Ionians in the West and East: Proceedings of the International Conference 'Ionians in East and West', Museu D'arqueologia De Catalunya-empuries, ... Antiqua, 27) (English and French Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9042942479, 9789042942479

Citation preview

Ionians in the West and East

Edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze

PEETERS

IONIANS IN THE WEST AND EAST

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA Supplements to the Journal ANCIENT WEST & EAST

SERIES EDITOR

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE (UK) EDITORIAL BOARD

A. Avram (†) (Romania/France), Sir John Boardman (UK), J. Hargrave (UK), M. Kazanski (France), A. Mehl (Germany), A. Podossinov (Russia), N. Theodossiev (Bulgaria), J. Wiesehöfer (Germany) ADVISORY BOARD

S. Atasoy (Turkey), L. Ballesteros Pastor (Spain), S. Burstein (USA), J. Carter (USA), B. d’Agostino (Italy), J. de Boer (The Netherlands), A. Domínguez (Spain), O. Doonan (USA), A. Kuhrt (UK), J.-P. Morel (France), M. Pearce (UK), D. Potts (USA), A. Rathje (Denmark), R. Rollinger (Austria), A. Snodgrass (UK), M. Sommer (Germany), M. Tiverios (Greece), C. Ulf (Austria), J. Vela Tejada (Spain)

Colloquia Antiqua is a refereed publication

For proposals and editorial and other matters, please contact the Series Editor: Prof. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze The Gallery Spa Road Llandrindod Wells Powys LD1 5ER UK E-mail: [email protected]

COLLOQUIA ANTIQUA ————— 27 —————

IONIANS IN THE WEST AND EAST Proceedings of an International Conference ‘Ionians in the East and West’, Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya-Empúries, Empúries/L’Escala, Spain, 26–29 October, 2015

Edited by

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT

2022

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-90-429-4247-9 eISBN 978-90-429-4248-6 D/2022/0602/41 © 2022, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Series Editor’s Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XI

List of Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XIII

List of Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

XXXIII

INTRODUCTION

Ionians Overseas Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

PART I INVESTIGATING IONIA CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

Langues en contact et commerce: les défis linguistiques dans le cadre de la colonisation ionienne Marta Oller Guzmán . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

The western Anatolian littoral from prehistoric times to the end of the Dark Ages: the case of Clazomenae Yaşar Erkan Ersoy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

Where the bull groaned: Melia and the temple of Poseidon Helikonios on Mt Mycale (Dilek Dağları/ Aydın) Hans Lohmann. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

143

Teos in the Geometric and Archaic period: a major production centre of pottery in North Ionia Michael Kerschner and Hans Mommsen . . . . . . . . . .

169

Ephesus and its foundation myth within the Roman imperial cityscape: the Androclus grave monument revisited Simon Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

215

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART II IONIA, WEST AND EAST CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 14

Ionians East and West: differences according to pottery evidence Leonhard R. Geißler, Hans Mommsen, Richard Posamentir and Kai Riehle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

235

Colonial patterns of East Greek transport amphorae during the Archaic period: Black Sea vs Mediterranean areas Pierre Dupont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

275

New excavations in the altar area of the sanctuary of Hera on Samos: first results concerning ritual practices and deposition customs of sacrificial debris in the late 7th century BC Jan-Marc Henke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

303

Migration et mémoire: Milet et ses apoikiai à l’époque hellénistique Christel Müller. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

333

Dissemination of early bronze coinage among the Ionians: the case of the northern Black Sea Sergei A. Kovalenko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

361

Ionian colonisation on the shores of the Propontis Mustafa H. Sayar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

375

Southward Ho! A journey from Ionia to Egypt Alan Johnston and Alexandra Villing . . . . . . . . . . . . .

383

Ionian Ethnicity and Phocaean Identity Adolfo Domínguez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

407

Did Ionian or other Greek and Carian mercenaries serve in the Neo-Assyrian army? Alexander Fantalkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

441

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VII

PART III IONIANS AND OTHERS: WESTERN DIRECTIONS CHAPTER 15

CHAPTER 16

CHAPTER 17

CHAPTER 18 CHAPTER 19

CHAPTER 20 CHAPTER 21

CHAPTER 22

CHAPTER 23

From emporia to ‘diaspora’? The Samians in the western Mediterranean (7th–5th centuries BC) Flavia Frisone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

469

De la Mer Égée au golfe de Tarente: une communauté grecque dans l’Ouest non grec au VIIe siècle avant J.-C. Mario Denti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

493

Urban development at Elea (southern Italy) in the 6th and 5th centuries BC Verena Gassner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

521

New Research at Sicilian Naxos: a report Maria Costanza Lentini. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

541

Phoenician trade and Rhodian connection: the origin of the Ionian emporia in the south of the Iberian Peninsula Eduardo García Alfonso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

567

Rhode: The state of archaeological research on the city Anna Maria Puig Griessenberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

593

Social identities and everyday material cultures in an Ionian contact zone: a comparative intrasite study of the Neapolis of Emporion (5th century BC) Ana Delgado Hervás, Meritxell Ferrer, Marta Santos Retolaza, Eduardo García Alfonso, Marina Picazo and Samuel Sardà . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

627

Graffiti in Emporion: Epigraphic habit and relation to the Greek world María-Paz de Hoz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

655

L’impact de la présence coloniale grecque dans les communautés locales: l’interaction et les conflits dans le site ibérique de Mas Castellar de Pontós (EmpordàEspagne) David Asensio, Enriqueta Pons, Jordi Morer et Rafel Jornet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

