatively be proposed for this concentration, even if a Late Bronze Age phase cannot be completely excluded, judging by the distribution maps (Figs. 6C, 7A-B).37 Secondly, another set of Early Bronze Age and Early Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age concentrations can be discerned on the southeastern slopes of the Velatouri (Figs. 6B-C), but the numbers remain low and consist, moreover, of finds that have not been inventoried by or under the supervision of specialists.38 A third ‘concentration’ is visible on Figs. 7B-C just south of the Industrial Quarter, but consists only of four wall fragments of red/ brown burnished jars, attributed by M. Nazou to the Middle or Late Bronze Age; although remarkable in this part of the site, the small numbers should warn against over-interpretation.39 To conclude, the acropolis summit and eastern plateau evidently functioned as the primary nucleus of the Final Neolithic and Bronze Age settlement at Thorikos (Fig. 8). The large plateau in particular was suitable for habitation and held a commanding view of the sea and the two potential harbours below: one to the east, protected by the Agios Nikolaos peninsula; the other to the south, in the Adami bay.40 The choice of the acropolis as a settlement site was presumably conditioned at least in part by the natural terrain towards the east, with a very steep and rocky slope effectively serving as a ‘fortification’. Even today, the terrain is so precipitous as to prevent surveying here.41 Beyond these rocks, the field sherd counts drop off considerably, likely marking the confines 36

37

38

39 40 41

In particular, survey contexts T13-131-1, T13-131-2, T13-131-4, T13-132-1, T13-132-2, T13-132-4, T13-144-2 and T13-145-1 (macrosquares H1, H2, I1 and I2). Also in this case, the sherds were inventoried by or under the supervision of M. Nazou. This area, remarkably, lies just north of where Robert Laffineur had been looking for a possible Bronze Age settlement in his 2009 and 2010 geophysical prospections (see Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume). As the sherds of these survey contexts were inventoried by or under the supervision of M. Nazou, this concentration is thought to represent an ancient reality, although further study is required for confirmation. This holds for macrosquares L4 (survey contexts T12-126-1 and T12-126-2) and M2 and N2 (survey contexts T12-127-2, T12-128-1). Only in the case of macrosquares L1-2 (survey contexts T13-135-1 and T13-136-1) the presence of prehistoric material seems ascertained (a.o. TC13.547). Macrosquare A’3 (survey context T14-192-2). See above, n. 22. The southwestern sectors of macrosquares K52 and K53.

28

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

of the potential area of settlement. The border of the Bronze Age settlement is furthermore indicated by Tholos Tomb III in macrosquares K53, L53, K54 and L54 (cf. Fig. 1),42 which was certainly located outside the prehistoric settlement proper. Conclusions Occupation of the acropolis seems to have commenced as early as previously assumed by P. Spitaels:43 the survey has confirmed the area to have been inhabited from the Final Neolithic period on. Surprisingly, a concentration of prehistoric material was also found around mine entrance no. 6, indicating that silver exploitation in this period may have been more intensive than previously thought on the basis of the Mine no. 3 evidence.44 Judging by current evidence and awaiting further detailed study of the finds, the concentration that can be discerned mid-way on the slopes between the acropolis and the south-east concentration seems remarkable and may perhaps be interpreted as a chiefly Early to Middle Bronze Age extension of the habitation on the acropolis (Figs. 5C, 6A, 8). The evidence for ascertained Early Bronze Age material on the acropolis, however, is not abundant (Fig. 6B), which may be explained by the suggestion made elsewhere that Early Bronze Age occupation was more coastal.45 Finds seem to indicate that the occupation of the acropolis flourished especially during the Middle Bronze Age period, less so during the Late Bronze Age (Fig. 7). The abundance of Bronze Age finds in the survey on both the acropolis and the central-southern slopes of the Velatouri contrasts with the lack of contemporary monumental architecture (Late Helladic III).46 This may well be explained by the intensification of activity in Athens at the time, where the Late Helladic III period saw the construction of the large fortifications on the Athenian Acropolis and the emergence of Athens as a palatial centre. These developments may have drained the available resources previously spent at Thorikos and elsewhere in Attica.

42

43 44 45

46

See Laffineur 2010, 30-33, figs. 10-13; Laffineur 2018, esp. 25-27, with figs; both with full references. Spitaels 1982, 12. On the exploitation of silver in this period, see esp. Laffineur 2010, 26-27, 36-40. Based on the finds of Olga Kakavogianni at the Dei power plant at the coast, where she recovered Early Bronze Age architecture and pottery (Κακαβογιάννη 1985). Laffineur 2010, 26-27, 40.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

29

References Apostolopoulos, G.A., A.A. Kallioras, K. Pavlopoulos, K.A. Stathopoulou & A.A. Vlassopoulou 2014. Reconnaissance Geophysical Survey for the Detection of Salinization and Stratigraphy in Thorikos Valley, Attica, Greece. In: Near Surface Geoscience: 20th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Athens, Greece, 14-18 September 2014 (doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20142087). Baziotis, I., A. Proyer & E. Mposkos 2009. High-Pressure/Low-Temperature Metamorphism of Basalts in Lavrion (Greece): Implications for the Preservation of Peak Metamorphic Assemblages in Blueschists and Greenschists, European Journal of Mineralogy 21, 133-148. Bingen, J. 1990. Deux tombes tardives de la “Nécropole du Théâtre”. In: Thorikos IX, 107-113. Bintliff, J. 2013. Intra-site Artefact Survey. In: C. Corsi, B. Slapšak & F. Vermeulen (eds), Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics. Non-invasive Survey of Complex Archaeological Sites, 193-207. New York. Butcher, S.A. 1982. Late Roman Lamps from a Mine Gallery at Thorikos (with a note on chronology by Dr. Judith Binder). In: P. Spitaels (ed.), Studies in South Attica I. Miscellanea Graeca 5, 137-148. Ghent. De Geyter, J. 1967a. Le lever topographique et orographique du site de Thorikos. In: Thorikos II, 9-23. De Geyter, J. 1967b. Le relevé orographique du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos III, 97-108. De Wulf, A. & C. Stal 2018. The Site and its Topography. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 13-14. Ghent. De Wulf, A. & C. Stal forthcoming. 50 Years of Topographical Surveying in Thorikos. In: Thorikos 1963-2013: 50 Years of Belgian Excavations. Evaluation and Perspectives. BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. Docter, R.F., P. Monsieur & W. van de Put 2011. Late Archaic to Late Antique Finds from Cistern No. 1 at Thorikos (2010 Campaign). In: Thorikos X, 75-128. Laffineur, R. 2010. Πολυάργυρος Θορικός – Thorikos Rich in Silver: the prehistoric periods. In: P. Iossif (ed.), “All that glitters…” The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics, 26-40. Athens. Docter, R.F. & M. Webster (eds) 2018. Exploring Thorikos, Ghent. Docter, R.F., P. Monsieur, M. Nazou, W. van de Put & K. Van Gelder 2010. Thorikos. A Picture in Pottery. In: P. Iossif (ed.), “All that glitters…” The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics, 44-51. Athens. Gregory, T.E. 2004. Less is Better: The Quality of Ceramic Evidence from Archaeological Survey and Practical Proposals for Low-Impact Survey in a Mediterranean Context. In: E.F. Athanassopoulos & L. Wandsnider (eds), Mediterranean archaeological landscapes. Current Issues, 15-36. Philadelphia. Κακαβογιάννη, Ο. 1985. Η προϊστορική κατοίκηση στην ΝΑ Αττική-νέα ευρήματα. In: Εταιρεία Μελετών Νοτιοανατολικής Αττικής (επιμ.), Πρακτικά Α’ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης ΝΑ Αττικής, Καλύβια Αττικής 19-21 Οκτωβρίου 1984, 47-54. Καλύβια.

30

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Konstantinidou, A., P. Monsieur & C. Hasenzagl 2018. Ceramics from Roman and Byzantine Thorikos. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 53-54. Ghent. Laffineur, R. 2018. The Mycenaean Tombs. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 24-27. Ghent. Laffineur, R., S. Déderix, N. Papadimitriou & M. Nazou 2018. The Final Neolithic and Bronze Age Occupation. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 21-23. Ghent. Λιάγκουρας, Α.Γ. & E. Κακαβογιάννης 1972. Χρονικα Β’ Εφορια Κλασσικων Αρχαιοτητωων. Λαυριωτικη, Aρχαιολογικον Δελτιον 27, 147-151. Mattern, T. 2010. Eine “skythische Wüste”? Attika in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit. In: H. Lohmann & T. Mattern (eds), Attika. Archäologie einer “zentralen” Kulturlandschaft. Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 18.-20. Mai 2007 in Marburg, 201-230. Wiesbaden. Mountjoy, P.A. 1995. Thorikos Mine no. 3: The Mycenaean Pottery, Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 195-227. Morin, D. & S. Delpech 2018. Mines and Mining. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 43-45. Ghent. Mussche, H. 1998. Thorikos. A mining town in ancient Attika. Fouilles de Thorikos II / Opgravingen van Thorikos II. Ghent. Νάζου, Μ. 2013. Η μελέτη της κεραμικής της 4ης και 3ης χιλιετίας π.Χ. από τη Μεταλλευτική Στοά 3 στο Θορικό και η ερμηνεία της’. In: ΕΜΕΝΑ (επ.), Πρακτικά ΙΔ΄ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης ΝΑ. Αττικής, Καλύβια Θορικού Αττικής, 6-9 Οκτωβρίου 2011, 49-58. Καλύβια. Nazou, M. 2014. Defining the regional characteristics of Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery in Attica. PhD Dissertation, University College London. Nazou, M. 2020. Thorikos in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age: A View from the Mine 3 Pottery. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. PolychronakouSgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 203-212. Oxford. Nazou, M. forthcoming (a). The Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age Pottery from Mine 3 at Thorikos. In: Thorikos 1963-2013: 50 Years of Belgian Excavations. Evaluation and Perspectives. BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. Nazou, M. forthcoming (b). Thorikos Mine 3: The Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age Pottery. Fouilles de Thorikos / Opgravingen van Thorikos IV. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. Νάζου, M., R. Docter, F. van den Eijnde, D. Morin, K. van Liefferinge, W. van de Put, A. Brüsewitz, A. Perugini, S. Mortier, E. Γιαννούλη, Λ. Καραλή, L. Verdonck, C. Stal, A. De Wulf, G. Dierkens, T. Pieters, K. Van Gelder, A. Κωνσταντινίδου, A. Αλεξανδρίδου, M. Praet, S. Claeys & Π. Ιωσήφ 2018. Οι αρχαιολογικές έρευνες της Βελγικής Σχολής στο Θορικό (2010-2015). In: Πρακτικά ΙΣΤ’ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης ΝΑ. Αττικής, 18-22 Νοεμβρίου 2015, Λαύριο. 2018. Εταιρεία Μελετών Νοτιοανατολικής Αττικής, 133-140. Athens.

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

31

Paepe, R. 1969. Geomorphic Surfaces and Quaternary Deposits of the Adami Area (S.-E. Attica). In: Thorikos IV, 7-52. Paepe, R. 1971. Geo-electrical prospection of the Temple site area in the Adami Plain. In: Thorikos V, 9-16. Papadimitriou N. 2020. Ceramic material from Valerios Stais’ excavations at the prehistoric settlement of Thorikos. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens 27-31 May 2015, 457-470. Oxford. Servais, J. 1967. Les fouilles sur le haut du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos III, 9-30. Servais, J. 1968. La “Nécropole Sud” sur le Vélatouri. In: Thorikos I, 47-58. Toch, K. 2019. Resurvey van meerperiodesites. Resurvey in de veldwerkpraktijk: casestudy Thorikos. BA thesis, Universiteit Gent. Scheffer, Ch., P. Voudouris, A. Tarantola, O. Vanderhaeghe & A. Photiades 2018. The Geology of Thorikos. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 17-18. Ghent. Spitaels, P. 1978. Insula 3. Tower Compound 1. In: Thorikos VII, 39-110. Spitaels, P. 1982. Final Neolithic Pottery from Thorikos. In: P. Spitaels (ed.), Studies in South Attica I. Miscellanea Graeca 5, 9-67. Ghent. Spitaels, P. 1984. The Early Helladic Period in Mine No. 3 (Theatre Sector). In: Thorikos VIII, 151-174. Στάης, Β. 1893. Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Θορικῷ, Πρακτικά της ἐν Ἀθήναις, 12-17. Στάης, Β. 1895. Προϊστορικοὶ οἰκισμοὶ ἐν Ἀττικῇ καὶ Αἰγίνῃ, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, 193-263. Thorikos I: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe & T. Hackens 1968. Thorikos 1963. Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de eerste opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos II: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. De Geyter, G. Donnay & T. Hackens 1967. Thorikos 1964. Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de tweede opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos III: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, J. De Geyter, T. Hackens, P. Spitaels & A. Gautier 1967. Thorikos 1965. Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de derde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos V: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe, H. Bussers & H. Gasche 1971. Thorikos 1968. Rapport préliminaire sur la cinquième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de vijfde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos VI: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, C. Conophagos, J. De Geyter, R. Paepe, G. Vandenven & D. Deraymaeker 1973. Thorikos 1969. Rapport préliminaire sur la sixième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de zesde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos VII: Spitaels, P., J. Bingen, A. Uyttendaele, F. Blondé, K. Van Gelder, A. Cheliotis & A. Helsen 1978. Thorikos 1970/1971. Rapport préliminaire sur les septième et huitième campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de zevende en achtste opgravingscampagnes. Ghent.

32

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Thorikos VIII: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais & P. Spitaels 1984. Thorikos 1972/1976. Rapport préliminaire sur les 9e, 10e, 11e et 12e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 9e, 10e, 11e en 12e opgravingscampagnes. Ghent. Thorikos IX: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J.E. Jones & M. Waelkens 1990. Thorikos 1977/1982. Rapport préliminaire sur les 13e, 14e, 15e et 16e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 13e, 14e, 15e en 16e opgravingscampagnes. Ghent. Thorikos X: Docter, R.F. (ed.) 2011. Thorikos 10 Reports and Studies. Ghent. Thorikos XI: Mussche, H.F. (ed.) 2014. Thorikos 1983/1990. Rapport préliminaire sur les 17e, 18e, 19e, 20e et 21e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 17e, 18e, 19e, 20e en 21e opgravingscampagnes. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA. van den Eijnde, F., A. Brüsewitz, S. Déderix & R.F. Docter 2018. The Thorikos Survey Project (TSP). In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 19-20. Ghent. van den Eijnde, F., R.F. Docter, A. Brüsewitz, W. van de Put, S. Mortier, M. Nazou, A. Perugini, A. De Wulf, C. Stal, T. Pieters & L. Verdonck forthcoming. The Ghent-Utrecht Survey Project at Thorikos: Methodology and Preliminary Results of the 2012 and 2013 Campaigns. In: Thorikos 1963-2013: 50 Years of Belgian Excavations. Evaluation and Perspectives. BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplement. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. Van Gelder, K. 2011. Old Excavations near the Top of the Velatouri at Thorikos: a Revision. In: Thorikos X, 15-49. Van Liefferinge, K., R. Docter, T. Pieters & F. van den Eijnde 2011. The Excavation of Cistern No. 1 at Thorikos (2010-2011 campaigns). In: Thorikos X, 57-74. Van Liefferinge, K., C. Stal & A. De Wulf 2011. The Thorikos Excavations 19632010 in Maps. In: Thorikos X, 15-13. Waelkens, M. 1990. Tool Marks and Mining Techniques in Mine Nr 3. In: Thorikos IX, 114-143.

Acknowledgments We acknowledge the participation of many students and volunteers, without whom the survey and the study of the finds (2012-2017) would not have been possible: Eline Amsing (2012), Violet Annaert (2012), Robin Bentein (2014), Jasper Billemont (2012), Alyssa Boecksteyns (2013), Lieke Boerstra (2013), Yana Bosma (2016-2017), Sven Brandt (2017), Lex Bronkhorst (2013), Michiel Bruynseraede (2014), Simon Claeys (2013- 2015), Annelies Claus (2012), Lies Crabeels (2017), Ine Depaepe (2013-2014), Silke De Smet (2013-2017), Sebastien De Wilde (2014), Sophie Duchène (2014-2017), Steve Enterein (2016), Mahdokht Farjamirad (2012), Maya Galewski (2017), Georg Hartleb (2016), Marinde Hiemstra (2013-2015), Pieter Houten (2012), Pieter Kint (2015), Patrik Klingborg (2014), Dirk Knapen (2015), Alma Kant (2017), Katerina Kock (2016-2017), Marlies Konijnenberg (2014), Alexandra Konstantinidou (2013), Merel Kosters (2013-2015), Faye Kruithof (2016-2017), Caroline Landsheere (2013-2014), Mounir Lahcen (2012-2013), Adam Lindquist (2016), Els Meijer (20122013), Aletta Mes (2016), Lieke Meulenbroek (2013), Bram Mulder (2013), Iris

THE NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT

33

Nederpelt (2016), Patrik Nilsson (2015), Timothy Nuyts (2012), Jasmijn Overmeire (2015), Nikos Papatzikos (2013), Thomas Pieters (2012-2014), Margit Pothoven (2012-2013), Maarten Praet (2013-2015), Sofia Psaltakou (2015), Mario Rempe (2017), Emilio Rodriguez (2017), Carina Rosenlehne (2016-2017), Anouk Rozendaal (2014), Daniël Saveur (2016-2017), Kaat Scheerlinck (2015), Karin Smokers (2017), Thessa Syderius (2014), Wil Theuns (2014-2015), Katrien Toch (2014-2017), Willem Van Aenrode (2012-2013), David van Alten (2013-2014), Fieke van den Blink (2014), Bram Vanderberg (2016-2017), Bas Vandermeulen (2012), Manon van der Maas (2016-2017), Helene van de Ven (2016-2017), Isaak van Dijke (2014), Tesse Van Esbroeck (2016), Koen Van Gelder (2012, 2016), Iris van Nederpelt (2017), Janric van Rookhuijzen (2014), Roy van Wijk (2012-2013), Sarah Van Wynsberghe (20122013), Tine Vekemans (2012), Lowie Vercruysse (2017), Maud Webster (2016-2017) and Norma Wikström (2015). On behalf of the Ephorate, Maria Skalia supervised the works as epoptria in 2012-2014 and Eftimia Krikoni in 2015. We thank the staff of the Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica and especially Dr. Eleni Andrikou, Eleni Assimakou, Dimitra Kai, Prof. Andreas Kapetanios, Dr. Anastasia Lazaridou, Maria Mexi and Dr. Katerina Petrou. We acknowledge also the help of the staff of the Museum at Lavrio, in particular Mrs. Despoina Moschopoulou, Mrs. Photini Spanou, Mr. Prokopis Makris, Mrs. Polly Dara and Mr. Manolis Athinaios. Our thanks go also to Prof. Panagiotis Iossif and Prof. Jan Driessen of the Belgian School at Athens. During our fieldwork and study campaigns we were kindly hosted in the Technological Park of Lavrio, for which we thank the Mayor, Mr. Dimitris Loukas, and the staff of the Park. Funding for the campaigns was provided by Ghent University, Utrecht University, the Belgian School at Athens, and private donors; we extend our warmest thanks to all of them.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS: PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE 2018 AND 2019 FIELDWORK CAMPAIGNS Sylviane DÉDERIX, Nikolas PAPADIMITRIOU, Anthi BALITSARI, Gianluca CANTORO, Aspasia EFSTATHIOU, Meropi MANATAKI, Margarita NAZOU, Apostolos SARRIS, Robert LAFFINEUR* Introduction1 The Velatouri hill, with its two peaks, forms a striking landmark near the modern town of Lavrio, along the south-east coast of Attica. It offers multiple advantages for human occupation: natural defensibility, proximity to the *

1

Sylviane Déderix, École française d’Athènes, Athens/Aegis research group, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Nikolas Papadimitriou, Institute for Classical Archaeology, University of Heidelberg. Anthi Balitsari, Aegis research group, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve. Gianluca Cantoro, GeoSat ReSeArch Lab, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), Rethymno, Greece. Aspasia Efstathiou, Agora Excavations, American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Meropi Manataki, School of Mineral Resources Engineering, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece. Margarita Nazou, Institute for Historical Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation, Athens. Apostolos Sarris, Archaeological Research Unit, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus/ GeoSat ReSeArch Lab, Foundation for Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH), Rethymno, Greece. Robert Laffineur, Em. Prof., Department of Historical Sciences, Université de Liège. We wish to express our gratitude to the Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica and especially Dr. E. Andrikou and Dr. E. Skerlou, for a very fruitful collaboration. The project could not be carried out without the assistance of Prof. P. Iossif and Prof. J. Driessen at the Belgian School at Athens, the support of Prof. R. Docter, the continuous help of the staff of the Archaeological Museum of Lavrio (particularly D. Moschopoulou and F. Spanou), and the help and advice of G. Dierkens (Thorikos Archives). In 2018 and 2019, the prehistoric component of the Thorikos Archaeological Research Project was funded by the Shelby White and Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the Mediterranean Archaeological Trust, the Belgian School at Athens, the F.R.S.-FNRS and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. In 2018, the team was kindly hosted in the Technological Cultural Park of Lavrio, for which we thank the Mayor of Lavrio, D. Loukas, and M. Kayafa, E. Michailidou and F. Peppa at the Environmental Education Centre of Lavrio.

36

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

sheltered double harbour of Agios Nikolaos, strategic location along coastal and inland routes, and access to the rich geology of the Lavreotiki and especially its copper and argentiferous lead ores. Thorikos reached its apex during the Classical period, when the town developed on the lower south slope of the Velatouri,2 but the occupation of the hill and the exploitation of its metal resources were rooted in prehistory. The fate of the site seems to have been bound up with the development of metallurgy and the demand for metal in the Aegean and the east Mediterranean world. Final Neolithic pottery found outside Mine no 3, on the south foot of the Velatouri (Fig. 1), suggests that ores available as surface outcrops were exploited already during the 4th millennium BC.3 Such findings resonate with discoveries made at other sites in eastern Attica, such as Merenda and Lambrika, where there is evidence for the processing of silver at an early date.4 At Thorikos, the extraction of argentiferous lead ores probably increased in Early Helladic II (ca. 2650-2200 BC), when the subterranean gallery of Mine no 3 started to be dug into the hillside and Thorikos was involved in regional networks of interaction.5 Most evidence of Bronze Age occupation at Thorikos comes from the acropolis of the Velatouri and dates to the Middle Helladic (19th-17th c. BC) and the early Late Helladic (17th-15th c. BC). Settlement remains were excavated by Valerios Staïs on the highest and southern summit of the hill (the Greater Velatouri) in the late 19th century, and by Jean Servais on the plateau to the east of the Greater Velatouri in the 1960s (Fig. 1).6 In addition, monumental tombs were discovered to the east of the settlement (Tomb III) and on the saddle between the Greater Velatouri and the northern summit of the hill, the Smaller Velatouri (Tombs I, II, IV and V).7 These tombs demonstrate that Thorikos had developed into a major centre ruled by an elite by the beginning of the Late Helladic period at the latest.8 Economic, social and political changes at Thorikos at the turn of the Late Bronze Age might be explained by an increase in the exploitation of metal resources in the Lavreotiki, which, by that time, had become a significant provider of metals in the Aegean and beyond.9 The involvement of Thorikos in a large-scale network of exchange is suggested f.ex. by gold jewellery, an ivory pyxis, and pottery imported from Aegina, the

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Mussche 1998. Spitaels 1984, 158; Waelkens 1990, 118, 139; Nazou 2014; Nazou 2020. Kakavogianni et al. 2008; Andrikou 2020; Georgakopoulou et al. 2020; Kayafa 2020. Spitaels 1984; Waelkens 1990; Nazou 2014; Nazou 2020. Στάης 1893; Στάης 1895; Servais 1967. Στάης 1890; Στάης 1893; Στάης 1895; Servais 1968; Servais & Gasche 1971; Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984; Laffineur 2020; Papadimitriou 2020. Laffineur 2010(a); Laffineur 2010(b); Papadimitriou 2020. Gale et al. 1984; Gale et al. 2009; Laffineur 2010(a).

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

37

Figure 1. Location of old excavation trenches at prehistoric Thorikos. A. necropolis (Tombs I, II, IV and V); B. Staïs’ settlement; C-E. Servais’ trenches on the plateau; F. tholos tomb (Tomb III) (S. Déderix).

Cyclades, Boeotia, the Peloponnese and Crete.10 On present evidence, Thorikos thrived until Late Helladic IIA (15th century BC), after which the site appears to have declined – even though argentiferous lead ores were still exploited in Mine no 3 during the Late Helladic IIIC period (12th century BC).11 There is no doubt that, during the Bronze Age, Thorikos played a significant role in the Lavreotiki and, given the strategic importance of this region, in 10 11

Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 57-60; Laffineur 2010(a); Παπαδημητρίου forthcoming. Mountjoy 1995; Papadimitriou 2020.

38

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Attica, the Aegean and the wider east Mediterranean. However, the site remains poorly known, notably because the acropolis of the Velatouri has so far been explored in specific sectors only (Fig. 1), and because old excavation trenches remain only partially published. In order to start filling in the gaps, a team led by R. Laffineur, S. Déderix and N. Papadimitriou decided to climb the Velatouri again, within the framework of the 2018-2022 program of the Thorikos Archaeological Research Project (Belgian School at Athens, dir. Prof. R. Docter). Our aim is to study, contextualise and publish Staïs’ and Servais’ discoveries, before resuming excavation. The study of old excavation finds and contexts is ongoing and will not be discussed in this preliminary report, which focuses instead on the work done on site in 2018 and 2019.12 Our first two campaigns took place between August 20th and September 14th 2018, and between August 19th and September 7th 2019. They were devoted on the one hand to the cleaning and 3D documentation of excavated prehistoric buildings, and on the other to an integrated program combining intensive surface survey and localised geophysical and geochemical prospections.

12

The 2018 and 2019 campaigns were coordinated by R. Laffineur, S. Déderix (field director) and N. Papadimitriou (director of the study of the old excavations). The Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica was represented on site by E. Chriazomenou. A. Efstathiou, assisted by Th. Baniou, was responsible for the processing and storage of the finds in the Archaeological Museum of Lavrio, whereas pottery was examined by A. Baltisari (2019), A. Efstathiou (2018-2019) and M. Nazou (2018). Finds were conserved by S. Patsavoura and drawn by A. Balitsari (2019), L. Bonga (2018) and G. Lascombes (2019). G. Cantoro was in charge of the 3D documentation and derived architectural illustrations. Geophysical prospection was conducted by A. Sarris and M. Manataki, and geochemical prospection was undertaken by A. Charalambous, E. Filippaki, Y. Bassiakos and V. Kassianidou. Architectural drawings were made by V. Chatzis, G. Farazis, Th. Stefanaki and E. Symiakakis. Specialists include M. Anastasiadou (seals), S. de Smet (Classical pottery), F. Dibble (animal bones), S. Duchène (lithic tools), M. Kayafa (metal finds), E. Konstantinidi (ivory), E. Margaritis (archaeoenvironment), O. Metaxas (obsidian), S. Michalopoulou (animal bones), E. Prevedorou (human bones), M. Smyrniou (vitreous material) and T. Theodoropoulou (fish and shell). Many volunteers participated in the 2018 and/or 2019 campaigns: E. Adam, I. Agoratsiou, I. Antsou, Ch. Aristopoulos, Th. Baniou, R. Boulanger, M. Bowers, O. Cashmere, A. Dodou, S. Efthymoglou, M. Gillespie, S. Hilker, A. Kopidaki, Ch. Kourta, G. Lascombes, E. Lavda, A. Legendart, N. Lempesis, S. Maritsa, S. Panagiotopoulou, M. Papantonopoulou, K. Regnier, L. Reimann, A. Salvin, D. Saraphopoulou, E. Spanoudakis, R. Sykes, A. Szczgieł, K. Tetkowski, M. Tsioli-Koutsoura, S. Vucetic and J. Wende.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

39

Cleaning and 3D documentation of old excavation trenches: Staïs’ settlement In 1893, the Ephor Valerios Staïs unearthed remains of a settlement on the south side of the rocky summit of the Greater Velatouri. The results of his excavations were published in two brief reports accompanied by a sketch of the buildings.13 Staïs described a series of rooms belonging to two phases, which he dated to ‘Pre-Mycenaean’ and ‘Mycenaean’ periods, respectively. ‘Pre-Mycenaean’ pit-burials were found under the floor of some rooms. N. Papadimitriou recently studied Staïs’ finds in the National Archaeological Museum at Athens and identified pottery dating between Early Helladic III and Late Helladic IIA.14 However, the settlement remained poorly known, due to two main reasons: (1) the architecture had never been documented, studied or published in detail, and (2) only 13 complete or almost complete vessels and two dozen sherds considered diagnostic at Staïs’ time had been collected, thus raising doubts as to how representative such a small sample could be. In an effort to remedy this situation, one of the goals of the 2018 campaign was to revisit the settlement, clean the architectural remains to enable 3D documentation and architectural study, and collect surface finds to clarify chronology. In the 125 years that had passed since Staïs’ excavations, the site had suffered from erosion, and vegetation had reclaimed the hillside. Some walls had collapsed and the rooms were partly filled with eroded soil. Three weeks were spent cutting trees and bushes, removing tumbled stones, and clearing eroded soil from the buildings (Fig. 2).15 3D data were acquired during the fourth week of the campaign, using laser scanning and photogrammetric methods. Cleaning operations focused on an area ca. 23 × 15 m in size to the south and east of the summit, but wall remains beyond the limits of Staïs’ excavations leave no doubt that the settlement extends further towards the east/northeast, the west/north-west, and probably the south as well. Fourteen rooms and open spaces were partially cleaned, revealing impressive architectural remains, especially towards the west, where some walls still stand to a height of ca. 1.5 m (Figs. 2-3). In the south sector, however, building remains have collapsed and eroded away. Most walls were built using a combination of metaophiolite rubble/boulders and marble slab-like stones. Large schist slabs were occasionally used as well, but few were found in place – e.g. as steps in a possible staircase. These three types of raw material, which were employed also for the construction of the prehistoric tombs, are available locally, on the Velatouri itself. Marble can easily be quarried on the lower slopes of the hill, schist 13 14 15

Στάης 1893; Στάης 1895. Papadimitriou 2020; Παπαδημητρίου forthcoming. Cleaning operations in Staïs’ settlement were supervised by A. Legendart.

40

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Figure 2. Staïs’ settlement after cleaning (S. Déderix).

forms the mid- and upper slopes (above the detachment fault), and the rocky summits consist of meta-ophiolite.16 Ca. 2350 sherds were collected during cleaning operations, in addition to stone tools, obsidian blades and flakes, a clay spindle-whorl, mudbrick, possible plaster, shell and animal bone, as well as litharge, slags and metalliferous rocks suggestive of metallurgical activities. According to preliminary pottery analysis, ca. 11% of the diagnostic sherds date to the Final Neolithic, ca. 12% to the Early Helladic, ca. 60% to the Middle and early Late Helladic and ca. 8% to the later phases of Late Helladic, whereas ca. 8% were provisionally dated to a broad ‘Archaic/Classical’ period. Although none of these sherds was collected in situ and study has only just begun, the pottery from Staïs’ settlement allows for some preliminary remarks. Firstly, it is now safe to assume that 16

Scheffer et al. 2017, 616-617, fig. 3; Scheffer et al. 2018.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

Figure 3. Stone-by-stone plan of architectural remains in Staïs’ settlement, overlaid on the orthophoto extracted from the 3D model (G. Cantoro).

41

42

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

the Greater Velatouri was inhabited during the Final Neolithic and the Early Helladic period. Prior to the 2018 campaign, Final Neolithic pottery had been discovered by Servais on the plateau, in sector N of trench I53 c5,17 but Early Helladic pottery was virtually absent on the acropolis – even though Mine no 3 was exploited in Early Helladic II.18 Secondly, in spite of the broad chronological range of the pottery from Staïs’ settlement, it is evident that its main period of occupation corresponds to late Middle and early Late Helladic phases. A similar conclusion can be drawn from Servais’ findings on the plateau.19 Limited reoccupation, the nature of which remains to be determined, took place during the ‘Archaic/Classical’ period. Documenting Staïs’ settlement in 3D required careful planning as well as the combination of several approaches to overcome the difficulties posed by the complexity of the architectural remains. More specifically, three approaches were employed in a complementary manner: Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), ground-based photogrammetry and pole photogrammetry. The TLS survey involved 23 scanning stations distributed in key positions to ensure an overlap of at least 45% between the scans. TLS surveys produce highly accurate pointclouds that, however, can hardly ensure the complete documentation of all façades, especially in the case of dry-stone walls with multiple convex and concave surfaces. For this reason, a systematic photogrammetric survey was undertaken to complement the TLS point-cloud. Some 2400 photographs were taken with a calibrated DSLR camera. Specific metallic targets, automatically recognisable by TLS and photogrammetry software, were placed in predetermined locations to orient and scale the model. These targets were removed for the third and final phase of the project, which aimed at producing the texture of the 3D model. The same camera was set on a pole to take ca. 1200 photographs of the upper face of the walls. The end product is a high-resolution, scaled and oriented 3D model documenting every surface in Staïs’ settlement, which was then used to draw an updated stone-by-stone plan and sections of the architectural remains. Figure 3 illustrates this plan overlaid on an orthophoto extracted from the 3D model.

17 18 19

Servais 1967, 24-26. Spitaels 1984; Waelkens 1990; Nazou 2014; Nazou 2020. Servais 1967; Van Gelder 2011. The prehistoric material from Servais’ excavations on the plateau is currently under study by N. Papadimitriou and A. Balitsari.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

43

Cleaning and 3D documentation of old excavation trenches: the prehistoric tombs In the late 19th century, Staïs also discovered two monumental tombs on the acropolis of the Velatouri: an intriguing ‘oblong tholos’ (Tomb IV) on the saddle between the two summits of the hill, and a tholos (Tomb III) on the east slope of the Greater Velatouri.20 In the 1960s and 1970s, Servais returned to the saddle, where he completed the excavation of Tomb IV and discovered two built chamber tombs (Tombs I and II), a cist grave enclosed in a megaronshaped structure and covered with a tumulus (Tomb V), as well as a series of poorly understood features to the south and west of Tomb V.21 Servais also opened trenches outside the walls of Tomb III to investigate building techniques.22 However, in part due to the premature death of Servais in 1984, the prehistoric tombs of Thorikos still await final publication and, meanwhile, vegetation has grown back and erosion worked its effects.23 Pursuing our goal to publish old excavations, we proceeded to clean the tombs during the 2019 campaign. While the archives and finds were under study in the Archaeological Museum of Lavrio, the field team undertook to clear grass and bushes and remove the soil and rubble that had accumulated in and around the tombs. Given the magnitude of the task, it was decided to prioritise (1) Tomb I, which is particularly well preserved; (2) Tomb V, which requires in-depth study; (3) the dromos of Tomb IV, into which masses of eroded soil and schist chips had slid; and (4) the north-east segment of the peribolos of Tomb IV, to examine building technique. Cleaning operations revealed well-preserved tombs that had degraded little since Servais’ excavations (Figs. 4-5), but very few finds were made – no more than ca. 230 sherds (mostly eroded and undiagnostic), a possible fragment of plaster, a modern metal ring and a few fragments of obsidian and shell. Once cleaned, the tombs were documented in 3D using a combination of digital approaches, as was done in Staïs’ settlement in 2018: Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), ground-based photogrammetry and aerial photogrammetry. The three datasets are characterised by different levels of detail and precision, and their integration is specifically meant to ensure the highest quality of the final output. TLS data were acquired from no less than 100 scanning stations, while ca. 1600 drone photos and ca. 2400 ground photos were taken. Forty-two ground control points were measured with a differential GNSS system to orient and scale the models. The main aim of the TLS survey was to produce a highly 20 21 22 23

Στάης 1890; Στάης 1893; Στάης 1895. Servais 1968; Servais & Servais-Soyez 1984, 14-71. Servais & Gasche 1971, 21-102. See also Cremasco & Laffineur 1999. For overviews, see e.g. Papadimitriou 2001, 91-100; Laffineur 2010(a); Laffineur 2010(b).

44

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Figure 4. The necropolis after cleaning (S. Déderix).

Figure 5. Tombs I, II, III and IV after cleaning (S. Déderix).

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

45

accurate 3D model of all structures under investigation. Ninety scanning stations were set, first across the prehistoric necropolis, and then in and around Tomb III. Finally, ten additional scanning stations were distributed in the gap between the necropolis and Tomb III, to connect the two TLS models. Figure 6 (left and centre) illustrates top-down views of the point-clouds of the necropolis and Tomb III respectively. In a second phase, the TLS models will be textured using the aerial and ground photogrammetric dataset, the processing of which is currently ongoing. A preliminary version of the ground photogrammetric model of Tomb I is shown in Figure 6 (right). Geophysical prospection Geophysical prospection uses a range of non-destructive techniques to map contrasts in the physical properties of soils (e.g. magnetic susceptibility, electrical resistance) and thus document buried features before or even without excavation. During the 2018 campaign, geophysics were conducted on the plateau to the east of the summit of the Greater Velatouri, to shed light on past occupation here. Three small trenches (H53 g5/g6, I53 c5/d5/e5/d6, and I53 j5) excavated by Servais near the south edge of the plateau in 1965 and 1968 had

Figure 6. Top-down ‘transparency view’ of the point-clouds of the necropolis (left) and Tomb III (centre), and ground photogrammetric model of Tomb I (right) (G. Cantoro).

46

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

revealed a complex stratigraphy, with Bronze Age, Iron Age and Early Archaic settlement remains.24 Servais collected prehistoric pottery in all three trenches and, most important, discovered a late Middle Helladic/early Late Helladic building with two superimposed floor levels in the western part of the central trench (I53 c5).25 There were pieces of lead and litharge (the by-product of the process of cupellation, during which silver is separated from lead) on the upper of these two floors, which suggests that metallurgical activities took place locally during the early Mycenaean period. However, in spite of its evident archaeological interest, it was clear that the plateau did not offer ideal conditions for geophysical prospection. Indeed, it was expected that local geology, scattered stones and protruding roots of trees and bushes would affect the quality of the geophysical data. Given the geomorphological characteristics of the site, the goals of the prospection, and the nature and depth of the expected archaeological targets, three techniques were employed in a complementary manner: magnetometry, Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) and earth resistance.26 Magnetometry measures slight anomalies caused in the magnetic field of the earth by buried features. It is best suited to identifying archaeological remains that contrast with surrounding soils due to concentrations of magnetic minerals – e.g. pits, ditches, hearths, kilns and other burned features. In our case, magnetometry was of particular interest to detect potential metalworking facilities. Earth resistance techniques examine the propagation of electrical current in the ground, making it possible to identify features that differ from their background in porosity, density and water content – e.g. walls and ditches. As for GPR, it measures electro-magnetic signals that are affected both by the conductivity and the magnetic susceptibility of soils. An advantage of GPR is that it provides high-resolution data as well as stratigraphic information. At Thorikos, the following instruments were employed for data acquisition: the Noggin Plus-Smart Cart (Sensors&Software) GPR with an antenna of 250 MHz (penetration of 2-4 m depending on local soil conditions), the Bartington G601-Fluxgate Gradiometer, and the Geoscan Research resistivity meter RM85. Magnetic prospection extended over ca. 2100 m², between and around Servais’ excavation trenches (Fig. 7). GPR was used across the same area, except for two sectors where concentrations of tumbled stones prevented access. Earth resistance was tested only between Servais’ eastern and central trenches, where high magnetic anomalies had been pinpointed. Despite unfavourable conditions, GPR depth slices suggest the existence of linear anomalies at ca. 60 to 120 cm depth (Figs. 8 and 10), which could 24 25 26

Servais 1967; Van Gelder 2011. Servais 1967, 20-24. Schmidt et al. 2014; Sarris et al. 2015.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

47

Figure 7. Location of the 2018 geophysical survey grids in relation to Servais’ excavation trenches on the plateau (A. Sarris & S. Déderix).

indicate wall remains. Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that these anomalies follow an orientation similar to the buildings excavated by Servais, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that some of them represent natural bedrock outcrops. Magnetic and earth resistance data point to similar anomalies, as many of the low intensity magnetic values and the high resistance values correlate quite well with GPR data (Figs. 9-10). In contrast, high magnetic values reaching the maximum of the dynamic range of the magnetometer (+/-100nT/m) were obtained towards the west and, to a much lesser extent, the south (where burnt rocks and roots were visible on the surface) as well as the east (near Servais’ eastern trench). The magnetic hotspot between Servais’ western and central trenches may indicate that workshop activities (perhaps related to metallurgy) took place in the area. Following geophysical prospection, geochemical prospection was conducted to test the hypothesis that metallurgical facilities may have existed on the plateau.27 The processing of geochemical data is currently ongoing. 27

The geochemical team consisted of A. Charalambous, E. Filippaki, Y. Bassiakos and V. Kassianidou.

48

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Figure 8. GPR slices at selected depths (A. Sarris).

Figure 9. Result of the magnetic survey (A. Sarris).

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

49

Figure 10. Interpretation of GPR, magnetic and resistivity data, with the location of extreme magnetic values (A. Sarris).