677

VIII

CHAPTER 24

CHAPTER 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ullastret, an indigenous establishment in an area of contacts between cultures: Greek-type architectural elements and the emergence of shrines Ferran Codina, Rosa Plana-Mallart and Gabriel de Prado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

701

Between Agde and Pech Maho: Phocaeans and emporia in western Languedoc (southern France) during the 6th–5th centuries BC Eric Gailledrat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

723

PART IV EASTERN DIRECTIONS CHAPTER 26

CHAPTER 27

CHAPTER 28 CHAPTER 29

CHAPTER 30

CHAPTER 31

CHAPTER 32

CHAPTER 33

How the Ionians saw the Black Sea at the beginning of colonisation Alexandr V. Podossinov. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

751

Sur un possible koinon des cités du Pont Gauche à l’époque hellénistique Alexandru Avram (†) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

765

The territory of Apollonia Pontica (Sozopol, Bulgaria) Alexandre Baralis and Krastina Panayotova . . . . . . .

773

A sanctuary of Demeter in Apollonia Pontica: pottery evidence and broader context Margarit Damyanov . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

811

Dionysos Taurokérôs à Orgamé/Argamum (I) Vasilica Lungu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

843

The Berezan Island site: from an early outpost towards an Archaic Ionian city Dmitry Chistov. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

869

Ionians in the southern Black Sea littoral Manolis Manoledakis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

895

Ionians in the eastern Black Sea littoral (Colchis) Gocha R. Tsetskhladze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

915

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IX

Appendix 1 – Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

977

Appendix 2 – Abstracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

985

List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1015

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1019

PREFACE

This hefty and well-illustrated volume publishes papers from ‘Ionians in the East and West’, an international conference organised by the Museu d’Arqueologia de Catalunya-Empúries, with the collaboration of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Madrid, held in Empúries/Ampurias between October 26th and 29th, 2015. It makes a welcome addition to our series, in which collective volumes, conference proceedings and monographs share equal importance. The organising committee comprised Marta Santos Retolaza, Director of the museum (who, with her colleagues, bore the brunt of making the practical arrangements, both before and during the conference, to enable it to run so smoothly), Dirce Marzoli, Director of the DAI in Madrid (who gave enormous help; alas, last minute personal reasons prevented her attendance at the conference), Adolfo J. Domínguez of the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (who coordinated matters in Spain) and myself (responsible for academic affairs). The scholars attending were from both East and West, and their papers take us from the northern Black Sea to the Iberian Peninsula via Ionia itself, Egypt and Italy, with particular emphases on Spain and the Pontic shores and on the detailed analysis of pottery. As is quite usual, not all of those who submitted abstracts were able to attend, not all of those who gave presentations have submitted papers, and sometimes the titles of the published papers differ from those listed on the programme (see the appendices for the abstracts and programme). My personal gratitude goes to my former PhD student in Melbourne, Simon Young, for reading several papers from authors unable to attend the conference. Indeed, some participants were confused when he gave his own paper: was this on behalf of yet another absentee? For over 35 years I have been an advocate of bringing together the different schools of Eastern and Western scholarship and their proponents and exponents, and of publishing (mainly) in English to attract a broader audience. I trust that readers will see the benefits of this. This volume has taken longer to appear than I had hoped or expected. The editing and re-editing of so many papers and the attendant correspondence with authors proved challenging; the indexing even more so. Other volumes in the series were ahead of it, some of which have also consumed rather too much time. Thanks, as ever, to Peeters, our publisher, and to James Hargrave and Alexander Skinner for their help with preparing this volume for publication. Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE Series Editor

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

INTRODUCTION (Tsetskhladze 1) Fig. 1.

Map of the Black Sea showing major Greek colonies and local peoples.

Fig. 2.

The ‘Phocaean’ Mediterranean.

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the ancient topography of Emporion in the period of the establishment of Palaiapolis at the beginning of the 6th century BC. Fig. 4.

Modern topography of Emporion, with Palaiapolis (north) and Neapolis (south).

Fig. 5.

Location of Emporion, Rhode and Ullastret in their palaeogeographical setting.

Fig. 6.

Mediterranean Gaul.

Fig. 7.

Archaic Ionic capital from Massalia.

Fig. 8.

Archaic Massalia.

Fig. 9. Urban expansion of Massalia. 1. ca. 600 BC; 2. ca. 560 BC; 3. ca. 500 BC; 4. ca. 100 BC. Fig. 10. Locally produced ‘Ionian’ lamps from Berezan. Fig. 11. Locally produced ‘Ionian band’ pottery from Berezan. Fig. 12. Iberian sculpture. 1. Sphinx from Agost (province of Alicante); 2. Bull with human head from Balazote (province of Albacete); 3. Wing of a siren, from Corral de Saus (province of Valencia); 4. Head of a griffin, from Elche (province of Alicante). Fig. 13. Map of the principal sites in the Iberian Peninsula with stone sculpture. Fig. 14. Plan of Ullastret. Fig. 15. Plan of Ullastret, zones 14, 16 and 25. Fig. 16. Imitations of Greek pottery produced at Ullastret. Fig. 17. Map of the distribution of Greek pottery from the 6th century to ca. 480 BC. Fig. 18. View of some pit-houses from Berezan. Fig. 19. View of a rectangular pit-house from Berezan. Fig. 20. Reconstruction of round pit-houses. Fig. 21. Reconstruction of rectangular pit-house. Fig. 22. Kitchenware from Nymphaeum, Archaic and Classical periods. Fig. 23. Latest map of the distribution of earliest East Greek pottery from local sites of the northern Black Sea littoral.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XIV

Fig. 24. Earliest East Greek pottery from Nemirov city-site. Fig. 25. Earliest East Greek pottery from Belsk city-site. Fig. 26. Location of Scythian tombs of the late 5th–4th century BC. Fig. 27. Fragmentary Old Persian inscription of Darius from Phanagoria. CHAPTER 2 (Ersoy) Fig. 1. Row-houses and the defensive wall of Early Bronze Age I period (Liman Tepe VI). Fig. 2. Bastion of the Lower Town of the late Early Bronze Age II period (Liman Tepe V-1). Fig. 3. Horseshoe-shaped bastion of the Lower Town dating to the late Early Bronze Age II period and the Early Iron Age pithos burial, next to it. Fig. 4.

Oval structure from the early phase of the Middle Brinze Age (Liman Tepe III-4).

Fig. 5.

Aerial view of the Late Bronze Age domestic quarters (Liman Tepe II-3 and II-2).

Fig. 6. Aerial view of the Early Iron Age buildings immediately to the south of the Early Bronze Age II bastion at Liman Tepe (curvilinear building, Unit I is on the right, Unit II is on the left and under Unit II lies Unit III with curved corners). Fig. 7.

Narrow passage way between curvilinear Units I and II from the west.

Fig. 8. west).

Support for the central wooden post inside curvilinear Unit II (view from the

Fig. 9. Whetstone and clay spindle-whorls found in Unit II (KET-2015-029, KET2015-087). Fig. 10. Clay spools and a pyramidal loom-weight from Early Iron Age structures (KET-2015-105, KET-2015-015, KET-2015-035), the spool on the left was found in Unit III and dates earlier than the rest. Fig. 11. Small pierced body sherds found in the earlier floor of the curvilinear Unit II (KET-2015-008, KET-2015-082, KET-2015-126, KET-2015-130 and KET-2015-155). Fig. 12. Dark painted skyphos found in the cist grave (T.6) placed over Unit II (KET2002-1053). Fig. 13. Burial of an infant placed in a pot found in the passageway between Units I and II. Fig. 14. Early Iron Age structure with curved corners inside exposed under the curvilinear Unit II. Fig. 15. Historical topography of Clazomenae during the Early Iron Age.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XV

Fig. 16. Pottery kiln from the Early Iron Age found next to the bastion of the Early Bronze Age II Lower Town and close to the defensive wall of the Archaic Settlement. Fig. 17. Small cist grave and pot burials (T. 18 and T. 19) placed around the pottery kiln. Fig. 18. Child burial inside a neck-handled amphora (T. 46), early 8th century BC. Fig. 19. Early Iron Age cist grave made for an adult next to the gateway of the Archaic settlement. Fig. 20. Circular enclosure built for defining the area of the pithos burial (T. 48) of the Early Iron Age, disturbed during the Archaic period. CHAPTER 3 (Lohmann) Fig. 1.

Güzelçamlı with Kale Tepe and Otomatik Tepe 1959/60.

Fig. 2.

Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları).

Fig. 3. Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overview from the south-west. Fig. 4. Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overall plan with trial trenches of 2009. Fig. 5.

Melia. Building MH 3 as seen from the west during the excavation in 2009.

Fig. 6. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overall plan with different phases. Fig. 7. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Aerial photograph taken in 2006 after the excavation had been completed. Fig. 8.

Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Anta.

Fig. 9. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Capital of the anta. Fig. 10. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Fig. 11. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Lion’s head antefix (mid-6th century BC) with traces of original colours. Fig. 12. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Fig. 13. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Kylix by the Tleson Painter of about 550 BC, found in situ on the floor of the West Room. It dates the destruction level of the Archaic Panionion. Fig. 14. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Naiskos of the 7th century BC below the naos of the Archaic temple as seen from north. Fig. 15. Statuette of a lion, limestone, Early Archaic period (7th century BC), found beneath the threshold of the door leading into the naos of the Panionion.

XVI

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CHAPTER 4 (Kerschner and Mommsen) Fig. 1.

Teos in the Late Geometric period (ca. 750–680/70 BC).

Fig. 2. Bird oinochoe from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012; inv. T12-NA-M1.3b). Fig. 3. Krater of the Teian ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the north-west necropolis (excavation 1996). Fig. 4. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the north-west necropolis (excavation 1996). Fig. 5. Middle Geometric II/Late Geometric kotyle with meander hooks from the excavation 2013 west to the northern harbour. Fig. 6. Buildings of the 6th (left) and 5th centuries BC (top right) in the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2012). In the front left corner a smashed Archaic pithos. Fig. 7. Kiln wasters of Teian amphorae from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB. On the left: sample Teos 21 (inv. T1188/21-18.008.45a). Fig. 8. Kiln waster of a Teian amphora from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 21, inv. T11-88/2118.008.45a). Fig. 9. Kiln wasters of Teian amphorae from the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-NA-M1-0.1–0.2). Fig. 10. The result of analysis of 280 samples of North Ionian pottery, corrected for dilution, assuming six provenance groups of homogenous chemical composition which can be assuredly or most likely located. Fig. 11. Distribution map of sites with finds of Geometric and Archaic pottery produced at Teos as proven by NAA (state of research 2015). Fig. 12. Protogeometric oinochoe, found in the Artemision of Ephesus, provenance group TeosB (sample Ephe 136, inv. ART 892907.11). Fig. 13. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-88/21-NA-M1.1). Fig. 14. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-88/21-NA-M1.1). Fig. 15. Fragment of a Late Geometric krater of the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011) provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 05; inv. T11-88/21-10.007.4). Fig. 16. Late Geometric krater of the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 05; inv. T11-88/21-10.007.4).