Surface survey Between 2012 and 2015, Prof. R. Docter and Dr. F. van den Eijnde conducted an intensive surface survey on the south slope of the Velatouri.28 The aim of the project was twofold: (1) to combine the dispersed excavation trenches within a unified archaeological landscape and (2) to document the history of occupation on the south slope. In 2018, we resumed the survey where it ended in 2015, that is, along an east-west line immediately below the summit of the Greater Velatouri. To ensure the compatibility and comparability of the two datasets, the same survey methodology was followed as in 2012-2015. The grid of 50 × 50 m macrosquares that had been created in the 1960s was extended towards the north, and the corners of the macrosquares were materialised in 28

See van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (survey).

50

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

situ by wooden pegs. Using measuring tapes, the macrosquares were then subdivided into 25 × 25 m mesosquares, which formed our main survey units. Each mesosquare was explored by a team of four walkers allotted 20 minutes to collect surface finds and identify man-made features (ancient and modern), while an experienced supervisor recorded information on topography, land use, vegetation, surface conditions and archaeological evidence. No chronological discrimination was made in the field: all surface finds were collected and sent to the Archaeological Museum of Lavrio to be examined by specialists. Two teams worked in parallel during four weeks in 2018 and two weeks in 2019, covering a total of 364 mesosquares (i.e. 91 macrosquares, or 22.75 ha) on the Greater Velatouri, the Smaller Velatouri, the saddle, and the east, north and upper west slopes of the hill (Fig. 11).29 The remaining 40 mesosquares, in the north-west corner of our survey area, will be explored in the near future. Except for the two rocky peaks of the Velatouri and cultivated fields on the east foot of the hill, the 2018-2019 survey explored mostly medium-steep to steep slopes with abandoned and overgrown terraced fields. Dense thorny bushes affected ground visibility and even accessibility, especially on the north-west slope of the Greater Velatouri and on the north and west slopes of the Smaller Velatouri. More than 360 man-made features have been recorded so far (Fig. 11). Most are terrace walls – often better described as piles of rubble supporting abandoned agricultural terraces – and heaps of stones cleared from cultivated fields. Nevertheless, the survey also identified probable ancient walls on the Greater Velatouri and, to a lesser extent, on the summit of the Smaller Velatouri. Many of these walls make use of the same building technique as that noted in Staïs’ settlement, combining meta-ophiolite rubble and marble slab-like stones. Such a technique could support a prehistoric date,30 but additional investigation is necessary. A series of wall segments on the west and north slopes of the Greater Velatouri are of particular interest (Fig. 12):31 they are built of meta-ophiolite and marble and extend between huge boulders of meta-ophiolite. The segments labelled FE005, FE004, FE010, FE012, FE013 and FE014 form a long, curved feature, visible over ca. 37 m before disappearing under thick bushes. Two other segments (FE009 and FE011) seem to form a similar ring, ca. 5 m downhill. These walls are located on steep and rocky slopes unsuitable for cultivation, which rules out their interpretation as 29

30 31

Team supervisors were A. Salvin, S. Vucetic and A. Legendart in 2018, and M. Gillespie and A. Salvin in 2019. Mussche 2014, 13. These walls were drawn in the field by V. Chatzis, G. Farazis, Th. Stefanaki and E. Symiakakis, who joined the project in 2019 as part of their graduate studies in the School of Architecture of the National and Technical University of Athens. We are extremely grateful to Prof. E. Efesiou and Prof. K. Palyvou for initiating this collaboration.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

51

agricultural terraces. Excavation trenches will be opened in the next seasons to shed light on their date and nature. Ca. 14,350 sherds were collected in 2018-2019, in addition to slags and litharge, a tuyère, a fragment of a stone vessel, obsidian and stone tools, fragments of tiles, animal bones, shell, etc. Pottery distribution (Fig. 13) correlates quite well with ancient architectural remains, either excavated or identified during the survey. The highest concentrations are on the Greater Velatouri, the plateau and the slope to the north-east of it (perhaps partly a consequence of erosion), the necropolis on the saddle, and the surroundings of Tomb III.

Figure 11. Location of the main human-made features recorded in 2018 and 2019, in relation to old excavation trenches. A. necropolis; B. Staïs’ settlement; C-E. Servais’ trenches on the plateau; F. tholos tomb (S. Déderix).

52

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Figure 12. Rings of wall segments identified on the upper west and north slopes of the Greater Velatouri, in relation to Staïs’ settlement (S. Déderix).

In contrast, the Smaller Velatouri and the lower east slope yielded small amounts of pottery, and only isolated sherds were found on the north and northwest slopes. Nevertheless, the presence of two ancient mine entrances and a Late Helladic cist tomb (excavated by E. and O. Kakavogiannis32) demonstrates that human activities took place on the lower north slope (Fig. 11). It is relevant, in this context, that slag, litharge and lithics were collected along the north-east foot of the Velatouri, in the area of the mine entrances. 32

Andrikou 2020, 24.

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

53

Figure 13. Distribution of sherds (all periods) in relation to old excavation trenches. A. necropolis; B. Staïs’ settlement; C-E. Servais’ trenches on the plateau; F. tholos tomb (S. Déderix).

According to preliminary pottery analyses, two main periods of occupation can be identified: the first during the Neolithic/Bronze Age, and the second in Antiquity (provisionally dated broadly as ‘Archaic/Classical’). The prehistoric material is mostly Early Helladic and transitional Middle to Late Helladic in date, with much fewer Neolithic and Late Helladic sherds. The density of Bronze Age pottery (Fig. 14) is highest on the Greater Velatouri, the north-east slope of the Greater Velatouri, the western part of the plateau, the prehistoric necropolis, and in the surroundings of Tomb III. There is also a localised

54

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

cluster of prehistoric sherds on the Smaller Velatouri, which merits investigation given the existence of wall remains in the same area (Fig. 11). The nearabsence of pottery on the lower north slope of the hill is remarkable, but the presence of the Late Helladic cist tomb suggests that the area may have been occupied by a cemetery that was spatially (and probably also socially) distinct from the elite necropolis on the saddle. It is also worth noting that a few Bronze Age sherds were recognised among the material collected near the mine entrance at the north-east foot of the Velatouri. Most of the ‘Archaic/Classical’ pottery comes from the plateau and, to a lesser extent, the slope to the north-east of the plateau, the Greater Velatouri and the

Figure 14. Distribution of Bronze Age pottery in relation to old excavation trenches. A. necropolis; B. Staïs’ settlement; C-E. Servais’ trenches on the plateau; F. tholos tomb (S. Déderix).

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

55

prehistoric necropolis. The Early Iron Age, Geometric and post-Classical periods are represented by isolated finds only, when represented at all. The discovery of Roman sherds is, however, worth mentioning. Although few in number (ca. 50), they suggest human activities at the north-east foot of the hill and, more specifically, near (and probably in) the mine, in Roman times. Conclusion Significant progress was made in 2018 and 2019 towards a better understanding of prehistoric occupation at Thorikos. Although preliminary, the results of the first two fieldwork campaigns suggest that Bronze Age habitation was mostly localised on the Greater Velatouri and the plateau. In the near future, comprehensive pottery studies will refine dating, to enable a more detailed reconstruction of the extent of the settlement, phase by phase. Beside pit-burials in the settlement,33 three Late Helladic burial grounds are currently known: the necropolis on the saddle, Tomb III to the east of the settlement, and at least one cist tomb on the lower north slope of the Velatouri. The pottery collected during the survey suggests some sort of activity or occupation on the summit of the Smaller Velatouri during the Bronze Age, while raising the possibility that metal ores may have been exploited not only at the south foot of the Velatouri (e.g. Mine no 3) but also at its north-east foot. Our objectives for the coming seasons are ambitious: we aim to finish the study of Staïs’ and Servais’ excavations, complete the surface survey and geophysical prospection, and open new excavation trenches to answer specific questions. These trenches will be located (1) immediately to the north and west of Staïs’ settlement (to collect stratigraphic information); (2) on the upper west and north slopes of the Greater Velatouri (to clarify the date and nature of the walls identified during the survey); and (3) on the summit of the Smaller Velatouri (to shed light on the nature and chronology of occupation in this still unexplored part of the Velatouri). References Andrikou, E. 2020. Thorikos in Context: The Prehistory. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 19-28. Oxford.

33

Στάης 1895, 231-234; Servais 1967, 24.

56

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Cremasco, V. & R. Laffineur 1999. The Engineering of Mycenaean Tholoi. The Circular Tomb at Thorikos Revisited. In: P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur & W.-D. Niemeier (eds), Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, 139-148. Aegaeum 20. Liège & Austin. Gale, N.H., Z.A. Stos-Gale & J.L. Davis 1984. The Provenance of Lead Used at Ayia Irini, Keos, Hesperia 53(4), 389-406. Gale, N.H., M. Kayafa & Z.A. Stos-Gale 2009. Further Evidence for Bronze Age Production of Copper from Ores in the Lavrion Ore District, Attica, Greece. In: Archaeometallurgy in Europe 2007. Selected papers of the 2nd International Conference 17-21 June 2007 in Aquileia, 158-176. Milano. Georgakopoulou M., K. Douni, M. Ginalas, O. Kakavogianni & I. Bassiakos, 2020. Recent Finds from Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Silver Production Sites in Southeastern Attica. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. PolychronakouSgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 185-192. Oxford. Kakavogianni, O., K. Douni & F. Nezeri 2008. Silver Metallurgical Finds Dating from the End of the Final Neolithic Period until the Middle Bronze Age in the Area of Mesogeia. In: I. Tzachili (ed.), Aegean Metallurgy in the Bronze Age. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece, on November 19-21, 2004, 45-57. Rethymnon. Kayafa, M. 2020. The Metal Resources of Laurion During the Early Bronze Age. A Synthesis of the Archaeological and Archaeometric Data. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 193-201. Oxford. Laffineur, R. 2010(a). Πολυάργυρος Θορικός – Thorikos Rich in Silver: the prehistoric periods. In: P. Iossif (ed.), ‘All that glitters…’. The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics, 26-40. Athens. Laffineur, R. 2010(b). Thorikos. In: E.H. Cline (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC), 712-721. Oxford. Laffineur, R. 2020. Tomb V at Thorikos Revisited. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 449-456. Oxford. Mussche, H.F. 1998. Thorikos. A Mining Town in Ancient Attika. Fouilles de Thorikos/ Opgravingen van Thorikos II. Ghent. Mussche, H.F. 2014. Masonry in Domestic and Rural Constructions in Thorikos. In: Thorikos XI, 11-50. Mountjoy, P.A. 1995. Thorikos Mine no. 3: The Mycenaean Pottery, Annual of the British School at Athens 90, 195-227. Nazou, M. 2014. Defining the Regional Characteristics of Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Pottery in Attica. PhD Dissertation, University College London. Nazou, M. 2020. Thorikos in the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age: A View from the Mine 3 Pottery. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-

PREHISTORIC THORIKOS

57

Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens, 27-31 May 2015, 203-212. Oxford. Papadimitriou, N. 2001. Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date in Mainland Greece and the Islands. British Archaeological Reports International Series 925. Oxford. Papadimitriou N. 2020. Ceramic material from Valerios Stais’ excavations at the prehistoric settlement of Thorikos. In: N. Papadimitriou, J. Wright, S. Fachard, N. Polychronakou-Sgouritsa & E. Andrikou (eds), Athens and Attica in Prehistory. Proceedings of the International Conference, Athens 27-31 May 2015, 457-470. Oxford. Παπαδημητρίου, Ν. forthcoming. Προϊστορική εγκατάσταση στο Θορικό. Η συμβολή των ανασκαφών του Βαλέριου Στάη (1888, 1890, 1893). Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς. Sarris, A. (ed.) 2015. Best Practices of GeoInformatic Technologies for the Mapping of Archaeolandscapes. Oxford. Scheffer, C., A. Tarantola, O. Vanderhaeghe, P. Voudouris, T. Rigaudier, A. Photiades, D. Morin & A. Alloucherie 2017. The Lavrion Pb-Zn-Fe-Cu-Ag detachmentrelated district (Attica, Greece): Structural control on hydrothermal flow and element transfer-deposition, Tectonophysics 717, 607-627. Scheffer, C., P. Voudouris, A. Tarantola, O. Vanderhaeghe & A. Photiades 2018. The Geology of Thorikos. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 17-18. Ghent. Schmidt, A., P. Linford, N. Linford, A. David, C. Gaffney, A. Sarris & J. Fassbinder 2014. EAC Guidelines for the Use of Geophysics in Archaeology. Questions to Ask and Points to Consider. Namur. http://old.european-archaeological-council.org/ files/eac_guidelines_2_final.pdf, visited 9 November 2019. Servais, J. 1967. Les fouilles sur le haut du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos III, 9-30. Servais, J. 1968. Le secteur mycénien sur le haut du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos I, 27-46. Servais, J. & H. Gasche 1971. Les fouilles sur le haut du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos V, 17-102. Servais, J. & B. Servais-Soyez 1984. La tholos ‘oblongue’ (Tombe IV) et le tumulus (Tombe V) sur le Vélatouri. In: Thorikos VIII, 15-71. Spitaels, P. 1984. The Early Helladic Period in Mine No. 3 (Theatre Sector). In: Thorikos VIII, 151-174. Στάης, Β. 1890. Σκαφικαί έρευναι εν Θορικώ, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 6, 159-161. Στάης, Β. 1893. Ἀνασκαφαὶ ἐν Θορικῷ, Πρακτικά της ἐν Ἀθήναις, 12-17. Στάης, Β. 1895. Προϊστορικοὶ οἰκισμοὶ ἐν Ἀττικῇ καὶ Αἰγίνῃ, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς, 193-263. Thorikos I: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe & T. Hackens 1968. Thorikos 1963. Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de eerste opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos III: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, J. De Geyter, T. Hackens, P. Spitaels & A. Gautier 1967. Thorikos 1965. Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de derde opgravingscampagne. Brussels.

58

S. DÉDERIX E.A.

Thorikos V: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe, H. Bussers & H. Gasche 1971. Thorikos 1968. Rapport préliminaire sur la cinquième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de vifde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos VIII: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais & P. Spitaels 1984. Thorikos 1972/1976. Rapport préliminaire sur les 9e, 10e, 11e et 12e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 9e, 10e, 11e en 12e opgravingscampagnes. Ghent. Thorikos IX: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J.E. Jones & M. Waelkens 1990. Thorikos 1977/1982. Rapport préliminaire sur les 13e, 14e, 15e et 16e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 13e, 14e, 15e en 16e opgravingscampagnes. Ghent. Thorikos X: Docter, R.F. (ed.) 2011. Thorikos 10 Reports and Studies. Ghent. Thorikos XI: Mussche, H.F. (ed.) 2014. Thorikos 1983/1990. Rapport préliminaire sur les 17e, 18e, 19e, 20e et 21e campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de 17e, 18e, 19e, 20e en 21e opgravingscampagnes. Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA. Van Gelder, K. 2011. Old Excavations near the Top of the Velatouri at Thorikos: a Revision. In: Thorikos X, 15-49. Waelkens, M. 1990. Tool Marks and Mining Techniques in Mine Nr 3. In: Thorikos IX, 114-143.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY1 Koen VAN GELDER* As a rule, a vase belongs to one style or another, but just as the red-figure technique did not oust the black-figure technique at once, new styles may not supersede the old immediately.2 But while there may be transitional periods, there are very few transitional vases. One example is the well-known amphora Kerameikos 8808/09 from Grave hS101,3 which, in my opinion, demonstrates that for a while, both styles were produced at the same time, representing the same concept as the later bilingual vases. Although there will always have been more progressive and more conservative potters and painters, such overlaps become more visible when there is a major change in style, such as during the transition from Submycenaean to Protogeometric,4 from Protogeometric to Geometric and, to a lesser degree, from Middle Geometric to Late Geometric.5 The existence of an overlap between Late Protogeometric (LPG) and Early Geometric (EG) pottery was first stressed by Evelyn Lord Smithson,6 and recently reiterated by J. Papadopoulos in Agora XXXVI.7 * 1

2 3

4 5

6

7

Koen Van Gelder, Department of Archaeology, Ghent University. The finalisation of this article was postponed awaiting the full publication of the Early Iron Age graves of the Athenian Agora. This publication, Agora XXXVI, did not change the position taken up here, but added a lot of information. I wish to thank Professor Roald Docter for his reading of an earlier version of this text and the suggestions he made. I also thank Maud Webster for skilfully editing my English version and for her diplomatic efforts to improve its readability. Cf. Papadopoulos et al. 2011, 199. Knigge 1966, 5, pl. 11:4-5. J. Papadopoulos recently claimed that there is “a growing number of vessels that are decorated with both hand-drawn and mechanically drawn circles and semicircles”, but without any other example than this amphora (Agora XXXVI, 751 with n. 368). As stressed by Papadopoulos 2003, 97 n. 25. It seems easier to make a distinction in the transition from Geometric to Early Archaic, when some painted pottery may be called Subgeometric, but it remains possible that ‘true’ Geometric pottery was produced after the Analatos Painter made his first Protoattic pots. Smithson (1974, 340-341) dated a few PG finds as EG; Coldstream (1977, 25), on the other hand, indicated that the transition to EG I can only be seen in the Athenian cemeteries. See also Van Gelder 2000, 274-275. E.g., 336, 463, especially 25-26, 31.

60

K. VAN GELDER

During the last phase of PG, two kinds of ceramics can be distinguished: ‘true’ Late Protogeometric (LPG) and Final Protogeometric (FPG) pottery,8 which attenuates the Protogeometric standard, introduces new shapes and/or shows some Geometric characteristics or influences. However, the new shapes and decorations did not oust the old ones. The true LPG style continued during the FPG phase and true LPG shapes coexisted with FPG ones. Therefore, every vase and grave group cannot be exclusively attributed.9 This is the principal reason that I will prefer Late Protogeometric and Final Protogeometric to Late Protogeometric I and II. FPG is at least partly contemporary with EG, but it would seem reckless to assert that it did not appear before EG. Several types are certainly EG in date. For others, it cannot be established, on the basis of published material, whether they were produced before the start of EG. On the other hand, FPG pottery is found in contexts dating after EG. Its position is stratigraphically confirmed at Thorikos, where FPG is found in the same layers as EG II and early Middle Geometric (MG) I, but without EG I, which demonstrates that it covers the entire EG I phase at least.10 The consequence for the absolute chronology of the attribution of a certain or even large amount of LPG groups to the chronological EG phase lies outside the scope of this article, which focuses on the relative chronology.11 Final Protogeometric groups Final Protogeometric groups without Geometric elements – Kerameikos Grave PG 7 (with older amphora), Kerameikos I, 99-100, 183-184. 8

9

10

11

I prefer Final Protogeometric to Sub-Protogeometric, as it is more proper to the Protogeometric survivals in other areas and already in use for Sub-Protogeometric hydriai in Attica. Attic Final Protogeometric (and latest true LPG) and Early Geometric may be considered as concurrent styles, while Coldstream (1977, 372) defines Sub-Protogeometric as “made in Protogeometric manner after a Geometric style had come into general use”. Two stages within LPG were briefly mentioned by Lemos (2002, 26), and already Desborough (1952, 291) mentioned a transitional phase between LPG and EG. E.g., the grave gifts of Kerameikos PG 38, that cuts into the Final Protogeometric grave PG 37, are Late Protogeometric. Bingen 1968, 81-86; Bingen 1967a, 26-33; Bingen 1967b, 31-42; Servais 1967, 27-29; Van Gelder 2011, 22-30; Coldstream 1968, 16; Coldstream 1977, 70 (“a few pieces in a rather provincial Protogeometric manner need not be much, if at all, earlier”). I drew attention to this during a colloquium at Athens in 2013 on the occasion of celebrating 50 years of Belgian excavations at Thorikos, the publication of which is forthcoming. Desborough 1972, 135; Lemos 2002, 26.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

12

61

Kerameikos Grave PG 16, Kerameikos I, 190-191. Kerameikos Grave PG 19, Kerameikos I, 193-194. Kerameikos Grave PG 20, Kerameikos I, 194-195. Kerameikos Grave PG 28, Kerameikos IV, 34-35. Kerameikos Grave PG 35, Kerameikos IV, 37-38. Kerameikos Grave PG 37, Kerameikos IV, 38-39. Kerameikos Grave PG 39, Kerameikos IV, 39-41. Kerameikos Grave PG 40, Kerameikos IV, 41-42. Kerameikos Grave PG 44, Kerameikos IV, 43. Kerameikos Grave PG 45, Kerameikos IV, 43. Kerameikos Grave PG 47, Kerameikos IV, 44. Kerameikos Grave PG C, Kerameikos I, 104-105. Grave XXVI (O) south of the Acropolis, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, 26-27. Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, 27-31. Athens, Erechtheion Street Grave Η, Brouskari 1980, 23-24. Athens, corner Odos Alopekis-Odos Kallitheas (near Mouseion Hill), Κουρουνιώτης 1911, 251. Athens, Grave Odos Dimitrakopoulou IX, Αλεξανδρή 1970, 57; Νικοπούλου 1970, 176-177. Athens, Odos Poulopoulou 20 Grave II, Αλεξανδρή 1967, 110-111. Agora, child grave west of the NE stoa, Thompson 1952, 108, pl. 27c; Tomb 75, O 7:11, Agora XXXVI, 462-466. Agora, child grave in Mycenaean tomb under Temple of Ares, Townsend 1955, 218, 200-201, pl. 72b, 77; Tomb 72, J 7:1, Agora XXXVI, 453-456.12 Agora Tomb 7, M 17:2, Agora XXXVI, 62-65. Agora “Tomb” 8, M 23:1bis, Agora XXXVI, 65-67. Agora Tomb 48, C 9:4, Agora XXXVI, 334-341. Agora Tomb 50, C 9:9, Agora XXXVI, 347-352. Agora Tomb 51, C 9:11, Agora XXXVI, 352-358. Agora Tomb 52, C 9:13, Agora XXXVI, 358-370. Agora Tomb 53, C 9:14, Agora XXXVI, 370-372. Agora Funerary Deposit/”Tomb” 76, Q 8:12, Agora XXXVI, 466-470.

The first lekythos (T72-1, P 21264) was called “Ripe Protogeometric” by Townsend (1955, 218), with the mention of “an early example of hourglass filling”. This was disregarded by Styrenius (1967), who included this grave in his list of LPG graves (p. 90), as did Lemos (2002, 19). Quite surprisingly, is was dated as MPG again in Agora XXXVI, “the lekythoi displaying no distinctly early features, nor any late ones” (p. 455). This is only true for the miniature T72-2 (P 21265). The only other instance of hourglass filling that has been dated before LPG is T5-1, P 12039, Agora XXXVI, 57 fig. 2.13, a “possible tomb group”.

62

K. VAN GELDER

– Athens, Acropolis Station Tomb 84/Pyre 8, Parlama & Stampolidis 2000, 46-50. – Nea Ionia, second group, Smithson 1961, 151, 153. – – – –

The following probably also fall within this category: Kerameikos Grave PG 32, Kerameikos IV, 36 (only one vase). Athens, grave under the cathedral, Δοντάς 1953-1954, 89-94.13 Agora Tomb 6, F 16:3, Agora XXXVI, 57-62. Agora Tomb 49, C 9:10, Agora XXXVI, 341-346. Protogeometric groups with Geometric elements

– Kerameikos Grave PG 26, Kerameikos IV, 33-34. – Kerameikos Grave PG 48, Kerameikos IV, 44-46. – Nea Ionia, first group, Smithson 1961, 151, 153. The following probably also falls within this category: – Kerameikos Grave PG 27 (only one complete vase), Kerameikos IV, 34. Geometric groups with Protogeometric shapes or ‘relics’ – Kerameikos Grave 1 (EG I), Kerameikos V1, 209-210. – Kerameikos Grave 3 (EG I), Kerameikos V1, 212-213. – Agora, Boot Grave (EG I), Young 1949, pl. 66-72; Tomb 11, D 16:2, Agora XXXVI, 77-102. – Agora, House Grave (EG I), Burr 1933, 552-554, fig. 10-11; Tomb 14, H 17:2, Agora XXXVI, 118-123. – Agora Tomb 10, N 16:4, Agora XXXVI, 69-77 (EG I).14 – Agora, Warrior Grave (EG I, end), Blegen 1952, 279-293, pl. 73-75; Tomb 13, D 16:4, Agora XXXVI, 104-118. – Agora Tomb 55, C 9:8, Agora XXXVI, 375-379. – Double grave Odos Ag. Markou 6-12 (transitional EG I-EG II), Σταυρόπουλος 1964, 55-56, pl. 51.15 – Kerameikos Grave 2 (EG II), Kerameikos V1, 210-212. – Kerameikos Grave 38 (EG II), Kerameikos V1, 234-235. 13

14

15

This context is not completely beyond doubt: bone remains of two individuals were found, one amphora is MPG, the other finds are assumed to belong together because they are all LPG. Without oinochoe T10-6, P 24797, the grave could have been listed as FPG; I now believe that all kalathoi are EG in date. Coldstream 1968, 11: “Latest PG into EG II”, altered by Smithson 1974, 383, to “EG I/ EG II”.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

63

– Kerameikos Grave 74 (EG II), Kerameikos V1, 260-261. – Marathon Grave 2 (EG II), Σωτιριάδης 1939, 33, fig. 2 (p. 29) and 3 (p. 30). – Areopagus Phinopoulos Lot Grave II (Coldstream 1968, I18:5, MG I), CVA Athènes 1, pl. 1, 5-11; Smithson 1974, 379-383.16 The following probably also falls within this category: – Grave XXII (4) south of the Acropolis, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, 24-25.17 Final Protogeometric pottery: features Shapes Typical FPG shapes are the giant skyphos with a flaring foot, with or without moulding under the junction with the body (Fig. 5:4, 5:3), the very rare smaller version of it (Fig. 5:5), and the deep low-footed skyphos (Fig. 5:6). These types emerge most probably after the beginning of Geometric, but this is probably the case for all giant skyphoi (conical foot: Fig. 5:2).18 Giant skyphoi without moulding on the foot: Hymettos H. 487, two from Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis (both with flaring foot), one from the Kerameikos (Ker. 609, flaring foot), one foot from Grave XXII (4) south of the Acropolis and two feet from Agora Graves T51 and T52;19 Giant skyphoi with moulding (all with flaring foot): one from Thorikos and three feet (Fig. 1), one foot from the Hymettos, one foot from the House Grave, one from Thera Grave 17 (Attic?) and one currently at Würzburg;20 Fragments of giant skyphoi, shape of foot unknown: three from Thorikos, Ker. 606, Ker. 607; one from the Hymettos and one from Nea Ionia;21 small version: Marathon Grave 2, Kerameikos 1266.22 16

17

18 19

20

21

22

The PG oinochoe NM15315 may be an heirloom. CVA pl. 1:11, NM15320 is uncertain according to Smithson. The neck was probably decorated with a battlement (or a meander) as Ker. 898 from Grave 7, Kerameikos V1, pl. 42. Standard LPG skyphos: Fig. 5:1. Langdon 1976, pl. 17:192; 1957-NAK 460 (ΓΜ 86), 1957-NAK 461 (ΓΜ 87), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 19β-γ; Ker. 609, Smithson 1961, pl. 27 (= T26, Kerameikos I, 126); 1959NAK 5 (ΓΜ 63), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 15β; T51-4, P 6688, Agora XXXVI, 357, fig. 2.50; T52-2, P 8042, 362, fig. 2.253. TC63.271, Thorikos I, 85, fig. 101-102; TC64.473 (Fig. 1), Thorikos II, 32, fig. 20; TC64.655/656 (Fig. 3), Verdelis & Mussche 1965, pl. 106b-c; H597, Langdon 1976, pl. 17:195; Burr 1933, 553 fig. 11:5, Agora XXXVI, 123 fig. 2.69; Dragendorff 1903, 30 fig. 81, 186 fig. 379b; Würzburg H 5393, CVA Würzburg 1 (Deutschland 39), pl. 4, 1-3. Kerameikos I, pl. 49; H490, Langdon 1976 pl. 17:193; Smithson 1961, pl. 27:46. None of the Thorikos fragments is published. Σωτιριάδης 1939, 30 fig. 3γ; Kerameikos IV, pl. 34.

64

K. VAN GELDER

Deep low-footed skyphoi: Nea Ionia 45 and one from Areopagus ARII.23 The skyphos from Nea Ionia was found with shoulder-handled amphora Nea Ionia 4, considered Protogeometric, but decorated in typically Geometric fashion on the belly and neck (first group). Smithson dated the skyphos from the Areopagus as Early Geometric, probably EG II.24 The low-footed cup (Fig. 5:9) is a Geometric shape, but the earliest type was found in Protogeometric Grave C in the Kerameikos and Agora Grave T51.25 One type of oinochoe, although faithful to Protogeometric standards called 48-Type by Evelyn Lord Smithson,26 ‘crosses the boundary’ between Protogeometric and Geometric.27 It has a clearly offset base and a very narrow neck, a high-placed maximal diameter and a curved lower wall (Fig. 5:10). These oinochoai are about 0.20 m high. Most of them come from Kerameikos Grave PG 48 and Grave M (XXVIII) south of the Acropolis, and further from Areopagus Grave II, grave Odos Ag. Markou, and Agora Tombs 8 and probably 76.28 PG 48 contains a kantharos decorated with a battlement filled with dots (Geometric, not Protogeometric), and grave M (XXVIII) south of the Acropolis is closely related. Evelyn Lord Smithson added another context that is purely Geometric in date (Well P 8:3).29 Before the full publication of the Agora graves, three out of four kalathoi with a solid wall (Fig. 5:11) and known context were EG I or MG I.30 Now two 23

24 25

26 27

28

29 30

NM18094, Smithson 1961, pl. 27; Areopagus, ARII-1, German Institute at Athens, Smithson 1974, pl. 71i and Brommer 1972, pl. 97:1. Smithson 1974, 342. Desborough 1952, 101. Ker. 582, Kerameikos I, pl. 33; T51-3, P 6687, Agora XXXVI, 356 fig. 249, 357, fig. 2.50. One (unpublished) comes from an early context at Thorikos, and several from the Agora, according to Desborough (1952, 101-102), who erroneously dated Marathon Grave 2 as transitional. J. Papadopoulos (Agora XXXVI, 357 and 814) assured that the first flat-based cups are MPG, especially referring to P 26312 from Well K 12:1, but that cup is registered as “from the disturbed filling overlying mouth of well”. I am not aware of any earlier cup with a flat base from a closed find. Rare shape with conical disc foot: Nea Ionia, NM18092, Smithson 1974, no. 43, pl. 27 (Fig. 5:8). LPG cup on conical foot: Fig. 5:7. Smithson 1974, 382-383. For this group: Kerameikos IV, 17-18; Smithson 1961, 158; Χαριτωνίδης 1973, 29. Desborough (1952, 50) pointed at the ‘lateness’ of the group, because of the absence of a separator between the sets of semicircles. Smithson (1974, 379) dated it as Early Geometric. Ker. 2071-2074, 2079, 2082, Kerameikos IV, pl. 16; 1957-NAK 469 to 1957-NAK 472, ΓΜ 81 to ΓΜ 84, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 18γ-στ; Areopagus Grave II, Athens NM15315, CVA Athènes 1 (Grèce 1), pl. III Hd 1: 6, Smithson 1974, pl. 79d; Σταυρόπουλος 1964, pl. 51β; Agora T8-1, P 6853, Agora XXXVI, 66 fig. 2.20 and probably the fragmentary T76-1, P 23667, Agora XXXVI, 469 fig. 2.357. Smithson 1974, 382. Ker. 940, 941 and 942, Grave 3, Kerameikos V1, pl. 15; Piraeus, Grave λ, Θεοχάρης 1951, 119 fig. 37; Eleusis, Grave α, Σκιάς 1898, pl. 2:17. The PG one is 579, Grave PG 16, Kerameikos I, pl. 71.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

65

can be added, P 6694 (T50-2), found with a belly-handled amphora with undecorated belly-zone, and P 27110 (T8-2), found with a 48-type oinochoe (I.4).31 Neither of the two is necessarily earlier than EG I. It is very likely that Kerameikos Grave PG 16 is as late, although it cannot be excluded that the amphora is older. A group of cups has the shape and decoration of these kalathoi (Fig. 5:12), and can be taken as contemporary. The specimens were found in Kerameikos Graves PG 20 and PG 47, which may thus also be FPG/EG, Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis, and Nea Ionia (fragmentary).32 Two more come from the Palia Parivolia necropolis at Lefkandi (Grave 22).33 Some shapes are clearly very late, but it cannot be assured that they did not appear before the beginning of Geometric. The first type of amphora with shoulder handles (ovoid amphorae with low conical base, see Fig. 6:1) appears in this phase, from Kerameikos graves PG 39 and 19, the grave mound in the Kerameikos, the Boot Grave in the Agora, Grave XXVI (O) south of the Acropolis, and Nea Ionia (first group).34 A late version of this type is Ker. 898 from Grave 7.35 All LPG contexts with oinochoai known to me are FPG.36 The characteristics of earlier LPG oinochoai are not yet clear, however, so for graves dated only by oinochoai, there is a risk of circular argumentation. One very small type is probably entirely Geometric in date, but the group is as yet too limited for certainty. These have a high-placed maximal diameter and a somewhat biconical aspect. One comes from Kerameikos grave PG 48, one from Thorikos, and one from Nea Ionia.37 Another late oinochoe type is found in LPG and EG graves. The general shape is that of the Protogeometric oinochoe, but without the typical conical LPG base. Sometimes the difference is rather subtle (Fig. 2), but other bases are rounded or not conical at all. They were found in LPG graves (Kerameikos PG 7, with a pyxis and an earlier amphora,38 PG 37, PG 39, PG 40, Erechtheion

31

32

33 34

35 36 37

38

P 6694, Agora XXXVI, 350 fig. 2.245 and P 27110, 66 fig. 2.20. A Geometric specimen is T10-2, P 24792, Agora XXXVI, 74 fig. 2.27. Ker. 577, Kerameikos I, pl. 71; Ker. 1097, Kerameikos IV, pl. 24; 1957-NAK 463, ΓΜ 89, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 19ε. Nos. 24 and 25, Lefkandi I, pl. 139. Ker. 2131, Kerameikos IV, pl. 12; Ker. 610, Kerameikos I, pl. 73, Kerameikos V1, pl. 42; Ker. 595, Kerameikos I, pl. 45; P 19228, Young 1949, pl. 67-68, Agora XXXVI, T11-1, 85 fig. 2.37; 1957-NAK 476, ΓΜ 70, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 16γ; NM18115, Smithson 1961, pl. 24:4. Ker. 2070, Kerameikos V1, pl. 42. Ker. 2150 from Grave PG 35, Kerameikos IV, pl. 14, may be older. Ker. 2070, Kerameikos IV, pl. 15; TC65.653, Thorikos III, 37 fig. 40-41; NM18082, Smithson 1961, pl. 25:8. Ker. 573. The difference in date was noted immediately by Kübler (1935, 284).

66

K. VAN GELDER

Street H, and the later grave under the cathedral), EG I graves (Boot Grave, Warrior Grave, Grave Odos Peiraeus B, and Kerameikos Grave 1 – if Ker. 2134 is an oinochoe), and the EG II Grave Kerameikos 74 (and perhaps Grave 38), but the last belong(s) to the final stage, showing familiarity with the Geometric shape.39 Even a small remaining group of late oinochoai that do not fit within any type has turned out to belong entirely to the latest phase of Protogeometric pottery. Two specimens come from Kerameikos Grave PG 48 and grave M (XXVIII) south of the Acropolis. The others were found in Kerameikos Grave PG 28, the child grave west of the NE stoa, Agora Tombs 10 and 75, Grave Odos Dimitrakopoulou IX and Kerameikos Grave 2.40 Ovoid miniature oinochoai come from Kerameikos Grave 3, the House Grave, Odos Poulopoulo 20 Grave II, and also from Grave XXXIX (21) south of the Acropolis.41 They may thus be considered Final Protogeometric (most are certainly Geometric in date, indeed probably all of them). A large group of lekythoi comes from Kerameikos Graves PG 39, PG 40, PG 48, Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis, the grave from the Odos Alopekis, the child grave in the Mycenaean grave under the temple of Ares, Agora Tombs 48, 52 and 72, Pyre 1 from the Leophoros Syngrou, Odos Dimitrakopoulou Grave IX, and Nea Ionia.42 They are somewhat slenderer than the 39

40

41

42

LPG: Ker. 574 (PG 7), Kerameikos I, pl. 73; Ker. 1077 (PG 37), Ker. 2091 (PG 39), Ker. 2009, Ker. 2010 (both PG 40), Kerameikos IV, pl. 13-14; EPK 547, Brouskari 1980, pl. 4b; Δοντάς 1953-1954, no. 3, 91 fig. 3; EG: P 19230-P 19232, Young 1949, pl. 67-68, T11-5 to 7, Agora XXXVI, 89 fig. 2.40; P 20178; P 20178, Blegen 1952, pl. 75a-b, T13-2, Agora XXXVI, 111, fig. 2.59; Blegen 1952, pl. 76; Ker. 2134 (Grave 1), Kerameikos V1, pl. 70; Ker. 252 (Grave 74), Kerameikos V1, pl. 7a (and maybe Ker. 2137, Grave 38, pl. 70). Some are tentatively added to this group – the dubious ones are P 19231 from the Boot Grave, Ker. 2134 from Grave 1, Ker. 2137 from grave 38, and one from the grave under the cathedral (no. 3). Ker. 2068, Kerameikos IV, pl. 15; 1957-NAK 468, ΓΜ 80, Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 18β; Ker. 914, Kerameikos IV, pl. 15; P 21340, Thompson 1952, pl. 27c, T75-1, Agora XXXVI, 465 fig. 2.353; T10-6, P 24797, 76 fig. 2.30; T75-1, P 21340, 465 fig. 2.353; Αλεξανδρή 1970, pl. 54ε; Ker. 928, Kerameikos V1, pl. 70. Ker. 946 and 947, Kerameikos V1, pl. 15; P 730, Burr 1933, 553 fig. 11 no. 1, Agora XXXVI, T14-1, 122 fig. 2.68; 1957-NAK 457, ΓΜ 93, Χαριτωνίδης, pl. 21δ; Αλεξανδρή 1967, pl. 96γ. Dating on the basis of miniatures is, however, risky. PG 39: Ker. 2096-2099, Kerameikos IV, pl. 18; PG 40: Ker. 2015, 2017-2013, pl. 17-18; PG 48: Ker. 2067, 2083, 2085, 2086, 2088, 2089, pl. 19; 1957-NAK 464 (ΓΜ76), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 17ε, 1957-NAK 465 (ΓΜ78), pl. 17ζ, 1957-NAK 466 (ΓΜ79), pl. 18α; Κουρουνιώτης 1911, 251 fig. 20 (left, second from the left, second from the right); Townsend 1955, pl. 77, T72-1, P 21264, Agora XXXVI, 456 fig. 2.343; T48-5, 6, 7, 8, 9, P 6853, 6854, 6852, 6848, 6850, 338, fig. 2.236, 339 fig. 2.237, 340, fig. 2.238; T52-9, 10, 11, 13, P 6698, 6700, 6699, 6702, 366 fig. 2.255, 368 fig. 2.256; T72-1, P 21264, 456, fig. 2.343; Αλεξανδρή 1974, pl. 78ε; Νικοπούλου 1970, 177 fig. 10; Smithson 1961,

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

67

other lekythoi (ratio max. diameter to body height lower than ca. 0.097) and rather large (up to nearly 0.21 m) (Fig. 6:2). The ovoid pyxis (Fig. 6:3) appears in a very advanced stage of Protogeometric.43 Early pyxides come from Kerameikos Graves PG 7, PG 28, PG 35, PG 45, PG 48, 1, Grave XXVI (O) south of the Acropolis, Agora Boot Grave, Warrior Grave, Tomb 52, Tomb 75 (child grave west of the NE stoa), Grave Odos Poulopoulou 20, Nea Ionia second group, the Acropolis Station grave, and Lefkandi Palaia Perivolia Grave P22.44 Two others, with an uncommon shape, come from Agora Tombs 6 and 49.45 Several others (and fragments) were found out of context. The low-handled kantharos also appears very late. Kantharoi come from Kerameikos Graves PG 20, PG 26, PG 44, PG 48, 3, 43, the Boot Grave, the House Grave and the Warrior Grave in the Agora and Tombs 10, 52, 53 and 76. Another was found in the excavations of Odos Karaïski 16-18.46 It should be noted that most kantharoi have a rather low conical foot (Fig. 6:5), those with high feet like the skyphoi and the cups are exceptions (Fig. 6:4).47

43

44

45

46

47

nos. 14 (NM18077), 15 (NM18078), 16 (NM18076), 17 (NM18103), 19 (NM18072), 23 (NM18102), pl. 25, and 32 (NM18087), pl. 26. Smithson (1960, 164) mentioned one entirely painted pyxis from an MPG context (Well C18:5), still unpublished, but the shape of this unique item is quite different, see Agora XXXVI, 767-768. Ker. 575 (PG 7), Kerameikos I, pl. 73; Ker. 912, 913 (PG 28), Ker. 2151 (PG 35), Ker. 1105 (PG 45), Ker. 2066 (PG 48), Kerameikos IV, pl. 20; Ker. 2135, Kerameikos V1, pl. 51; 1957-NAK 477 (ΓΜ 71), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl 16δ; P 19240, Young 1949, pl. 67 no. 3, T11-3, Agora XXXVI, 87 fig. 2.38; P 20182, Blegen 1952, pl. 74c, T13-7, Agora XXXVI, 113 fig. 2.61; T52-15 and 16, P 6697, 6696, 368 fig. 2.256; P 21341, Thompson 1952, 108, pl. 27c, T75-2, Agora XXXVI, 463 fig. 2.352, 465 fig. 2.353; Αλεξανδρή 1967, pl. 96γ; NM18090, Smithson 1961, pl. 26 no. 39; Parlama & Stampolidis 2000, 48, no. 19; Lefkandi I, pl. 139, 212a, 271a. T6-2, P 325, Agora XXXVI, 60 fig. 2.16, and 61: “Vessel unique, particularly the form of the rim and ledge-lug handles”; T49-2, P 6683, 344 fig. 2.241. Ker. 730 (PG 20), Kerameikos I, pl. 70; Ker. 919 (PG 26), Ker. 2026 (PG 44), Ker. 2031 (PG 48), Kerameikos IV, pl. 21; Ker. 936, 943, 951 (Grave 3), Kerameikos V1, pl. 15 (nos. 2, 8, 9); Ker. 1251 (Grave 43), pl. 99; P 19421, 19244-19247, Young 1949, pl. 67, 69, Agora XXXVI, T11-16 to 20, 93 fig. 2.43, 95 fig. 2.44; P 731, Burr 1933, 553 fig. 11:2, Agora XXXVI, T14-2, 123 fig. 2.68; P 20179, Blegen 1952, pl. 75a-b (no. 18), Agora XXXVI, 112 fig. 2.60; P 24798, T10-8, Agora XXXVI, 76 fig. 2.30; P 6704, T52-17, Agora XXXVI, 368 fig. 2.256; P 6724, T53-1, Agora XXXVI, 371 fig. 2.258; P 23666, T76-4, Agora XXXVI, 469 fig. 2.357; Αλεξανδρή 1970, pl. 60β. Low base (Fig. 6:6): Ker. 919, P 20180, P 6724; stemmed: P 19241. Ker. 2026, Grave PG 44, Kerameikos IV, pl. 21; Mainz 694, CVA Mainz 1 (D’land 15), pl. 1 (D’land 694): 3-4; Athens, Odos Karaïski 16-18, Αλεξανδρή 1970, pl. 60β; Agora T76-4, P 23666, Agora XXXVI, 469 fig. 2.357.