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVII

Fig. 17. Bird bowl of the Teian ‘standard fabric’, second to third quarter of the 7th century BC, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (inv. ART 88 K 833.1). Fig. 18. Rosette bowl from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), last quarter of the 7th/first quarter of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 16; inv. T11-88/21-10.8.1). Fig. 19. Late Archaic banded bowl with grooved inside from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), second half of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 19; inv. T11-88/21-117–133). Fig. 20. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with pendant lotus flower, North Ionian Archaic I, third quarter of the 7th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 95; inv. ART 94 K 184.1). Fig. 21. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with the forepart of a running wild goat, North Ionian Archaic I, last quarter of the 7th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 96; inv. ART 94 K 242.1). Fig. 22. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with a chain of pendant lotus flowers and buds, North Ionian Archaic I, second half of the 7th BC, provenance group TeosB, found at Clazomenae (sample Klaz 39; inv. AKM 2332). Fig. 23. Shoulder fragment of a krater of the late phase of North Ionian Archaic I (so-called Late Wild Goat-style), first third of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 100; inv. ART 73 K 10.8). Fig. 24. Neck-handled amphora of the so-called Borysthenes class from Siana (Rhodes) in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (Antikensammlung Inv. IV 1623). Fig. 25. Rim fragment of dish with meander rim, North Ionian Archaic I, first half of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 182; inv. ART 79 K 62.1). Fig. 26. Handle plate of a black-figure column krater with a siren, surface find from the theatre area (inv. T13-Tiyatro-yüzey.1). Fig. 27. Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of groups KlazA (located at Clazomenae) and TeosB (Teos). Fig. 28. Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of groups KlazE (Clazomenae-B = old E) and TeosB (Teos). Fig. 29. Rim fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 14; inv. T11-88/21-10.012.9). Fig. 30. Rim fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2012), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 12; inv. T12-88/21-18.002.1). Fig. 31. Foot fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), chemical single (sample Teos 11; inv. T11-88/21-10.11.26). Fig. 32. Distribution of Teian transport amphorae in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XVIII

CHAPTER 5 (Young) Fig. 1.

Location of Ephesus.

Fig. 2.

Ephesus, Hellenistic city.

Fig. 3.

Roman Republican roads in Asia.

Fig. 4.

Ephesus, position of the Androclus monument.

Fig. 5.

Ephesus, the Androclus monument elevation.

Fig. 6.

Ephesus, the Androclus monument pediment.

Fig. 7.

Ephesus, the Androclus monument Late Roman basin, facing south-west.

Fig. 8.

Ephesus, public buildings at the end of the 2nd century AD.

Fig. 9.

Ephesus, reconstruction of Trajan’s fountain.

Fig. 10. Ephesus, the monumental ensemble of Hadrian’s arch, Androclus monument and Octagon at lower Embolos. CHAPTER 6 (Geißler, Mommsen, Posamentir and Riehle) Fig. 1. Metope plates from Miletus and Berezan, produced in Miletus and Abydos(?), Mommsen Groups MilA and Tro-D. Fig. 2.

Samples of SmyrF.

Fig. 3.

North Ionian plate, Mommsen Group TeosB.

Fig. 4.

Overview of Mommsen Groups TaIC and TaIA.

Fig. 5.

Overview of Mommsen Group Ul92.

Fig. 6.

Overview of Mommsen Group SybB.

Fig. 7.

Overview of Mommsen Group X003.

CHAPTER 7 (Dupont) Fig. 1. Pithekoussai: ‘proto-Chiot’ or ‘proto-Clazomenian’ amphora (late 8th century BC)? Fig. 2. jars.

Typological challenge 1: differentiating early Chian from early Clazomenian

Fig. 3. Proto-Clazomenian amphorae (second half of 7th century BC): Kolomak, Taganrog, Abdera. Fig. 4.

Orgame. Proto-Clazomenian container (third quarter of 7th century BC).

Fig. 5. Clazomenian (from Ashkelon) and Chian (from Old Smyrna) jars (turn of 7th century BC). Fig. 6. Chian.

Zeest’s ‘Dorian’ type of container (second half of 6th century BC): actually

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 7.

So-called ‘Clazomenian circle’.

Fig. 8.

Amphorae of Clazomenian type: wine containers.

Fig. 9.

Abdera: proto-Clazomenian jar with non-Greek graffito AZETO.