68

K. VAN GELDER

Figure 1. Fragmentary skyphos from Thorikos TC64.473; Pres. H. 8,2 cm. (photo: author).

Figure 2. Fragmentary oinochoe from Thorikos TC64.471; Pres. H. 15,6 cm. (photo: author).

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

Figure 3. Fragmentary skyphos from Thorikos TC64.655; Pres. H. 16,2 cm. (photo: author).

Figure 4. Fragmentary amphora from Thorikos TC63.1050’a’; Pres. H. 23 cm. (photo: Thorikos archive).

69

70

K. VAN GELDER

Decoration The most typical, but rare, Final Protogeometric decoration is asymmetrical (Fig. 3).48 It was probably not used before the beginning of Geometric. But even the symmetrical decoration with a cross-hatched zone bordered by a row of solid lozenges at each side, between sets of concentric circles,49 is linked with the giant skyphoi and hence Final Protogeometric (Geometric decoration also appears on Protogeometric shapes). Other decorations merely appear unusual. While the decoration on a skyphos from Marathon Grave 2 is clearly Geometric, Ker. 1266, belonging to the same type, has just a supplementary row of reserved pending triangles under the primary decoration.50 The crosshatched panel on the neck of amphora Ker. 908 from Grave PG 27 suggests awareness of the Geometric style.51 The 48-Type oinochoai have only the shoulder left free for decoration. The decoration on the small group of somewhat irregular oinochoai is purely Protogeometric. The oinochoai of the other type mentioned (gradually ‘giving up’ the conical base) bear all types of decoration (Desborough’s Class I and II), including the Geometric dark-ground with decoration on wall and neck (II.c). The remaining oinochoai not belonging to any other type bear, as could be expected, various decorations, not all of them Protogeometric (Ker. 928, Bucarest NM3218).52 The decoration of the mentioned lekythoi is mostly true Protogeometric. Signs of ‘lateness’ are lozenges between the semicircles on the shoulder on three lekythoi from Grave PG 40 and a row of dots above the semicircles on Ker. 2099 from Grave PG 39.53 C-Class amphorae, neck-handled and with a reserved body, belong to this period as well.54 The belly-handled amphorae with undecorated belly-zone can

48 49

50 51 52 53

54

Papadopoulos 2015. TC63.271, Thorikos I, 85 fig. 101-102, Nea Ionia NM18109, Smithson 1961, pl. 27, and a skyphos from Thera (Attic?), Dragendorff 1903, 30, fig. 81 and 186, fig. 379b. Σωτιριάδης 1939, 30 fig. 3γ; Kerameikos IV, pl. 34. Kerameikos IV, pl. 7. Grave 2, Kerameikos V1, pl. 70; CVA Bucarest 1 (Roumanie 1), pl. 10:1-2. Ker. 2022, 2017 and 2019 from Grave PG 40, Kerameikos IV, pl. 17-18; Ker. 2099, Kerameikos IV, pl. 18. A very large one, Goulandris 436 (Doumas & Marangou 1978, no. 42, p. 191) from Crete, but considered as probably Attic by L. Marangou, is connected with this type and bears a decoration that combines various late elements. Agora XXXVI, 64-65, 700-702. T17-1, P 9325, fragmentary, Agora XXXVI, 65, fig. 2.19. I had noted the ‘lateness’ of this decoration previously, but not used it to define FPG. I now believe that this ‘Class’ must be considered FPG, and added Kerameikos graves PG 19 (with Ker. 571, Kerameikos I, pl. 57) and PG 32 (with Ker. 1163, Kerameikos IV, pl. 7).

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

71

be dated similarly.55 Banded amphorae are discussed by J. Papadopoulos.56 They first occur in graves in FPG/EG times, although Papadopoulos notes one from an MPG well.57 Amphorae of the PG type have mostly two bands, exceptionally three (Kerameikos 910, Grave PG 28, and possibly a fragmentary one from Thorikos, TC63.1050’a’, see Fig. 4).58 The decoration on the pyxides is mostly Protogeometric, but some bear Geometric decoration: a battlement on Agora P 19240 from the Boot Grave, a meander on a pyxis from pyre A in the Odos Dimitrakopoulou,59 and a more elaborate decoration, with a battlement, on Ker. 2135 from Grave 1, two of them from a Geometric context, one without known context. The walls of the kantharoi may be painted, the Geometric ones often have a panel reserved for decoration, but Ker. 2031 from Grave PG 48 has a broad reserved panel with a meander on one side and a battlement on the other.60 Early low-footed cups have a painted wall, and the Geometric cups of this type often have a decorated (window) panel. Fine handmade ware Typical for this period is the appearance in graves of Attic fine handmade incised ware, as defined by Evelyn Lord Smithson in 1961 and now comprehensively described in Agora XXXVI.61 To the finds from Nea Ionia must be added dolls, pyxides, beads, and spindle whorls from Kerameikos Graves PG 33, PG 37, PG 39, PG 41 and PG 48,62 beads from Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis,63 the doll and spindle whorl from the Acropolis Station 55

56 57 58

59 60 61

62 63

Ker. 1073 (PG 37), Kerameikos IV, pl. 10; Ker. 1088 (PG 38 – the only one from a grave not listed here as FPG), Kerameikos IV, pl. 9; Ker. 1098 (PG 45), Kerameikos IV, pl. 11; Ker. 1096 (PG 47), Kerameikos IV, pl. 11; grave under the cathedral no. 2, Δοντάς 19531954, 90 fig. 2; Ker. 235 (Grave 76 - MG I), Kerameikos V1, pl. 35; Agora T50-1, P 6693, Agora XXXVI, 350 fig. 2.245, one without context, but part of an FPG find spot, Nea Ionia 3, NM18113, Smithson 1961, pl. 24; two without context, Athens NM21313, CVA Athens, National Museum, 5, pl. 90:4, and Aegina 1326, Kraiker 1951, no. 1, pl. 3, with check pattern or check pattern as a divider on the shoulder. Agora XXXVI, 702-704. P 17456 from Well A 20:5, Papadopoulos & Smithson 2002, 170 fig. 15b. Therefore, the sentence “Still PG in style, since EG examples normally have three bands on the body” (Agora XXXVI, 375), seems puzzling. Tomb T54, B 10:1, 372-375 may probably be dated as FPG also. Νικοπούλου 1970, 177 fig. 11. Kerameikos IV, pl. 21. Smithson 1961, 170-172, finds and relations 172-173. Later evolution: Smithson 1968, 103105, Smithson 1974, 339-340, 346-347, 352; Agora XXXVI, 863-875. Kerameikos IV, pl. 31-32. Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 16α-β.

72

K. VAN GELDER

grave,64 and the pyxides, bowls, beads, spindle-whorls, and sphere from Agora Tombs 11 (EG I), 14 (EG I), 15 (EG II), 49, 52, 62, 63, 75 (FPG). The date of the graves Geometric graves with Protogeometric shapes or ‘relics’ are of course still Geometric in date, as are the Protogeometric graves with Geometric elements. Grave M south of the Acropolis is so closely related to Kerameikos Grave PG 48 that it must be contemporary. Calibrating the other Final Protogeometric graves with the beginning of Geometric is much harder. Kerameikos Grave PG 7 contained a much older amphora, a pyxis and an oinochoe of a type reminiscent of the Protogeometric shape of the base. The exact date of this grave cannot be established, but if it is Protogeometric, it belongs to the very end of the period. Kerameikos Grave PG 16 is dated by the kalathos, found with a bellyhandled amphora. Kerameikos Grave PG 19 contained, besides the C-Class amphora, fragments of a PG-EG I krater, some minor fragments and an undecorated bead, not allowing for precise dating. Kerameikos Grave PG 20 yielded an exceptional kalathos with a handle, decorated in the Protogeometric manner, fragments of a handmade jug (not illustrated), the already mentioned kantharos,65 and a belly-handled amphora.66 This amphora has an entirely painted shoulder and bears a decoration on the belly also seen on giant skyphoi, with a cross-hatched zone flanked by rows of solid lozenges between sets of circles. This exceptional decoration suggests a date after the beginning of Geometric. Kerameikos Grave PG 28 contained, besides the already mentioned vases, two amphorae: one banded neck-handled amphora and one with rim handles.67 Both are rare and likely late. One banded amphora comes from Nea Ionia (second group) and two from Agora Tombs 10 and 54, while rim-handled amphorae come from Grave PG 40.68 This firmly links these find groups but provides no clear date. The amphora from Kerameikos Grave PG 35 cannot be dated independently, the oinochoe,69 although its shape looks to be earlier, has a dark-ground 64 65 66 67 68

69

Parlama & Stampolidis 2000, 50, nos. 24-25. Called a krater, although the height is 0.115 and the upper diameter 0.13. Ker. 576, Kerameikos I, pl. 56. Ker. 910, 911, Kerameikos IV, pl. 6, 8. Ker. 2012 and 2013, Kerameikos IV, pl. 8 (Ker. 2013 with a similar decoration but without horses on the neck). Ker. 2150, Kerameikos IV, pl. 14.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

73

decoration with a scribble on the belly, as do oinochoai from graves PG 28, PG 45 and PG 48.70 Again, this only confirms the FPG date of the grave. Kerameikos Grave PG 37 shows no other typical late elements than the oinochoai Ker. 1076 and 1077.71 Kerameikos Grave PG 39 yielded, apart from the already mentioned vases, some other diagnostic elements as well. Both standard skyphoi are large, paralleled only in Grave PG 48,72 and one of them (Inv. 2102) has two and a half cross-hatched lozenges between the sets of circles. Only the skyphos from Odos Dimitrakopoulou Grave IX has a similar motif. The grave contained also the typical handmade ware from this period. Both elements link this grave with Grave PG 48, itself EG in date. Kerameikos Grave PG 40 contained, besides the mentioned vases, a neckhandled amphora, two rim-handled amphorae (the third decorated in a PG style comes from PG 28), two skyphoi, and two lekythoi.73 Nothing else is indicative of the date of the grave. From Kerameikos Grave PG 44 came, besides the kantharos, a neck-handled amphora and an oinochoe (not illustrated), dark-ground with a scribble on the belly.74 Besides the pyxis, the only typical late vase from Kerameikos Grave PG 45 is a dark-ground oinochoe.75 The other vases are a belly-handled amphora, two cups, and two handmade jugs.76 Grave PG 47 contained a belly-handled amphora with undecorated belly and a cup-kalathos, which may be EG in date.77 Kerameikos Grave PG C contained, besides the C-Class amphora and the flat-based cup, only an exceptional bowl. The grave is FPG, but its exact date cannot be determined, if flat-based cups were in use before the beginning of EG.

70 71 72 73

74 75 76

77

Ker. 914 (PG 28), Ker. 1099 (PG 45), Ker. 2068, 2070 (PG 48), Kerameikos IV, pl. 15. It cuts Grave PG 35, Kerameikos IV, 38. Ker. 2102 and 2103, Kerameikos IV, pl. 23. Kerameikos IV, pl. 5 (Ker. 2008), 8 (Ker. 2012 and 2013), 22 (Ker. 2011 and 2014); Ker. 2016 is not illustrated, the lekythos Ker. 2020, pl. 17, may be older than the grave, but lekythoi of the same type came from Nea Ionia (nos. 26 and 30, NM18079-18080, Smithson 1961, pl. 26). Ker. 2014, Kerameikos IV, pl. 7, and Ker. 2025, Kerameikos IV, 43. Ker. 1099, Kerameikos IV, pl. 15. Ker. 1098, Kerameikos IV, pl. 11, Ker. 1104, 1106 (with an exceptional shape), pl. 24, Ker. 1100-1101, pl. 28. This grave was added to the list after the publication of Agora XXXVI, as I now consider all kalathoi and belly-handled amphorae without decoration in the belly-zone to be FPG (or later).

74

K. VAN GELDER

Besides the fragmentary C-Class amphora, Agora Tomb 7 produced a PG skyphos. Papadopoulos has explained why he considers this grave to be PG and Smithson rather EG I. In my opinion, both could be right.78 “Tomb 8” is dated EG I by the 48-type oinochoe and the kalathos. The child grave from the Mycenaean tomb, Agora Tomb 72, contained, besides the mentioned vases, a miniature oinochoe; the child grave west of the NE stoa, Tomb 75, two cups. They do not add any chronological information. Six lekythoi from Agora Tomb 48 are mentioned; the seventh, T48-4,79 is marked by the irregular curve of shoulder and wall, deviating from PG standards. Two skyphoi and one oinochoe do not add any further information, but about the fragmentary oinochoe T48-3,80 Papadopoulos wrote that it “would normally be dated EG”.81 So would the large lekythos, and the grave may thus be dated EG. Both vases from Agora Tomb 50 are FPG, but a kalathos is Geometric (the exact chronological position of the grave cannot be established). About the fragmentary amphora from Agora Tomb 51, Papadopoulos wrote “just possibly as late as the offerings in Tomb 51”.82 The small hydria and four of the five conical feet do not add any information,83 but one foot belonged to a giant skyphos, making it probably EG and likely dating the flat-based cup as EG also. The belly-handled amphora Agora T52-1 is compared by Papadopoulos with T49-1,84 from a grave listed here as probably FPG, as the dating rests only on an exceptional miniature pyxis (and one fine handmade incised ware bead).85 One of the two conical feet from Tomb 52 is a fragment of a giant skyphos, which suggests a Geometric date. Of the six lekythoi, two are too fragmentary to be grouped and four were already mentioned as belonging to an FPG type. The other finds are FPG but do not allow for a more precise dating. Agora Tomb 53 contained only a kantharos with disc base86 and a handmade cooking jug. 78 79 80 81

82 83 84

85 86

Agora XXXVI, 62-63. P 6847, Agora XXXVI, 338 fig. 2.236. P 6855, Agora XXXVI, 337 fig. 2.235. Agora XXXVI, 336. He added: “This tomb further highlights the close connection between LPG and EG”. Agora XXXVI, 356. T51-1, P 6685, Agora XXXVI, 355 fig. 2.248. T51-2, T51-5, 6, 7 and 8, P 6686, 6687, 6689, 6690, 6691, Agora XXXVI, 357 fig. 2.250. Agora XXXVI, 362. P 8041, p. 362 fig. 2.253, compared with T49-1, P 6682, p. 344 fig. 2.241. T49-2 and 3, P 6683 and MC 218, Agora XXXVI, 344 fig. 2.241 and 346, fig. 2.242. T53-1, P 6724, Agora XXXVI, 371 fig. 2.258. J. Papadopoulos gives a very plausible explanation for the narrow disc foot. Compare, however, Ker. 919 from Grave PG26, Kerameikos IV, pl. 21, with a very low narrow base.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

75

From the funerary Deposit or Tomb 76 came, besides the kantharos and the fragmentary oinochoe, also a milk jug. Agora Tombs 6 and 49 are listed as probably FPG groups without Geometric elements. The reason for dating Tomb 6 as FPG is a pyxis, but a very unusual one. For Tomb 49, a miniature pyxis and a fine handmade incised ware bead suggest an FPG date. Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis is linked with PG 48 by the 48-Type oinochoai and the lekythoi. It also contained two giant skyphoi. This suggests a date after the beginning of Geometric. The urn is one of the rare dark-ground amphorae preceding the true Geometric style.87 Other finds were a handmade jug, a cup-kalathos, which also points to an EG date, and the typical incised beads.88 The precise chronological position is less clear for the very late Grave XXVI (O) south of the Acropolis. It contained the already mentioned shoulderhandled amphora and pyxis, but nothing more. The only vase hitherto not mentioned from the grave at the corner of Odoi Alopekis and Kallitheas is a milk jug. The amphora from Erechthion Street Grave H has been compared by M. Brouskari with Ker. 1089 from Grave PG 38,89 which has no typical late elements but cuts into PG 37.90 This only confirms the FPG date. Only one illustrated vase from Odos Dimitrakopoulou 110 grave IX, a skyphos,91 is not yet mentioned. The foot is not sharply off-set and the decoration with a hatched lozenge between sets of circles is exceptional. From a purely stylistic point of view, one might say that the grave ‘crosses the border’ with EG. Grave II from Odos Poulopoulo 20 yielded the mentioned miniature oinochoe and pyxis. All miniature oinochoai may be Geometric in date; the pyxis has a check pattern in the central decoration, which should be interpreted as a sign of ‘lateness’. To the late group found under the cathedral belong, besides the mentioned amphora and oinochoe, a standard LPG skyphos and a miniature lekythos. It is very late, but an EG date is uncertain. The grave from the Acropolis Station is dated as FPG by the pyxis, with an unusual double zigzag, and this date is confirmed by the Attic fine handmade incised ware and the belly-handled amphora with reserved belly-zone, solidly 87 88

89 90 91

1957-NAK 459 (ΓΜ 75), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 17δ. 1957-NAK 473 (ΓΜ 85), Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 19α, 1957-NAK 463 (ΓΜ 89), pl. 19ε, 1957-NAK 218 (ΓΜ 74), pl. 17α-β. Brouskari 1980, 23. Kerameikos IV, 39. Νικοπούλου 1970, 176 fig. 9.

76

K. VAN GELDER

painted shoulder and reserved lines on the neck; furthermore, it contained a standard PG skyphos and a handmade jug. The dark-ground oinochoe is late, but the photograph does not allow for a classification. This grave may well have ‘passed the boundary’ with EG. Conclusions Final Protogeometric pottery was produced during a period that covers Early Geometric at the least, but a number of shapes and decorations that characterise FPG may well have been in use before the beginning of EG. On the other hand, standard PG shapes and decorations are found together with typical FPG ceramics. Of the find groups that do not show any clear awareness of the Geometric style (as do Kerameikos PG 26, PG 48, Nea Ionia first group and probably Kerameikos PG 27), an EG date is almost certain for Kerameikos PG 16, PG 20, PG 47, Agora Tombs 7, 8, 48, 51, 52, Grave XXVIII (M) south of the Acropolis, and likely also Kerameikos Grave PG 39, Agora Tomb 50 and Deposit 76, Odos Dimitrakopoulou 110 Grave IX, and a grave from the Acropolis Station. Other graves may also be EG in date, but it cannot be demonstrated. References Agora XXXVI: Papadopoulos, J.K. & E.L. Smithson 2017. The Athenian Agora XXXVI, The Early Iron Age: The Cemeteries. Princeton, NJ. Αλεξανδρή, Ο. 1967. Γ’ Ἐφορεία Κλασσικῶν Ἀρχαιοτήτων Ἀθηνῶν, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 22, B’, 37-130. Αλεξανδρή, Ο. 1970. Γ’ Ἐφορεία Κλασσικῶν Ἀρχαιοτήτων Ἀθηνῶν, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 25, B’1, 40-91. Αλεξανδρή, Ο. 1974. 1973: Αθήναι. Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 29, B’1, 82-103. Bingen, J. 1967a. L’établissement du IXe siècle et les nécropoles du secteur ouest 4. In: Thorikos II, 25-46. Bingen, J. 1967b. L’établissement géométrique et la nécropole ouest. In: Thorikos III, 31-56. Bingen, J. 1968. La nécropole ouest 4. In: Thorikos I, 59-86. Blegen, C.W. 1952. Two Athenian Grave Groups of about 900 B.C., Hesperia 21, 279-294. Brommer, F. 1972. Antiken des Athener Instituts, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 87, 255-294. Brouskari, M. 1980. A Dark Age Cemetery in Erechtheion Street, Athens, Annual of the British School at Athens 75, 13-31. Burr, D. 1933. A Geometric House and a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit, Hesperia 2, 542640.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

77

Χαριτωνίδης, Σ.Ι. 1973. Εὑρήματα Πρωτογεωμετρικῆς καὶ Γεωμετρικῆς ἐποχῆς τῆς ἀνασκαφῆς νοτίως τῆς Ἀκροπόλεως, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 28, A’, 1-63. Coldstream, J.N. 1977. Geometric Greece. London. Coldstream, J.N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery. A survey of ten local styles and their chronology. London. Desborough, V.R.d’A. 1952. Protogeometric Pottery. Oxford. Desborough, V.R.d’A. 1972. The Greek Dark Ages. London. Δοντάς, Γ.Σ. 1953-1954. Ἀνασκαφὴ ὑπο τὸν Ἱερὁν Ναὁν τῆς Μητροπόλεως τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, Αρχαιολογική Εφεμερίς 92-93, III, 89-97. Doumas, C. & L. Marangou 1978. Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art from the N.P. Goulandris Collection. Athens. Dragendorff, H. (ed.) 1903. Thera II. Theräische Gräber. Berlin. Kerameikos I: Kraiker, W. & K. Kübler 1939. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen I. Die Nekropolen des 12. bis 10. Jahrhunderts. Berlin. Kerameikos IV: Kübler, K. 1943. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen IV. Neufunde aus der Nekropole des 11. und 10. Jahrhunderts. Berlin. Kerameikos V1: Kübler, K. 1954. Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen V1. Die Nekropole des 10. bis 8. Jahrhunderts. Berlin. Knigge, U. 1966. Eridanos-Nekropole II. Gräber hS 205-230, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 81, 112-134. Κουρουνιώτης, Κ. 1911. Ἐξ Ἀττικῆς, Αρχαιολογική Εφεμερίς 50, 246-256. Kraiker, W. 1951. Aigina. Die Vasen des 10. bis 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Berlin. Kübler, K. 1935. Ausgrabungen im Kerameikos, Archäologischer Anzeiger 1935, 260-300. Langdon, M.K. 1976. A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos. Hesperia Supplement 16. Princeton, NJ. Lefkandi I: Popham, M.R., L.H. Sacket & P.G. Themelis (eds) 1979-1980. Lefkandi. The Iron Age. Annual of the British School at Athens, Supplement 22. Oxford. Lemos, I.S. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC. Oxford. Νικοπούλου, Υ. 1970. Νεκροταφεῖον παρὰ τὴν πρὸς Φάληρον ὁδόν, Athens Annals of Archaeology 3, 171-179. Papadopoulos, J.K. 2003. Ceramicus Redivivus. The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora. Hesperia Supplement 31. Princeton, NJ. Papadopoulos, J.K. 2015. The Charitonidis Class: A Group of Large Athenian Late Protogeometric Skyphoi, Opuscula. Annual of the Swedish Institutes at Athens and Rome 8, 7-26. Papadopoulos, J.K., B.N. Damiata & J.M. Marston 2011. Once More with Feeling: Jeremy Rutter’s Plea for the Abandonment of the Term Submycenaean Revisited. In: W. Gauß, M. Lindblom, A Smith & J. Wright (eds), Our Cups Are Full: Pottery and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age: Papers presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the occasion of his 65th birthday, 187-202. Oxford. Papadopoulos, J.K. & E.L. Smithson 2002. The Cultural Biography of a Cycladic Geometric Amphora: Islanders in Athens and the Prehistory of Metics, Hesperia 71, 149-199.

78

K. VAN GELDER

Parlama, L. & N. Stampolidis (eds) 2000. Athens: The City Beneath the City: Antiquities from the Metropolitan Railway Excavations. Athens. Servais, J. 1967. Les fouilles sur le haut du Vélatouri. In: Thorikos III, 9-30. Σκιάς, A.N. 1898. Παναρχαία ἐλευσινιακὴ νεκρόπολις, Αρχαιολογική Εφεμερίς 37, 29-122. Smithson, E.L. 1961. The Protogeometric Cemetery at Nea Ionia, 1949, Hesperia 30, 147-177. Smithson E.L. 1968. The Tomb of a Rich Athenian Lady, ca. 850 BC, Hesperia 37, 77-116. Smithson, E.L. 1974. A Geometric Cemetery on the Areopagus: 1897, 1932, 1947, Hesperia 43, 325-390. Σωτιριάδης, Γ. 1939. Ἀνασκαφὴ ἐν Μαραθῶνι, Πρακτικά τής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 94, 27-39. Σταυρόπουλος, Φ. 1964. `Ανασκαφαὶ καὶ τυχαῖα εὑρήματα ἐντὸς τῆς περιμέτρικης ζώνης τῆς πόλεως τῶν Ἀθήνων, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 19, B’, 46-64. Styrenius, C.-G. 1967. Submycenaean Studies. Examination of finds from mainland Greece with a chapter on Attic protogeometric graves. Acta Instituti Atheniensis Regni Sueciae 8°, VII. Lund. Θεοχάρης, Δ.Ρ. 1951. `Ανασκαφὴ ἐν Παλαιᾷ Κοκκινιᾷ Πειραιῶς, Πρακτικά τής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 106, 93-127. Thompson, H.A. 1952. Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1951, Hesperia 21, 83-113. Thorikos I: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe & T. Hackens 1968. Thorikos 1963. Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de eerste opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos II: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. De Geyter, G. Donnay & T. Hackens 1967. Thorikos 1964. Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de tweede opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos III: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, J. De Geyter, T. Hackens, P. Spitaels & A. Gautier 1967. Thorikos 1965. Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de derde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos X: Docter, R.F. (ed.) 2011. Thorikos 10 Reports and Studies. Ghent. Townsend, E.D. 1955. A Mycenaean Chamber Tomb under the Temple of Ares, Hesperia 24, 187-219. Van Gelder, K. 2000. Attic Geometric: Athenian and Provincial, L’Antiquité Classique 69, 269-275. Van Gelder, K. 2011. Old Excavations near the Top of the Velatouri at Thorikos: a Revision. In: Thorikos X, 15-49. Verdelis, N. & H. Mussche 1965. Fouilles à Thorikos, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 20, B’, 128-130. Young, R.S. 1949. An Early Geometric Grave near the Athenian Agora, Hesperia 18, 275-297.

ATTIC FINAL PROTOGEOMETRIC POTTERY

79

Figure 5. FPG shapes (compared to LPG shapes. 1: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 22; 2: after Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 19β; 3: after Smithson 1961, pl. 27; 4: after CVA Würzburg 1 (Deutschland 39), pl. 4, 1; 5: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 34; 6: after Smithson 1961, pl. 27; 7: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 24; 8: after Smithson 1974, pl. 27; 9: after Kerameikos I, pl. 33; 10: after CVA Athènes 1 (Grèce 1), pl. III Hd 1: 6; 11: after Kerameikos I, pl. 71; 12: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 24) (Drawing: J. Angenon).

80

K. VAN GELDER

Figure 6. FPG shapes (1: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 12; 2: after Χαριτωνίδης 1973, pl. 17ζ; 3: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 20; 4: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 21; 5: after Agora XXXVI, 76 fig. 2.30; 6: after Kerameikos IV, pl. 21) (Drawing: J. Angenon).

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS ON THE VELATOURI HILL AT THORIKOS (2006-2014) Lieven VERDONCK, Maarten PRAET, Roald F. DOCTER, Robert LAFFINEUR, Alain DE WULF, Cornelis STAL* Introduction and overview The Belgian School at Athens has been pioneering non-invasive prospection techniques at Thorikos since 1968, when a team of geologists from Ghent University carried out a geo-electrical survey in the area of the so-called Temple of Demeter in the Adami Plain, now thought to have been a double stoa.1 Their aim was to localise further architectural remains of this structure, “buried under younger, partly fluviatile, partly marine deposits”, and to make a reconstruction of the paleo-landscape of this part of Thorikos.2 In 2013/2014, a Greek team of geologists, hydrologists, geophysicists and archaeologists conducted a new geo-electrical survey in the Adami and Potami plains with a view to the hydrogeological (extent of salinisation), stratigraphical and geological features of this valley system.3 In 2009, R. Laffineur and L. Verdonck of the universities of Liège and Ghent did an extensive GPR survey (ca. 4000 m2) on the southern slopes of the Velatouri hill in order to establish the possibility of a Late Bronze Age residential nucleus in this relatively flat area (see below;

*

1

2 3

Dr. Lieven Verdonck, Maarten Praet, Prof. Dr. Roald F. Docter, Ghent University, Department of Archaeology. Prof. Dr. Alain De Wulf, Ghent University, Department of Geography. Dr. Cornelis Stal: Ghent University College, Department of Real Estate and Applied Geomatics / Ghent University, Department of Geography. Em. Prof. Dr. Robert Laffineur, Department of Historical Sciences, Université de Liège. Paepe 1971. On the stoa (formerly thought to have been a Doric temple), see Mussche 1964; Paepe 1969; Πετράκος 1995; 1996; 1997; 1998; Mussche 1998, 58-59, 156, figs. 125126; Miles 2015. On geophysical prospection at Thorikos, see also Praet et al. 2018. Paepe 1971, 9. Apostolopoulos et al. 2014, but remarkably without making any reference to the previous work of Paepe in 1968.

82

L. VERDONCK E.A.

Fig. 2).4 In 2010, these investigations were continued with a magnetometric prospection by a team directed by R. Laffineur, covering a huge terrain of some 25000 m2.5 These geophysical prospections found evidence for dispersed structures and architectural features buried below the surface, but no indications for an extended Bronze Age occupation on this part of the site,6 a result corroborated in the meantime by the archaeological survey done by Ghent and Utrecht universities between 2012 and 2015.7 In 2014, apart from the extensive magnetometric survey on the lower southeastern slopes of the Velatouri hill, presented below, two very limited areas were also prospected using this methodology, preceding the planned excavations of that campaign. One took place in the West Necropolis, where a team from Ghent University tried to establish the northern limit of this cemetery and excavate one burial plot that had been left unfinished by previous excavators.8 A second one preceded the extension of Jean Servais’ eastern trench on the Thorikos acropolis.9 In view of the limited scale of these magnetometric surveys, the data were extremely difficult to interpret and did not yield any publishable results. From the beginning of the fieldwork by the Belgian School at Athens, geomatics played an important role in all archaeological undertakings at Thorikos involving topographers from Ghent and Liège universities and the Hogeschool Gent.10 In 2006, a small team directed by A. De Wulf worked with R. Laffineur in the necropolis area in the saddle of the two Velatouri summits.11 These geomatic studies have recently been extended to the domain of remote sensing with a drone survey of the lower southern part of the Velatouri hill conducted by C. Stal (see below; Figs. 8-10).

4

5

6 7 8

9

10 11

R. Laffineur in Morgan et al. 2010, 15. It should be noted that the position and extent of the GPR survey were wrongly positioned on the site map prepared in 2011 (Van Liefferinge, Stal & De Wulf 2011, 9, fig. 4); this has been corrected in the revised edition of 2013. The 2010 prospection was executed by Posselt & Zickgraf Prospektionen GbR (Mühltal, Germany). The results will be published elsewhere by R. Laffineur. See van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (survey). The results of this small campaign will be published in a forthcoming volume of Thorikos Reports and Studies. See Van Gelder 2011, with references to the earlier excavations. The results of the trial excavation to the south of this trench will be published in a forthcoming volume of Thorikos Reports and Studies. For the recent extensive geophysical prospections on the acropolis of Thorikos, see also Déderix et al., elsewhere in this volume. On geomatics and Thorikos, see also De Wulf & Stal 2018; Stal & De Wulf forthcoming. The results will be incorporated in the larger project by Liège and Louvain-La-Neuve universities on the acropolis.

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

83

Ground-penetrating radar prospections at Thorikos by Ghent University (2009, 2013) In 2009 and 2013, two campaigns were carried out at Thorikos using groundpenetrating radar (GPR) at different locations (Fig. 1). GPR is a geophysical technique based on the reflection of radio waves at transitions between materials with a different moisture content. By measuring the amplitude and the time when the reflected waves return at the surface, vertical sections (radargrams or profiles) of the subsoil can be generated. By combining many parallel profiles, horizontal maps can be extracted at different depths, which are usually more easily interpretable than vertical profiles. Aside from the capacity to produce 3D data (including information on the depth of the detected structures), GPR also provides images with a higher resolution than most other geophysical

Figure 1. Overview of the areas investigated by Ghent and Liège universities at Thorikos in July 2009, July 2010 and July 2013. Google Maps image with GPR prospection areas indicated in brown (2009) and orange (2013), and the magnetometer prospection (2010) in green. The concrete posts used for the georeferencing of the GPR results are indicated in blue (2009: J2 and J4) and red (2013: L2, L4 and M2) (L. Verdonck).

84

L. VERDONCK E.A.

techniques used in archaeology.12 This technique has thus been used frequently for mapping and characterising ancient cities in the Mediterranean.13 From 6 to 10 July 2009, an area was investigated on the southern slope of the Velatouri (between the theatre and the South Necropolis) under the direction of R. Laffineur.14 A single Sensors & Software pulseEKKO PRO 500 MHz GPR antenna was used. The data were recorded every 0.05 m using an odometer, along lines 0.25 m apart. A grid of 4220 m² was staked out using a Pentax ATS-105 total station, and georeferenced using the existing concrete posts, marking the north-west corner of each 50 × 50 m macrosquare established in the 1960s (in particular posts J2 and J4), of which the coordinates are known (Fig. 1). Standard processing was applied to the data (including frequency filtering, application of a gain function to enhance later arrivals, migration velocity analysis, time-to-depth conversion, and the creation of depth slices by interpolation onto a regular grid of 0.05 × 0.05 m). This first test indicated that the soil at Thorikos was suitable for GPR survey. Although most reflections visible in the horizontal slices can be attributed to modern terrace walls at or just below the surface, a few features in the south-western part of the survey area can be interpreted as walls probably belonging to ancient structures (Fig. 2, arrow). From 8 until 12 July 2013, two other areas were investigated: a small part of the peninsula surrounding the Agios Nikolaos church, and an area on the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri (Fig. 1). For the survey of the area immediately surrounding the Agios Nikolaos church, paved with concrete, and the gravel car park to the south-east of it, a Sensors & Software Spidar network of six 500 MHz pulseEKKO PRO GPR antennas was towed by an ATV (quad bike; Fig. 3).15 Data were recorded every 0.05 m using an odometer, along lines less than 0.25 m apart that were approximately parallel to the borders of the concrete area. A Leica TS15 I robotic total station, set up at different locations around the church, continuously tracked the prism mounted on the GPR. In order to georeference the GPR data, the church and the walls around the concrete area were measured with the total station, and fitted into the topographic map (Fig. 4a). Data processing included calculation of the coordinates of the individual GPR antennas from the total station measurements, frequency filtering, application of a gain function to enhance later arrivals, migration velocity analysis, time-to-depth conversion, and the creation of depth slices by interpolation onto a regular grid of 0.05 × 0.05 m. In the depth slices, the 12 13 14 15

Leckebusch 2003; Jol 2009. E.g. Verdonck et al. 2012; Moffat et al. 2015. The small team consisted of R. Laffineur, L. Verdonck and G. Dierkens. The use of three GPR sensors was made possible by a donation by Foundation Dioraphte (The Netherlands), which we gratefully acknowledge.

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

85

Figure 2. Results of the GPR prospection on the Velatouri in 2009, superimposed on Google Maps image. The slice follows the topography at an estimated depth of 30-40 cm (coordinate system: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 35N). The arrow indicates structures of probable ancient origin (L. Verdonck).

Figure 3. ATV with GPR antenna array used at Thorikos. Above the midpoint of the GPR array, the total station prism is mounted (photo: R.F. Docter).

86

L. VERDONCK E.A.

bedrock is very shallow, hence most reflections (the white areas) are probably caused by natural geological phenomena (Fig. 4a). A test trench within the gravel parking lot would be necessary to confirm this. A few structures west of the church may be interpreted as terrace walls (Fig. 4b,2), and as a possible tower belonging to the defensive wall of the late 5th century BCE (Fig. 4b,3).16 Additionally, a GPR survey was conducted from 10 until 12 July 2013, on the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri, where a concentration of artefacts dating from the Archaic to Hellenistic periods had been observed during field-walking in 2012. For this survey, a network of four Sensors & Software pulseEKKO PRO 500 MHz antennas was towed manually (Fig. 5). Data were recorded every 0.05 m using an odometer, along approximately parallel lines less than 0.25 m apart. A Leica TS15 I robotic total station tracked the prism mounted on the GPR. By measuring concrete posts L2, L4 and M2 at the site (of which the absolute coordinates are known), it was possible to georeference the GPR data. Terrace walls visible above ground were also measured with the total station (Fig. 6). Data processing included the same steps as described above for the survey around the Agios Nikolaos church. This survey of the lower south-eastern slope comprised three areas (Fig. 6). In the northernmost area (~425 m2), most reflections seem to be caused by the shallow bedrock. In the south-eastern area (the lowest terrace; ~475 m2), there are no architectural remains visible in the subsoil, but two anomalies suggested possible graves (one of which is visible in Fig. 6,1). Two trial excavations were therefore conducted here, and in one of these, a burial was found.17 In the third (western) area (~300 m2), architectural features not connected with terrace walls, of probable ancient origin, are present (Fig. 6,2). Magnetometry prospection at Thorikos by Ghent University (2014) In 2014, a geophysical investigation using magnetometry was conducted on the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri. A dense field-walking survey as well as some small-scale excavations had indicated possible archaeological remains here,18 and a geophysical survey was therefore conducted to investigate the area in more detail.

16

17 18

On the maritime fortress, see Mussche 1961, esp. Figs. 1 and 3. A photo from 1960 (Mussche 1961, 179, fig. 2; 1998, 104, fig. 22) shows a modern structure on the spot that may have re-used the ancient foundations. It has since disappeared. See van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (terrace). See van den Eijnde et al. elsewhere in this volume (survey; terrace).

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

87

Figure 4. (a) Results of the GPR prospection around the Agios Nikolaos church, superimposed on Google Maps image, at an estimated depth of 70-75 cm (coordinate system: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 35N); (b) results of the GPR prospection around the Agios Nikolaos church at an estimated depth of 70-75 cm, superimposed on a map from Mussche 1998, 105, fig. 24: (1) church, (2) possible terrace wall, (3) premodern structure (probably a tower of the late 5th century BCE wall) (L. Verdonck).

88

L. VERDONCK E.A.

Figure 5. GPR antenna array used to survey the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri. In the background, the robotic total station used for the positioning (photo: R.F. Docter).

Figure 6. Results of the GPR prospection on the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri, superimposed on Google Maps image. The slice follows the topography at an estimated depth of 55-60 cm (coordinate system: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 35N). The location of a burial (1; excavated following the survey) and of probable ancient wall structures (2) are indicated (L. Verdonck).