XIX

Fig. 10. Typological challenge 2: differentiating ‘Samian’ containers. Fig. 11. V. Grace’s early types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical pattern. Fig. 12. V. Grace’s early types of ‘Samian’ amphorae: genuine Samian chemical pattern. Fig. 13. ‘Samian’ amphorae: North Ionian chemical pattern. Fig. 14. ‘Samian’ amphora: Milesian chemical pattern. Fig. 15. Amphora of Milesian type and variants. Fig. 16. ‘Samian’ jars of type Qurneh 849: Samian chemical pattern. Fig. 17. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphorae: Milesian chemical pattern. Fig. 18. Spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ amphora: North Ionian chemical pattern. Fig. 19. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: canonical North Ionian variants. Fig. 20. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ type: Chian variants. Fig. 21. Zeest’s ‘Samian’ and ‘Protothasian’ types: North Aegean variants. Fig. 22. Zeest’s ‘Samian amphorae: resin coating. Fig. 23. Tektaş Burnu shipwreck: ‘pseudo-Samian’ jar stamped EPY. Fig. 24. Tektaş Burnu ‘pseudo-Samian’ jars: comparanda. Fig. 25. Tektaş Burnu shipwreck: 5th-century BC spindle-shaped ‘Samian’ jars. Fig. 26. Stamp AΦY on spindle-shaped 5th-century BC ‘Samian’ jars. Fig. 27. Lesbian grey, red and others. Fig. 28. ‘Lesbian grey’: fine-grained light grey variant. Fig. 29. Palestine. Early Lesbian jars (8th–7th century BC). Fig. 30. Abdera. Early ‘Lesbian grey’ and ‘Lesbian red’ containers with twisted handles. Fig. 31. ‘Lesbian red’: Lesbian(?) wine containers. Fig. 32. Phocaea. Frequency pie chart of Archaic jars. Fig. 33. Miletus. Frequency pie chart for imported Archaic jars. Fig. 34. Berezan. Frequency chart for 6th–5th-century BC jars. Fig. 35. Orgame and Vişina. Frequency pie charts for Archaic jars. Fig. 36. Velia. Frequency pie charts for imported and Western Greek Archaic jars. Fig. 37. Marseilles. Frequency charts for archaic imported jars. Fig. 38. Pointe Lequin 1A shipwreck. Frequency chart for transport amphorae.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XX

CHAPTER 8 (Henke) Fig. 1.

Excavation trenches 2010–13.

Fig. 2.

West profile of the trenches Q 4755/5505–15.

Fig. 3.

Architectural fragment of the monumental altar (‘Rhoikos-Altar’).

Fig. 4.

Architectural fragment of the monumental altar (‘Rhoikos-Altar’).

Fig. 5.

Pit filled with pottery from ritual meals.

Fig. 6.

Pit filled with pottery from ritual meals.

Fig. 7.

Stone closure of the Archaic pit.

Fig. 8.

Bronze statue in the stone closure of the Archaic pit.

Fig. 9.

Bronze statue after cleaning.

Fig. 10. Ionian drinking cup from the fill of the Archaic pit. Fig. 11. Deposition of a trefoil jug under a small amount of sacrificial ashes. Fig. 12. Distribution of finds in layer c (black crosses: fragments of pottery used for the sacrificial meal; grey crosses: fragments of other votive objects). Fig. 13. Surface of layer c. Fig. 14. Distribution of the fragments of three different Assyrian/Phrygian glass bowls. Fig. 15. Selection of fragments of two Assyrian/Phrygian glass bowls. Fig. 16. Accumulation of finds in layer c. Fig. 17. Phoenician silver ring after cleaning. Fig. 18. Phoenician silver ring in situ. Fig. 19. Engraving of the Phoenician silver ring after cleaning. Fig. 20. Ionian terracotta head in situ. Fig. 21. Ionian terracotta head after cleaning. Fig. 22. Distribution of finds in layers i and j (black crosses: fragments of pottery used for the sacrificial meal; grey crosses: fragments of other votive objects; light grey crosses: cockles). Fig. 23. Surface of layer i in trench Q 4760/5515. Fig. 24. Ionian drinking cup. Fig. 25. Ionian drinking cup. Fig. 26. Cypriot limestone statue in situ. Fig. 27. Cypriot limestone statue after restoration. Fig. 28. Egyptian bronze statue of the 25th Dynasty. Fig. 29. Distribution of a selection of pottery fragments in layers i and j.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXI

CHAPTER 9 (Müller) Fig. 1.

Convention Milet-Olbia. Milet I.3, 136; photographie de l’estampage.

Fig. 2.

Milet I.3, 136, détail du oméga.

Fig. 3.

Milet I.3, 136, détail du upsilon.

Fig. 4.

Décret de Milet pour Kios, Milet I.3, 141, ll. 27–45; photographie de l’estampage.

Fig. 5.

Convention Milet-Cyzique. Milet I.3, 137; photographie de l’estampage.

Fig. 6.

Milet I.3, 137, détail du oméga.

Fig. 7.

Milet I.3, 137, détail du upsilon.

CHAPTER 10 (Kovalenko) Fig. 1.

Sarmatia. Olbia. Second quarter of the 5th century BC. Cast coin. Bronze.

Fig. 2.

Sarmatia. Olbia. First half of the 4th century BC. Struck coin. Bronze.

Fig. 3.

Map of the Black Sea littoral with main Greek poleis of the region.

Fig. 4.

Athens. Ca. 364–359 BC. Bronze coin struck by Timotheos.

Fig. 5.

Theodosia. Beginning of the 4th century BC. Chalkos. Bronze.

Fig. 6.

Theodosia. Beginning of the 4th century BC. Chalkos. Bronze.

Fig. 7.

Tauric Chersonesos. 385–380 BC. Chalkos. Bronze.

Fig. 8.

Tauric Chersonesos. 385–380 BC. Chalkos. Bronze.

Fig. 9. Cimmerian Bosporus. Panticapaeum. First quarter of the 4th century BC. Chalkos. Bronze. Fig. 10. Cimmerian Bosporus. Panticapaeum. First quarter of the 4th century BC. Chalkos. Bronze. Fig. 11. Cimmerian Bosporus. Panticapaeum. First quarter of the 4th century BC. Dichalkos. Bronze. Fig. 12. Sarmatia. Olbia. Third quarter of the 5th century BC. Cast coin. Bronze. Fig. 13. Sarmatia. Olbia. Last quarter of the 5th century BC. Cast tetartemoria. Bronze. Fig. 14. Sarmatia. Olbia. Last quarter of the 5th century BC. Cast tetartemoria. Bronze. Fig. 15. Sarmatia. Olbia. First half of the 4th century BC. Struck coins. Bronze. Fig. 16. Sarmatia. Olbia. First half of the 4th century BC. Struck coins. Bronze. Fig. 17. Sarmatia. Olbia. First half of the 4th century BC. Struck coins. Bronze. CHAPTER 11 (Sayar) Fig. 1.

Map of the Propontis.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXII

CHAPTER 12 (Johnston and Villing) Fig. 1. Plan of the excavated remains of Naukratis, based on the plans of Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth and interim interpretations of results from new fieldwork. Fig. 2. Fragments from recent excavations at the sanctuary of the Dioskouroi: a North Ionian rosette bowl, a Chian Wild Goat-style chalice, and a Milesian cup with a dedication to the Dioskouroi, ca. 600–560 BC. Fig. 3. Approximate proportions of pottery by place of production from a) fieldwork by Petrie, Gardner and Hogarth, as represented in the total extant/known assemblage (predominantly 6th century BC); b) excavations by the British Museum (2014) in 6th-century BC levels. Fig. 4. Chian chalice with light-on-dark decoration of two horsemen, probably the Dioskouroi, ca. 575 BC. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, AN1896-1908-G.134. Fig. 5. Shoulder of Milesian krater or large closed vessel of the ‘Plain Body Group’ with dedication to Aphrodite by Ermagores from T(….), most probably Teos, ca. 590– 570 BC. Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG26152. Fig. 6. Fragments of North Ionian krater with dedication by a Phocaean, ca. 590– 570 BC. British Museum 1886,0401.946 and 1888,0601.709. Fig. 7. Bowl of likely Teian manufacture with dedication to Aphrodite in Naukratis painted on the inside of the rim, ca. 600–570 BC, British Museum 1888,0601.531. Fig. 8. Joining sherds of Carian skyphos, late 7th century BC. Photomontage combining Greenock, McLean Museum and Art Gallery 1987.464 and British Museum 1888,0601.653. Fig. 9. Fragment of ‘East Dorian’ plate, probably made on Kos, ca. 600–580 BC, British Museum 1886,0401.1131. Fig. 10. Rim fragment of repaired Attic lip-cup, dedicated by Hybles(ios), ca. 550– 530 BC, British Museum 1888,0601.243. Fig. 11. Grave stele for the Samian Hyblesios from Cyme, Aeolis, ca. 520–500 BC. CHAPTER 14 (Fantalkin) Fig. 1.

Silver bowl from Amathus – BM 123053.

Fig. 2.

Drawing of the silver bowl from Amathus.

Fig. 3.

Bronze horse frontlet from the Heraion on Samos.

CHAPTER 15 (Frisone) Fig. 1.

Geographical scenario of Herodotus’ first Samian logos (3. 39–60).

Fig. 2.

Port of Messina (ancient Zancle).

Fig. 3. Zancle silver tetradrachm. Samian occupation, 494/3–490/89 BC: obv. lion’s scalp / rev. prow of a samaina.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXIII

CHAPTER 16 (Denti) Fig. 1.

Italie méridionale et Grèce, avec les principaux sites mentionnés.

Fig. 2.

Incoronata, plan de la zone de fouille (DAO F. Meadeb).

Fig. 3. Incoronata, photogrammétrie du secteur avec l’édifice absidial (BT1) et la structure au nord, avec l’écroulement des briques. Fig. 4. Incoronata, le cratère grec et les deux askoi indigènes faisant partie de la déposition rituelle à l’intérieur de l’édifice absidial. Fig. 5. Incoronata, la partie haute d’un dépôt, avec les agencements de la céramique (notamment des amphores) pour des pratiques libatoires. Fig. 6. Incoronata. Dinos de production locale, avec la représentation de Bellérophon et de la Chimère. Fig. 7. Incoronata. Dinos de production locale, avec la représentation de chevaux antithétiques et un trépied. Fig. 8.

Incoronata. Perirrhanterion à relief de production locale.

Fig. 9. Milos. Amphore parienne, troisième quart du VIIe s. av. J.-C. Athènes, Musée Archéologique National. Fig. 10. Thasos. Plat de production parienne, moitié du VIIe s. av. J.-C. Thasos, Musée Archéologique. CHAPTER 17 (Gassner) Fig. 1.

Map of Elea.

Fig. 2. Sector II: wall of a house, overbuilt and partly destroyed by the east hall of the Hellenistic sanctuary of cult place 2. Fig. 3. Fragment of an Archaic female statuette on a throne (type dea con fiore di loto) from sector II. Fig. 4.

Relief of the Cybele-type from cult place 3.

Fig. 5.

Wall G in the Lower Town of Elea.

Fig. 6.

The Hellenistic terrace of Zeus from the east.

CHAPTER 18 (Lentini) Fig. 1. View of the Schisò Peninsula and of the bay, from the west. Site of the ancient colony and now Archaeological Park of Naxos. Fig. 2.

Geo-referenced plan of the city.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXIV

Fig. 3. Crossroads of plateia A and stenopos 11 from the south; in the foreground the 5th-century housing block A10: its remains are clearly superimposed on the Archaic urban structures. Fig. 4. Pithos/well found in the court of a 5th-century BC house located near the crossroads A11 (block A11). Fig. 5. House 10: possible warehouse or granary (late 8th century to early 7th century BC). Fig. 6. View from the west of the Archaic street Si at the crossroads with the south– north street Sh. Fig. 7. Archaic housing block wall discovered at intersection 11 below the Classical road level of plateia A. Fig. 8.