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

89

Magnetometry is the most frequently used geophysical technique, measuring local deviations of the Earth’s magnetic field.19 During the campaign, a FM256 Geoscan Research gradiometer was used. The data was acquired in parallel mode with measurements taken every 0.25 m along lines with a 0.5 m spacing. The traverses were oriented perpendicular to the contours of the hill. As magnetometry works with vectors, the use of small grids as well as parallel mode reduces the error range on steep slopes, as at Thorikos.20 Due to the many trees and bushes, as well as an ancient mineshaft, certain areas could not be investigated. Prior to the geophysical survey, as many metal objects as possible were removed from the area (mainly plastic/metal cartridges left by hunters). After the data was acquired, a standard processing flow was applied (zeromean-grid, zero-mean-traverse, despike, clip and interpolate) using Geoplot 3.0 software (Geoscan Research). In total, an area of 330 m² was surveyed in small grids of 10 × 10 m. The grids were staked out using a Pentax ATS-105 total station. Subsequently, the data was georeferenced using three concrete posts of the macrosquares established in the 1960s (L2, L4 and M2) with known coordinates in the WGS_1984_ UTM_Zone_35N coordinate system (EPSG: 32635). During a subsequent excavation campaign in 2019, directed by Johannes Bergemann (Georg-August University, Göttingen), the aforementioned concrete posts were measured using a differential GPS. This revealed a consistent error between the true coordinates of the concrete posts and the coordinates as used for georeferencing the magnetometry data. This error was likely due to an inaccuracy in the transformation of the WGS84 to the UTM35N coordinate system. The magnetometry data has since been corrected to the true coordinates as measured with a dGPS in 2019. A small number of previously unknown features were detected by the magnetometer survey. However, due to the high background noise and unfavourable survey conditions, the interpretation of the results should be treated with caution and ground-truthing is advised to confirm the results. After processing the data, two areas of archaeological interest could, however, be delineated. The first, in the easternmost part of the survey area, consists of a rectilinear negative anomaly (16 × 7 m, see Fig. 7). Seven smaller positive anomalies are located within and around the boundaries of this feature. The proximity of a grave farther to the south-east (Fig. 6,1) might indicate the presence of a necropolis.21 The rectilinear feature can be interpreted as a wall structure, and the small positive anomalies might reflect graves or pits within

19 20 21

Aspinall et al. 2008. David et al. 2008, 20-23. See van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (terrace).

90

L. VERDONCK E.A.

Figure 7. Results (a) and interpretation (b) of the magnetometry prospection on the lower south-eastern slope of the Velatouri, superimposed on a Google Maps image (coordinate system: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 35N) (M. Praet).

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

91

it. Similar grave monuments have been found in the West Necropolis and the Theatre Necropolis. However, ground-truthing is required to confirm this hypothesis. The second area of interest is located in the southern part of the survey area. A north-south oriented rectilinear positive anomaly (15 × 11 m) was detected here, only the northern part of which is extent. Considering the shape of the anomaly, this can be interpreted as the location of architectural remains. The positive magnetic contrast can be explained as foundation trenches (unlike walls, which tend to produce a negative magnetic contrast). Within the centre of the structure is a small rectangular feature (5 × 3 m). Its boundaries registered a negative contrast, indicating the possibility of a wall structure with an opening on the eastern side. The centre of the feature has a positive magnetic contrast and can be interpreted in different ways. Similar to the anomalies found in the first area, it may suggest a grave or pit – as noted, graves in the West Necropolis and the Theatre Necropolis are found within walled structures. The strong magnetic contrast can also be interpreted as a hearth or fireplace, however, and excavation or test pits are required to fully understand the nature of these anomalies. Further to the west, two amorphous positive anomalies might indicate the location of two more graves or pits. Additionally, a single rectilinear negative anomaly (5 × 3 m) can be distinguished in the centre of the survey area. As mentioned, the negative magnetic contrast is interpreted as a wall structure. A square (negative) anomaly of 1 × 1 m is furthermore located in the centre of this feature (Fig. 7b). This possibly relates to a stone pedestal. As this structure is located within a probable funerary area, it might be interpreted as a grave monument. Throughout the survey area, a number of smaller positive anomalies were detected, possibly relating to pits or graves. The lack of a clear orientation, shape or distribution pattern of these singular features impedes any decisive interpretation, however, and it is not unlikely that they are unrelated to archaeological remains. In conclusion, the magnetometer survey detected a small number of archaeological remains, likely graves or pits, walls and foundation trenches. Several elements such as the proximity of an excavated inhumation grave, the results of the field-walking survey and the results of the magnetometer survey strongly indicate the location of a necropolis on the south-eastern slope of the Velatouri. This interpretation should be treated with caution, as the results of the geophysical survey will need to be verified by ground-truthing methods such as a small-scale excavation or test pits. Such excavations began in 2019 and will be continued in the near future.

92

L. VERDONCK E.A.

Photogrammetry 3D modelling using UAS-based photogrammetry Ghent University has a long history using Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for the documentation of archeological sites. The work of Hendrickx et al. (2011) plays an essential role in the development of these systems and processing techniques. Based on their research, the need for more lightweight, flexible, compact and cost-efficient platforms arose. The indoor construction of a series of UASs fulfilled these requirements, with the additional advantage of interior system maintenance and relatively good availability of spare parts. Furthermore, given the compactness of the UAS, the system is fast and relatively easy put into action in remote areas. For heavily vegetated areas, the compactness and the maneuverability of UASs are a significant advantage. In order to fully exploit these advantages, a TSH GAUI 540H hexagonal airborne vehicle with a Sony Nex 5R was used.22 The system is equipped with the following components: – TSH GAUI 540H hexagonal airborne vehicle; – DJI Naza-M multi-rotor control platform with GNSS antenna and gyroscope; – GAUI GUEC GM-412 brushless motor; – IR camera trigger; – Two axis stabilising camera gimbals; – Live video transmission system. The UAS is also equipped with two LiPo batteries with a capacity of 4500 mAh (3 cells, 11 V). The mass of the airborne vehicle (0.5 kg), the camera (body with lens: 0.5 kg) and batteries (two pieces: 0.7 kg) impact the operational time, but the flight duration also depends on weather conditions. Under normal circumstances (no rain and a wind speed of up to 3 or 4 Bf), the flight duration is approximately 7-8 minutes. The Theatre area and the Industrial Quarter at Thorikos were covered during the flight campaign in the summer of 2014 (approximately 11.5 hectares). The aim of this campaign was the construction of high resolution DEMs and orthophotos of the excavated areas. It was decided to make vertical images with a lateral and longitudinal overlap of 80-90% (Fig. 8). Therefore, two series of 293 and 129 images respectively were obtained in conventional strip-wise manner. For the entire site, the images were taken at a maximum flying height of approximately 100 m. With angles of view of 55.1° and 76.2°, a maximal image coverage of 104 × 157 m can be estimated. 22

www.gaui.com.tw.

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

93

Figure 8. Samples of images acquired during the drone flight over the Industrial Quarter.

Since no data from the Positioning and Orientation System (POS) were recorded during the acquisition, indirect georeferencing of the images is required. At the start of each flight, a set of 12 circular black-and-white reference markers were placed as Ground Control Points (GCPs) in the field and measured with a total station (Pentax ATS). Besides constant visual contact with the platform, live video transmission was used to estimate the elevation of the UAS and to control the coverage of the images. Given the fast developments of UAS, it is expected that the platform used during the 2014 campaign will be replaced with an even more compact and integrated platform. Recent campaigns using a DJI Phanton 4 or DJI Mavic 2 Pro are very promising. It is expected that these types of platforms will be implemented at Thorikos as well, given the ability of using an autopilot system and an operational flying time of 25 minutes. A full coverage of the entire Velatouri hill can be obtained, with high resolution. Terrestrial photogrammetry Already in May 1974, a first terrestrial photogrammetric recording was undertaken at Thorikos by a team from Ghent University, in which the theatre in its unrestored condition could be fully documented.23 It took almost 40 years 23

Uyttendaele 1978, esp. 36-38 with pls. 2-6. This documentation is of great importance for the comprehensive publication currently being prepared by Andreas Kapetanios and Roald F. Docter.

94

L. VERDONCK E.A.

before a second attempt was made of implementing systematic terrestrial image acquisition; during the summer campaign of 2012, this aimed at the construction of photogrammetric products of Cistern 1 that was excavated that year (Fig. 11). An extensive series of images was taken at the start of every working day using a Canon EOS 400D digital camera: the calculation of 3D models on a daily basis facilitates the implementation of an archaeological site management system, and more advanced applications (see below). During the summer campaign of 2014, the focus of the excavations was on the West Necropolis and the acropolis, where a child grave was found. After excavation, extensive series of terrestrial images were taken with the Sony Nex 5R digital camera. As with the airborne data, an overlap of 80-90% was realised and the lateral distance between two consecutive images was always non-zero. This means that the operator was always moving around the object to be modelled. Besides this, two images were taken from each position, kneeling and standing. During both the 2012 and 2014 campaigns, a series of GCPs were measured with a total station in and around the excavated area. These points were materialised using plastic and metal pins and related to the reference network. In contrast with the previously discussed orthophotos and DEM construction using airborne data, this terrestrial project results in fully 3D models.24 Since these first successful attempts of terrestrial photogrammetry in 2012 and 2014, the new excavations of 2018 and 2019 in the area between the Industrial Quarter and the West Necropolis have implemented this recording technique as a standard procedure.25 Results of the photogrammetric data processing The results of the feature reconstruction are presented and distributed by a series of 2.5D DEMs (Fig. 9, left), orthophotos (Fig. 9, right), point clouds (Fig. 10, left) and 3D models (Fig. 10, right). For the airborne data sets, a resolution of 2 cm is gained, accompanied with an overview map with a resolution of 5 cm, the highest resolution ever gained during the almost 60 years of systematic archaeological research at the site of Thorikos. Previously produced

24 25

The acquisition and processing procedure are discussed by Stal et al. 2014. In this respect, we thank in particular Arne Deruyck (Hogeschool Gent, 2018), Yannick de Raaff (Groningen University, 2018) and Livia Tirabassi (Ghent University, 2019). The excavations were preceded by a terrestrial photogrammetric recording of the architectural remains by Sofia Psaltakou within the framework of a thesis at the Catholic University Leuven (2017); they had been discovered during the archaeological survey of 2012-2015; see van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (survey). The results of these excavations and photogrammetric recordings will be published elsewhere.

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

95

Figure 9. DEM with 2 cm resolution covering the theatre (relative vertical colour mapping, left) and orthophotos with 2 cm resolution covering the theatre (right) (C. Stal).

Figure 10. Screenshot of a dense point cloud covering the theatre (left), and of the 3D model of the excavated child grave on the Thorikos Acropolis (C. Stal).

Figure 11. Development of the excavation of Cistern 1, illustrated using 3D models (source: Stal et al. 2014, 20, fig. 6).

96

L. VERDONCK E.A.

spatial data were already archived in a GIS for the site, and the newly produced data are a valuable supplement. Full coverage of the Velatouri hill is foreseen in coming years. As mentioned, the systematic construction of (image-based) 3D models allows the implementation of a management system, as well as a platform for consultation and analysis of archaeological field data (for example Fig. 8). When the resulting data are integrated in a GIS, interaction is possible with the 3D models, accompanied with attribute data and metadata. For the efficiency of the management system, the models were combined with a Harris matrix. This functions as an intermediate between a graphical user interface and the database system. After the campaign in 2012 (Cistern 1), two additional applications of these 3D models were presented, focusing on capacity calculations and in-situ mapping (orthophoto mapping) of stone wall remains. The presented management system, the linking of 3D models with excavation data, and the use of 3D models as a scientific tool demonstrate the huge potential of 3D data for archaeological research.

References Apostolopoulos, G.A., A.A. Kallioras, K. Pavlopoulos, K.A. Stathopoulou & A.A. Vlassopoulou 2014. Reconnaissance Geophysical Survey for the Detection of Salinization and Stratigraphy in Thorikos Valley, Attica, Greece. In: Near Surface Geoscience: 20th European Meeting of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, Athens, Greece, 14-18 September 2014 (doi: 10.3997/2214-4609.20142087). Aspinall, A., C. Gaffney & A. Schmidt 2008. Magnetometry for Archaeologists. Lanham. David, A., N. Linford & P. Linford 2008. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Swindon. De Wulf, A. & C. Stal 2018. The Site and its Topography. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 13-14. Ghent. Jol, H.M. (ed.) 2009. Ground penetrating radar: theory and applications. Amsterdam. Leckebusch, J. 2003. Ground-penetrating radar: a modern three-dimensional prospection method, Archaeological Prospection 10, 213-240. Moffat, I., N. Papadopoulos, J. Donati, A. Sarris, T. Kalayci, C. Cuenca-García, G. Cantoro, N. Argyriou, K. Armstrong, E. Kalogiropoulou, M. Manataki, F.-X. Simon, A.-V. Karapanagiotou & G. Hadji-Spilidopoulou 2015. Multicomponent geophysical survey at the Classical Greek cities of Mantinea and Elis, Antiquity (Project Gallery) 89/345 (https://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/moffat345 accessed 11 February 2020). Miles, M. 2015. The vanishing double stoa at Thorikos and its afterlives. In: M. Miles (ed.), Autopsy in Athens. Recent archaeological research on Athens and Attika, 163-180. Oxford.

GEOPHYSICAL, TOPOGRAPHICAL, AND REMOTE SENSING INVESTIGATIONS

97

Morgan, C., R.K. Pitt, D. Mulliez & D. Evely 2009-2010. Archaeology in Greece 2009-2010, Archaeological Reports 56, 1-201. Mussche, H.F. 1961. La forteresse maritime de Thorikos, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 85, 176-205. Mussche, H.F. 1967. Le bâtiment dorique. In: Thorikos II, 73-76. Mussche, H. 1998. Thorikos. A mining town in ancient Attika. Fouilles de Thorikos II / Opgravingen van Thorikos II. Ghent. Paepe, R. 1969. Geomorphic Surfaces and Quaternary Deposits of the Adami Area (S.-E. Attica). In: Thorikos IV, 7-52. Paepe, R. 1971. Geo-electrical prospection of the Temple site area in the Adami Plain. In: Thorikos V, 9-16. Πετράκος, B. 1995. Θορικός, Το Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 22-27. Πετράκος, B. 1996. Θορικός, Το Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 20-23. Πετράκος, B. 1997. Θορικός, Το Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 19-23. Πετράκος, B. 1998. Θορικός, Το Έργον της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, 23-24. Praet, M., A. Sarris, S. Déderix & L. Verdonck 2018. Geophysical Investigations. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 14-16. Ghent. Stal, C., K. Van Liefferinge, J. De Reu, R. Docter, G. Dierkens, P. De Maeyer, S. Mortier, T. Nuttens, T. Pieters, F. van De Eijnde, W. van de Put & A. De Wulf 2014. Integrating Geomatics in Archaeological Research at the Site of Thorikos (Greece), Journal of Archaeological Science 45, 112-125. Stal, C. & A. De Wulf forthcoming. 50 Years of Topographical Surveying in Thorikos. In: Thorikos 1963-2013: 50 Years of Belgian Excavations. Evaluation and Perspectives. BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplements. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT. Thorikos II: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. De Geyter, G. Donnay & T. Hackens 1967. Thorikos 1964. Rapport préliminaire sur la deuxième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de tweede opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos IV: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe & G. Donnay 1969. Thorikos 1966/1967. Rapport préliminaire sur la quatrième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de vierde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos V: Mussche, H.F., J. Bingen, J. Servais, R. Paepe, H. Bussers & H. Gasche 1971. Thorikos 1968. Rapport préliminaire sur la cinquième campagne de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de vijfde opgravingscampagne. Brussels. Thorikos VII: Spitaels, P., J. Bingen, A. Uyttendaele, F. Blondé, K. Van Gelder, A. Cheliotis & A. Helsen 1978. Thorikos 1970/1971. Rapport préliminaire sur les septième et huitième campagnes de fouilles. Voorlopig verslag over de zevende en achtste opgravingscampagnes. Ghent. Thorikos X: Docter, R.F. (ed.) 2011. Thorikos 10 Reports and Studies. Ghent [second revised edition, 2013]. Uyttendaele, A.M. 1978. Essai de relevé photogrammétrique à Thorikos. In: Thorikos VII, 13-38.

98

L. VERDONCK E.A.

Van Liefferinge, K., C. Stal & A. De Wulf 2011. The Thorikos Excavations 19632010 in Maps. In: Thorikos X, 5-13. Verdonck, L., F. Vermeulen, C. Corsi & R. Docter 2012. Ground-penetrating radar survey at the Roman town of Mariana (Corsica), complemented with fluxgate gradiometer data and old and recent excavation results, Near Surface Geophysics 10, 35-45.

EXCAVATIONS IN A TERRACE ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI AT THORIKOS AND THE DISCOVERY OF A SLAVE BURIAL1 Floris VAN DEN EIJNDE, Thomas PIETERS, Roy VAN WIJK, Roald F. DOCTER* In the course of the systematic and intensive survey of the southern half of the (greater) Velatouri by Ghent and Utrecht universities (2012-2015), it was noted that the lower south-east slopes of the hill, bordering the coastal road and near a Late Classical/Hellenistic structure,2 yielded indications for the presence of a hitherto unknown necropolis: fragments of lekythia, a fragment of a funerary stele and a rectangular cutting for the placement of a stele.3 A subsequent geophysical survey (Ground Penetrating Radar) by Lieven Verdonck of Ghent University in 2013 showed the presence of anomalies in the subsoil, possibly

*

1

2 3

Floris van den Eijnde: Utrecht University, Department of History and Art History. Roald F. Docter, Thomas Pieters: Ghent University, Department of Archaeology. Roy van Wijk: Formerly Utrecht University, Department of History and Art History. Parallel to the survey, the excavations lasted from 15-27 July 2013 and were supervised by Thomas Pieters during the first week and Floris van den Eijnde during the second. Roy van Wijk acted as field assistant during both weeks; the following students of Ghent and Utrecht Universities helped in the excavation and finds registration: Alyssa Boecksteyns, Lieke Boerstra, Lex Bronkhorst, Simon Claeys, Ine Depaepe, Silke De Smet, Marinde Hiemstra, Merel Kosters, Caroline Landsheere, Mounir Lahcen, Els Meijer, Lieke Meulenbroek, Bram Mulder, Margit Pothoven, Maarten Praet, Willem Van Aenrode, David van Alten and Sarah Van Wynsberghe. On behalf of the Ephorate, Maria Skalia supervised the works as epoptria. We thank the staff of the Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica and especially Dr. Eleni Andrikou, Dr. Eleni Assimakou, Dr. Dimitra Kai, Dr. Andreas Kapetanios, Dr. Anastasia Lazaridou, Dr. Maria Mexi, and Dr. Katerina Petrou. The project’s logistics have been in the hands of Guy Dierkens, aided by Inge Claerhout. Our thanks go also to Prof. Panagiotis Iossif and Prof. Jan Driessen of the Belgian School at Athens. During our fieldwork and study campaigns we were kindly hosted in the Technological Park of Lavrio, for which we thank the Mayor, Mr. Dimitris Loukas. Funding for the campaign was provided by Ghent University, Utrecht University, the Belgian School at Athens and various private donors; we extend our warmest thanks to all of them. Andreas Kapetanios kindly read a first draft of this paper and suggested additional publications. Λιαγκουρας & Κακαβογιαννης 1972. See also J. Bergemann, elsewhere in this volume.

100

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 1. Position of the two sondages in relation to the Thorikos grid system, the present-day coastal road, and the Late Classical/Hellenistic building (C. Stal).

related to funerary structures.4 The same year, Ghent and Utrecht universities conducted two small trial excavations in two sondages initially measuring 2 × 2 m within Macrosquares M2 and M3 to establish the nature of these anomalies (Fig. 1).5 The westernmost sondage (1) was located in M2, while the easternmost sondage (2) was located in M3 (Fig. 1). In one of these trenches (Sondage 1), the anomaly proved to be the stone infill of a grave, covering an inhumation of a male adult buried without any grave gifts apart from a concentration of sea shells and land snails.6 The finds in the stratigraphy of both trenches yielded a probable chronology for the burial in the 6th or 5th century BCE.7 It could be shown that the grave had been dug in an agricultural terrace dating to the Archaic period at the latest. The poorly preserved skeleton has been studied by Francis Janot and Perrine Munaro of 4 5

6 7

See Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume, esp. fig. 7. After excavation, both sondages were filled in, first with geotextile, then with a thick layer of sieved soil and finally with stones that had been kept aside from the excavation. The land snails, however, may not be offerings; see L. Karali, elsewhere in this volume. See Docter et al., elsewhere in this volume.