Curvilinear buildings g and d (late 8th century BC).

Fig. 9.

Late 8th-century BC building f, apsidal(?) in plan.

Fig. 10. Hypothetical reconstruction of house 5. Fig. 11. The imposing polygonal ramparts run along the left bank of Santa Venera stream. Fig. 12. Roman limekiln built at the crossroads of plateia A and stenopos 8 (2014 excavations). Fig. 13. Three-dimensional reconstruction of the buildings at the agora and previously suggested site of the agora. Fig. 14. North side of the block housing A6 where the 2013 excavations ascertained normal house plots. Fig. 15. View of the shipshed complex from the east: the central sand ramps are visible inside slipways 2 and 3. Fig. 16. Late Archaic Gorgon-mask antefix from the roof of the first phase of the shipshed complex. Fig. 17. Late Archaic Silen-mask antefix. Fig. 18. Late Archaic Silen-mask antefix. Fig. 19. Shipshed complex: view of wall 1. CHAPTER 19 (García Alfonso) Fig. 1.

Cypriots and Phoenicians in the Dodecanese.

Fig. 2. Rhodes. Phoenician mushroom-topped flasks or imitations. a) Phoenician production. Ialysos. Tsambikos, grave 442 (132). Height: 17.5 cm. 725–700 BC. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum; b) Rhodian production. Ialysos. Tsambikos, grave 422 (58). Height: 16 cm. 740–700 BC. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum; c) Rhodian production. Exochi. Grave A. Height: 13.5 cm. 725–680 BC. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark; d) Rhodian production. Ialysos. Drakidis, grave 17. Ca. 700 BC.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 3.

XXV

Rhodes. Lindos, Iakovidis/Melenos. Phoenician lamp.

Fig. 4. Rhodes. Phoenician and Greek graffiti. a–b) Ialysos. Cuccià, grave 344 (37). Fragments of the same vase with Greek and Phoenician graffiti. Length: 8.2 and 6.3 cm. 650–630 BC. Rhodes, Archaeological Museum; c) Camiros. Alabastron with graffiti in Greek alphabet and Semitic word. Height: 17 cm. End of the 7th century BC. Paris, Louvre Museum. Fig. 5. Rhodes. Vroulia. Statuette of sphinx with Phoenician inscription. Height: 18.5 cm. 600–550 BC. Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark. Fig. 6. period.

East Greek presence in the south of the Iberian Peninsula during the Archaic

Fig. 7.

Toscanos. Bird bowls. 650–600 BC.

Fig. 8.

Cerro del Villar. Lead weights. 700–650 BC.

Fig. 9.

Cerro del Villar. Samian cup. Graffito with omega.

Fig. 10. Huelva. Ionian cup. Graffito of Herades. Table 1 Lead weights from Cerro del Villar compared with different standards. CHAPTER 20 (Puig Griessenberger) Fig. 1.

Location of Rhode on the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula.

Fig. 2.

Aerial view of the site of the Ciutadella near the municipality of Roses.

Fig. 3. Map showing the position of Emporion and Rhode with the main indigenous oppida of the area. Fig. 4. Geological configuration of the surroundings of Rhode (according to Carles Roqué). Fig. 5. Engraving of 1645 in which the immediate coast to the Ciutadella is drawn, with the remains of the sheer profile and the offshore sandbar. Fig. 6. Detail of an engraving of 1795 in which appear the diverted streams for the construction of the Ciutadella. Fig. 7. Rhode drachma with AT monogram on the front and the rose seen from below on the reverse. Fig. 8. shops.

Table showing the relation of shapes and productions of Rhode pottery work-

Fig. 9.

Formal repertoire of Rhode workshops.

Fig. 10. Formal repertoire of Rhode workshops. Fig. 11. Formal repertoire of Rhode workshops. Fig. 12. Formal repertoire of Rhode workshops. Fig. 13. Ciutadella floor with the discovered archaeological remains.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXVI

Fig. 14. Floor of the constructions of the area of the promontory wall with the latest discoveries. Fig. 15. Floor of the uncovered area of the Hellenistic district and possible areas of expansion. Fig. 16. Internal distribution of plots and houses of the blocks of houses of the district. Fig. 17. Detail of the uncovered area of the district during the latest campaigns. Fig. 18. Detail of the situation of the negative structures found in the subsoil of the district. CHAPTER 21 (Delgado Hervás et al.) Fig. 1. Map of the Emporion, with main settlement areas and cemeteries (6th– 4th centuries BC). Fig. 2. Map of the Neapolis of Emporion, with sectors analysed in the text: N-7000, MN-5000 and N-1000. Fig. 3.

Planimetry and stratigraphy of sector N-7000.

Fig. 4. Percentages of manufacturing traditions in the individualised domestic ceramics of the different units under examination. Fig. 5. Percentages of uses and functionalities of the individualised domestic ceramics of the different units under examination. Fig. 6. Above (a): Percentages of storage vases and their manufacturing traditions (MNI). Centre (b): Percentages of cooking ware and kitchen implements and their manufacturing traditions (MNI). Below (c): Percentages of tableware and their manufacturing traditions. Fig. 7. Storage containers of different manufacturing traditions in the contexts under examination. Fig. 8.

Tableware diversity recorded in the contexts under examination.

CHAPTER 22 (de Hoz) Fig. 1.

IGEP 1.

Fig. 2.

IGEP 16.

Fig. 3.

IGEP 9.

Fig. 4.

IGEP 3.

Fig. 5.

IGEP 152.

Fig. 6.

IGEP 4.

Fig. 7.

IGEP 17.