EXCAVATIONS IN A TERRACE ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

101

the University of Lorraine, who observed that the man (age 35-40) carried out heavy physical labour during his lifetime.8 In combination with the absence of grave gifts, one may interpret the burial to have belonged to a slave.9 The radiocarbon analysis of a bone fragment provided a chronology falling within the Hallstatt Plateau (probably ca. 540-400 BCE),10 hence independently confirming the results of the pottery analysis. Since a cemetery in the area had been postulated on the basis of the preliminary survey results, the soil from all contexts was sieved, also with the intention to detect traces of possible funerary activities among the graves, but nothing of the sort could be noted.11 Stimulated by the discovery of the grave, the geophysical research was extended in 2014 with a large-scale geomagnetic survey by Maarten Praet of Ghent University.12 Excavation and stratigraphy of Sondage 1 A layer of loose, brown-grey topsoil was removed down to ca. 0.30 m below the surface (contexts T13-1-1, T13-1-2 and T13-1-3, Fig. 3). The soil was characterised by many worn and water-rolled sherds, dating from the Subgeometric to the Late Classical period, though the soil appears to have been reworked until early modern times (see also Sondage 2). Below and down to levels of ca. 0.50-0.60 m below surface, the soil consisted of layers of compact rich, reddish brown earth with plentiful stone rubble and pottery throughout (contexts T13-1-4 to T13-1-10). Sherds date from Subgeometric to Late Classical and are characterised by calcareous concretions with many recent breaks due to the compactness of the soil, necessitating the use of pickaxes. In it, a noticeable concentration of stones extended from the south-west to north of the trench (context T13-1-5; Fig. 2), possibly representing the remnants of a terrace or boundary wall. Below this, an even harder, compact layer of the same reddish brown earth was present throughout the trench (context T13-1-11), ultimately leading down to bedrock in the northern part of the trench. Within this layer, which contained Subgeometric to Archaic sherds, a concentration of rocks appeared in the south-east corner, presumably belonging to a stone infill of a grave (less likely a small tumulus), and human remains belonging to a single individual, lying in

8 9 10 11

12

See Janot & Munaro, elsewhere in this volume. See Lauffer 19792; Morris 2011, on enslavement in the Lavriotiki. See Janot & Munaro, elsewhere in this volume. This kind of investigation of activities within a cemetery remain unfortunately very rare, see Docter 2010. See Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume.

102

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 2. Plan of Sondage 1 after removal of topsoil (A. Perugini).

Figure 3. Sketch of east section of Sondage 1, before extension (A. Perugini).

Figure 4. Plan of the grave in Sondage 1 (A. Perugini).

EXCAVATIONS IN A TERRACE ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

103

supine position, were soon discovered underneath. The stone infill also seems to appear on the GPR reading of the wider area.13 In order to uncover the infill in its entirety, the trench was enlarged by removing a stretch of 0.50 m along the southern and eastern baulks in the south-east corner without further stratigraphical distinction to the level of the grave (context T13-1-14). As expected, the stone infill clearly extended into this area. What little finds were recorded from this context date from the Archaic to the Classical period. Underneath the stone infill, large rocks surrounded the human remains in a roughly oval manner, lining the inside of the grave and corresponding with the upper layer of rocks (the stone infill; Figs. 3-4). The skeleton was found in a north-east/south-west orientation, with the head to the south-west. The inside of the grave within the confines of the inner lining of rocks was dug as several separate contexts (T13-1-12, T13-1-13, T13-1-15 and T13-1-16), beginning at a depth of 0.70 m down to ca. 0.90 m (Fig. 3). The grave fill contained Subgeometric to Archaic/Classical finds (7th to 6th/5th century BCE). The human remains were pedestalled for photographing on the penultimate and lifted on the last day of excavation (Fig. 5). All soil connected with the remains was sieved for bone fragments. Fragments of a purple substance and some shells were also found during this process. Soil samples were taken at every 0.10 m. The skeleton measured 1.60 m, and appears to have been that of a male adult of ca. 35-40 years old.14 A large concentration of sea shells and land snails was found on and directly adjacent to the skeleton, in particular near the skull.15 This is unusual in the light of finds elsewhere, such as for instance in 32 burials in the Athenian Kerameikos where sea shells accompanied (very young) children and females, rather than males.16 Excavation and stratigraphy of Sondage 2 A layer of loose, brown-grey topsoil was removed down to ca. 0.50 m below the surface (contexts T13-2-1 to T13-2-5; compare Sondage 1). The soil was characterised by many worn and water-rolled sherds, dating from Subgeometric to Hellenistic/Roman, reworked until early modern times since its lowest level (context T13-2-5) contained a glazed early modern sherd.17

13 14 15 16 17

Verdonck et al., elsewhere in this volume, fig. 7,1. See Janot & Munaro, elsewhere in this volume. See Karali, elsewhere in this volume. See Stroszek 2012, esp. 65-66, 70. See Docter et al., elsewhere in this volume, cat. 40.

104

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

Figure 5. View of skeleton in Sondage 1, from the south-east (F. van den Eijnde).

Underneath, a layer of very compact, reddish brown soil was uncovered (T13-2-6, T13-2-7, T13-2-8, T13-2-9 and T13-2-10; compare Sondage 1). Finds are characterised by calcareous concretions with many recent breaks due to the compactness of the soil and the use of pickaxes in the excavation. There seems to be a shift in the chronological range of the finds towards the lower part, above bedrock. This would imply that the Subgeometric finds from the sequence above may be later inclusions, eroded from higher up the Velatouri or entered into the soil matrix by way of manuring activities. Only the possible Subgeometric finds in the lowest level (contexts T13-2-11, T13-2-13 and T132-15), as well as the possibly Late Geometric find in context T13-2-12 (but that may be Archaic),18 would constitute an earlier deposition. The main feature in this trench is a short (retaining?) wall running northsouth along the west side from the south-west corner (T13-2-12; Figs. 6-7). The wall, if it may be called thus, is a loose conjunction of smaller and larger stones, the largest measuring some 0.40 × 0.25 m. The most coherent part of this conjunction measures 1.40 m (north-south) by 0.50 m (east-west) and extended from 0.20 m below surface levels down to ca. 0.65 m. Finds from this structure date from Late Geometric to Archaic (8th to 6th centuries BCE). 18

See Docter et al., elsewhere in this volume.

EXCAVATIONS IN A TERRACE ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

Figure 6. Plan of Sondage 2, final stage (A. Perugini).

105

Figure 7. West-East section through Sondage 2, looking north (A. Perugini).

Many more stones and small pebbles were found directly towards the east (context T13-2-11) inside a stratum accumulated against the wall (Fig. 7), presumably representing rock-tumble from the wall itself; this layer contained finds dating from Archaic to Classical (6th to 4th centuries BCE). Underneath this loose, stone-filled layer (context T13-2-11), bedrock was encountered at 0.55-0.70 m below surface. A roughly circular cutting was detected in the bedrock, presumably natural, although toward the north-west, human intervention cannot be excluded. Discussion The adult male burial in the south-east sector of the Velatouri contributes to a new understanding of this part of the Archaic and Classical deme. The burial accords well with findings from the Thorikos Survey Project. A large concentration of rooftiles was found in close vicinity, to the west and slightly higher up, and reinforces the hypothesis that this part of the Velatouri hill was settled during the later Archaic and Classical period.19 The fact that such tiles were 19

On the survey, see van den Eijnde et al. 2018; van den Eijnde et al. forthcoming; van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (survey).

106

F. VAN DEN EIJNDE E.A.

only encountered in the ploughsoil layers, dated to early modern times,20 suggests that they do not originate from the lower layers connected with the grave. Instead, the general chronology of the tiles (6th-4th century BCE) may perhaps imply that burial and settlement were contemporary. Prior to the burial, it seems that the lower slopes near the coastal road had been used for agriculture on terraces. The makeup of the two sondages consisted of many small to medium-sized stones and small, heavily weathered sherds covered with calcareous concretions. Their presence and their state of conservation may have been the result of manuring in combination with ploughing. The chronology of these sherds points to the Early Geometric-Middle Geometric I, Subgeometric and Archaic periods; they may have originated in the Early Iron Age settlement at the top of the Velatouri, the acropolis of Thorikos. The interpretation of the grave as a burial of a slave is based upon the combination of two elements. In the first place, the complete absence of gravegoods (except for some sea shells and land snails) is remarkable since most graves in Attica and at Thorikos in particular contained at least some ceramic vessels.21 Secondly, the study of the bones by Francis Janot and Perrine Munaro showed evidence of intense physical activity during the lifetime of the individual. Similar indications of the effects of repetitive actions on skeletons from Late Roman burials at Thorikos and Panormos have equally lead to their interpretation as slave burials.22 Previously, Maria Oikonomakou suggested that the graves of a 5th century BCE necropolis (mainly clustering between 470 and 440 BCE), excavated some 3-4 km west to south-west of Lavrio, may have belonged to mining slaves.23 If the interpretation of the Thorikos grave as one belonging to a slave is correct, one should consider the possibility that it may not be that of a slave active in the silver mines, since the evidence for pre4th century BCE mining and processing of the ores on the Velatouri hill proper is not very strong and, moreover, debated.24 But slaves were of course active in other areas than silver exploitation. In 2019, a team of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, directed by Johannes Bergemann, resumed the investigations of the lay-out, chronology and character of this South-East cemetery within the framework of the fiveyear project (2018-2022) of the Belgian School at Athens.25 20 21

22 23 24 25

See Docter et al., elsewhere in this volume. Ian Morris (2011, 183) has warned against the sole use of gravegoods in determining whether one might be dealing with a slave burial but, after statistically evaluating the evidence for Athens and Attica, he concluded that “overall, the commonsense assumption that mining slaves received fewer grave goods than free Athenians is apparently justified”. Λάγια, Γιαννακκοπούλου & Καπετάνιος 2015. Σαλλιώρα-Οικονομάκου 1985; 1986; Morris 2011, 180-184. Mussche 1998, 62-63; Docter & Van Liefferinge 2010, 54-56. Bergemann 2018.

EXCAVATIONS IN A TERRACE ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

107

References Bergemann, J. 2018. Archaic-Classical Cemeteries. In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 33-34. Ghent. Docter, R. 2010. Concluding Remarks on the Finds Assemblage of Squares C7, D7 and E7. In: R.F. Docter, K. Panayotova, J. De Boer, L. Donnellan, W. van de Put & B. Bechtold, Apollonia Pontica 2007, 175-184. Ghent [second revised edition 2008]. Docter, R. & K. Van Liefferinge 2010. Thorikos and the Industrial Quarter: A mine of information on the silver industry of ancient Attica. In: P. Iossif (ed.), “All that glitters…” The Belgian Contribution to Greek Numismatics, 52-59. Athens. Λάγια, Α., Ε. Γιαννακκοπούλου & Α. Καπετάνιος 2015. Βιοαρχαιολογικές παρατηρήσεις σε πολλαπλές ταφές της ΰστερης αρχαιότητας από τη Λαυρεωτική. In: Πρακτικα ΙΕ’ Επιστημονικής συναντησης ΝΑ (Αττικής 17-20 Οκτωβρίου Δημαρχιακο Μεγαρο Κορωπιου), 577-588. Καλυβια. Lauffer, S. 19792. Die Bergwerkssklaven von Laureion, Wiesbaden. Λιαγκουρας, Α.Γ. & E. Κακαβογιαννης 1972. Χρονικα Β’ Εφορια Κλασσικων Αρχαιοτητωων. Λαυριωτικη, Aρχαιολογικον Δελτιον 27, 147-151. Morris, I. 2011. Archaeology and Greek slavery. In: K. Bradley & P. Cartledge (eds), The Cambridge World History of Slavery I. The Ancient Mediterranean World, 176-193. New York. Mussche, H. 1998. Thorikos. A mining town in ancient Attika. Fouilles de Thorikos II / Opgravingen van Thorikos II. Ghent. Σαλλιώρα-Οικονομάκου, M. 1985. Aρχαιο νεκροταφειο στην περιοχη Λαυριου, Aρχαιολογικον Δελτιον 40/1 [1991], 90-132. Σαλλιώρα-Οικονομάκου, M., 1986. Aρχαιο νεκροταφειο στο Λαυριο. In: Πρακτικα Β’ Επιστημονικης Συναντησης ΝΑ. Αττικης (Καλύβια Αττικης 25-28 Οκττώβρη 1985), 243-249. Καλύβια. Stroszeck, J. 2012. Grave Gifts in Child Burials in the Athenian Kerameikos: The Evidence of Sea Shells. In: A. Hermary & C. Dubois (eds), L’enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité, 57-76. Aix-en-Provence. van den Eijnde, F., A. Brüsewitz, S. Déderix & R.F. Docter 2018. The Thorikos Survey Project (TSP). In: R.F. Docter & M. Webster (eds), Exploring Thorikos, 19-20. Ghent. van den Eijnde, F., R. Docter, A. Brüsewitz, W. van de Put, S. Mortier, M. Nazou, A. Perugini, A. De Wulf, C. Stal, T. Pieters & L. Verdonck, forthcoming, The Ghent-Utrecht Survey Project at Thorikos: Methodology and Preliminary Results of the 2012 and 2013 Campaigns. In: Thorikos 1963-2013: 50 Years of Belgian Excavations. Evaluation and Perspectives. BABESCH Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology Supplements. Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT.

FINDS FROM TWO SONDAGES ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI (THORIKOS)1 Roald F. DOCTER, Andrea PERUGINI, Sophie MORTIER, Winfred VAN DE PUT, Koen VAN GELDER, Floris VAN DEN EIJNDE* The two small sondages that were dug on the lower south-east slopes of the Velatouri in 20132 yielded the remarkably low number of 602 finds (apart from shells3), even though the soil from all contexts was systematically sieved: 159 in sondage 1 (macrosquare M2) and 443 in sondage 2 (macrosquare M3). ‘Remarkably low’ has to be understood in the face of the high numbers of surface finds that turned up in the area during the intrasite survey of 2012-2015. Especially in the adjacent survey square 124 (macrosquare L3) that was resurveyed every year between 2012 and 2015, surface finds kept turning up. What follows is a catalogue of the finds: we have opted for full presentation instead of publishing diagnostic fragments only (as was customary in previous

*

1

2 3

Roald F. Docter, Andrea Perugini, Sophie Mortier, Koen Van Gelder: Ghent University, Department of Archaeology. Winfred van de Put: The Netherlands Institute at Athens. Floris van den Eijnde: Utrecht University, Department of History and Art History. Colour descriptions follow Munsell Color 1990. Measurements are in cm unless otherwise stated. All clay descriptions are based upon a macroscopic analysis unless otherwise stated. The inventory of the contexts has been done by Sophie Mortier, Roald Docter and Winfred van de Put. Fabric descriptions and drawings have been made by Roald Docter and Andrea Perugini, the illustrator renderings by Joris Angenon. Koen Van Gelder added the comments on the Geometric and Subgeometric finds. The study of the finds would not have been possible without the support of the Ephorate of Antiquities of East Attica and especially Dr. Eleni Andrikou, Eleni Assimakou, Dimitra Kai, Prof. Andreas Kapetanios, Dr. Anastasia Lazaridou, Maria Mexi, Dr. Katerina Petrou and Dr. Elpida Skerlou, and the assistance of Prof. Panagiotis Iossif and Prof. Jan Driessen of the Belgian School at Athens. We acknowledge also the help of the staff of the Museum at Lavrio, in particular Mrs. Despoina Moschopoulou, Mrs. Photini Spanou, Mr. Prokopis Makris, Mrs. Polly Dara and Mr. Manolis Athinaios. During our fieldwork and study campaigns we were kindly hosted in the Technological Park of Lavrio, for which we thank the Mayor, Mr. Dimitris Loukas and the authorities of the Park. See also the contribution of van den Eijnde et al., elsewhere in this volume (terrace). See L. Karali, elsewhere in this volume.

110

R.F. DOCTER E.A.

publications at Thorikos).4 This is based upon the conviction that even generic fragments may offer information that allow for chronological, functional and depositional reconstructions of the respective assemblages, especially in the face of the small number of finds per context. Ceramic building material turned up in the shape of tiles mainly in the ploughsoil assemblages (T13-1-1, T13-1-2, T13-2-1) and the section cleaning context T13-2-14 that contained material from these upper layers. These seem to be unrelated to any structure on this particular spot but may have originated in nearby structures higher up the slopes. The stone packing T13-1-5, interpreted as a terrace wall or foundation of a boundary wall, and the adjacent context T13-1-8 also contained two tile fragments (Cat. 10, Fig. 2) equally unrelated to any structure here. When looking at the finds in their totality, it is clear that we are dealing in all layers with a heavily worn domestic pottery assemblage mainly dating from the Early Geometric-Middle Geometric I (Cat. 37, Fig. 3) to the Late Classical period. The fragment of a possibly Campanian amphora (Cat. 25) from the ploughsoil context T13-2-2 may date within the Late Hellenistic-Roman period. The fragment of an early modern glazed cooking vessel (Cat. 40) was found in the deepest context (T13-2-5) of the ploughsoil, showing that this area had been used for agriculture until recent times. The high proportion of Early Geometric-Middle Geometric I, Subgeometric and Archaic material in all layers up to the ploughsoil is to be explained by the makeup of the lowest levels that may have been formed by an agricultural terrace of the Archaic period at the latest. The small sizes of the fragments in relation with the heavy calcareous concretions may be interpreted as the result of manuring, contact with water,5 and regular ploughing.6 In this layer, within sondage 1, a grave had been dug. The fill of this grave was excavated as context numbers T13-1-12, T13-1-13, T13-1-15 and T13-116 (see Janot & Munaro and Karali, elsewhere in this volume). Only the latter two contained a few small undiagnostic finds dating to the Subgeometric to Archaic/Classical period. They do not differ much from the assemblage of the context immediately above (T13-1-11), which has been interpreted as a stone 4

5

6

‘Diagnostic’ is used here in its conventional sense, meaning rims, bases, handles and decorated fragments. These calcareous concretions on the surfaces of sherds are probably the result of long-term contact with water in places where water was stored in the soil, like behind terrace walls. On terraces in Attika, see Lohmann 1993, 67, n. 497 and p. 339 for bibliography on terraces in general. Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988; Bintliff 2000. Domestic pottery fragments do occur in between graves in Greek necropoleis, but remain generally undocumented and unpublished (see Docter 2010). In this assemblage, however, the state of preservation and the sizes of the sherds favour a relation with manuring rather than activities around the grave.

FINDS FROM TWO SONDAGES ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

111

fill in or tumulus over the grave and its adjacent layer: all contain redeposited domestic pottery and all show heavy calcareous concretions on their surfaces. The grave itself contained no grave goods, except for some sea shell and land snails that are discussed by L. Karali elsewhere in this volume. When looking at the composition of the assemblages (all finds), it is remarkable that some 80% of the drinking vessels are of local or regional manufacture (69 pieces); within the 20% imports, 10 originate in Corinth and only three in Athens (Cat. 16, 37-38, Figs. 2-3).7 The transport amphora material shows a more even distribution between local/regional productions and imports: 37% vs. 63% (39 : 68 pieces). When the 19 fragments of one Attic amphora from contexts T13-2-7 and T13-2-8 (Cat. 42, Fig. 4) are taken out and counted only as one piece, the proportion local/regional vs import would be 44% : 56% (39 : 50 pieces). Within these imports, five productions could (tentatively) be recognised: Lesbian, Corinthian, Attic, North Aegean/Samian and Campanian amphoras.8 Sondage 1 (Fig. 6) Context T13-1-1 The context contained 14 fragments. Apart from the five diagnostics (Cat. 1-5), these were one wall fragment of an imported plain ware amphora, one wall fragment of a local plain ware closed shape, one tiny local plain ware fragment of undetermined shape, one imported plain ware fragment of undetermined shape, three wall fragments of imported cooking ware vessels and two wall fragments of local plain ware tiles. Chronologically, the finds cover the period from Early Geometric-Middle Geometric I or, more likely, Subgeometric, to Late Classical, so 9th/7th to the end of the 4th century BCE. Most are worn, which is characteristic of this ploughsoil assemblage.

7

8

The conventional term ‘Attic’ has been retained and reserved for the material from Athens proper, although strictly speaking Thorikos and its surrounding region lie within Attika. In distinction we use ‘local’ for productions from Thorikos and its wider region, the workshops of which have yet to be found. On local production, see Lüdorf 2010, 157-159, pls. 40-41; Docter, Monsieur & van de Put 2011, 83. The distinction of different production places in the black glazed and black painted wares from Thorikos is part of the ongoing research project of Barbara Carè. Although black paint and black glaze (also known as black gloss) are technically speaking the result of a similar procedure, we reserve the former term for the early matt versions of the Geometric and Archaic periods, whereas we use the term black glaze for the glossy versions. On amphoras at Thorikos, see Docter, Monsieur & van de Put 2011, 100-111, figs. 26-36; Docter et al. 2011, 49-51, fig. 19.

112

R.F. DOCTER E.A.

Figure 1. Sondage 1. Diagnostic fragments from contexts T13-1-1 (Cat. 1-5), T13-1-2 (Cat. 6), T13-1-3 (Cat. 7) (drawings: TARP archive).

FINDS FROM TWO SONDAGES ON THE SOUTH-EAST VELATOURI

113

Cat. 1: TC13.39 (context T13-1-1), one ringbase fragment of an imported amphora (North Aegean or Samos); worn (Fig. 1). Diam. base 6.4; max. H. 3.1. Clay: reddish yellow (5YR6/6). Surface reddish yellow (7.5YR7/6). Isolated quartz (0.1 mm) and many very fine voids (