Fig. 8.

IGEP 18.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 9.

XXVII

IGEP 7.

Fig. 10. IGEP 6. CHAPTER 23 (Asensio, Pons, Morer et Jornet) Fig. 1. Situation du site de Mas Castellar de Pontós et des autres sites de l’Empordà mentionnés dans le texte, avec les colonies de Rhodes et d’Emporion (450–375 av. J.-C.). Fig. 2.

Vue d’ensemble de l’ouest du sondage Z33-S3 de l’édifice ES516.

Fig. 3. Stratigraphie complète de la coupe magistrale S–N du sondage Z33-S3, de la surface jusqu’au substrat traversant la tour de l’oppidum, du secteur 3 de l’édifice et des trois niveaux d’occupation. Fig. 4. 2015).

Plan de la maison ES516 avec les unités fonctionnelles (partie découverte en

Fig. 5.

Éléments caractéristiques de l’édifice ES516.

Fig. 6.

Ensemble d’objets trouvés dans la salle 5.

Fig. 7.

Ensemble de céramiques attiques trouvées dans la salle 4a.

Fig. 8. Ensembles céramiques et objets de prestige appartenant à la période de l’oppidum. Fig. 9. Plan de l’établissement agraire de la phase récente (ca. 200 av. J.-C.) et sélection de matériels trouvés dans les maisons 1 et 2. CHAPTER 24 (Codina, Plana-Mallart and de Prado) Fig. 1. Location map of the Iberian town of Ullastret and photograph of the two habitational nuclei that made it up. Fig. 2. General plan of Puig de Sant Andreu showing the location of the sacred area and the Greek-style monumental architectural elements. Fig. 3.

Detail of one of the blocks with Ionic-style ova decoration.

Fig. 4.

Doric-style capital reused in 3rd-century BC paving.

Fig. 5. Base of an Ionic-style column reused in a building from the 4th–3rd centuries BC. Fig. 6. Plan of the detail of Temples A and C. Hypothetical ground plan reconstruction. Photograph showing the current appearance of the temples. Fig. 7. Hypothetical reconstruction of the ground plan and elevation of Temple A at Puig de Sant Andreu. Fig. 8. Carved blocks and architectural elements from the sacred area of Puig de Sant Andreu. Fig. 9.

Terracotta masks found in the sacred area of Puig de Sant Andreu.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXVIII

Fig. 10. Fragments of paving from the sacred area of Puig de Sant Andreu that exemplify three of the different types of mosaics documented. Fig. 11. Fragments of stucco painted and with moulds from the sacred area of Puig de Sant Andreu. CHAPTER 25 (Gailledrat) Fig. 1.

Map of southern France with the main Iron Age sites.

Fig. 2. Map of Western Europe with the main routes between Atlantic and Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. Fig. 3. An example of a natural landing place at the mouth of a river (the Bourdigoul) in Roussillon. Fig. 4.

The Mont Saint-Loup in Agde, with the Bagnas pond in the foreground.

Fig. 5. Aerial view of the city of Agde (in the background) with the mouth of the Hérault (in the foreground). Fig. 6. Location of the Iron Age settlements of La Moulinasse (Salles, d’Aude), Montlaurès (Narbonne) and Pech Maho (Sigean) with restitution of the extension of the lagoon mentioned by ancient authors as the Lacus Rubrensis. Fig. 7.

Aerial view of Pech Maho.

Fig. 8. Percentages of non-wheel-thrown pottery (A), cream ware (B) and amphorae (C) in La Monédière, Agde and Pech Maho. Fig. 9. Percentages of imported of amphorae (Massaliote, Etruscan and Iberian) in Pech Maho, Agde and La Monédière. Fig. 10. Plan of the city of Agathe. CHAPTER 26 (Podossinov) Fig. 1.

The wanderings of Odysseus, of the Argonauts and of Herakles.

Fig. 2. The world map of Ephorus from the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes. CHAPTER 28 (Baralis and Panayotova) Fig. 1.

Geomorphological analysis and coring around Apollonia Pontica.

Fig. 2.

Apollonia Pontica. Sites discussed.

Fig. 3.

Early Iron Age fortified settlement of Mestnost Chivridjika.

Fig. 4.

Archaic copper mines of Cherveno Zname.

Fig. 5.

Partial interpretation of a Lidar picture – Elafotumba sector.

Fig. 6.

Apollonia Pontica. Agricultural terraces and plots.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXIX

Fig. 7. Rural complex of Messarite 4 (second quarter of the 5th–middle of the 3rd century BC). Fig. 8. Rural edifice of Messarite 6 (middle of the 4th–end of the first third of the 3rd century BC). Fig. 9. Rural edifice of St Marina 1 (middle of the 4th–end of the first third of the 3rd century BC). Fig. 10. Hellenistic vineyard in the upper sector of Kalfata, close to Hadji Ali Dere. Excavations K. Panayotova, 2015. CHAPTER 29 (Damyanov) Fig. 1.

Skamni Promontory – aerial view from the north.

Fig. 2.

Skamni Promontory – the site and the mediaeval basilica.

Fig. 3.

Terracotta figurines from the sanctuary of Demeter.

Fig. 4.

Fragments of kernoi from the sanctuary.

Fig. 5.

Lamps from the sanctuary.

Fig. 6.

Archaic East Greek pottery from the sanctuary.

Fig. 7. Fragments of black-figure plates of the Polos Painter, second quarter of the 6th century BC. Fig. 8.

Black-figure and other small vases from the sanctuary.

Fig. 9.

Votive olpai from the sanctuary.

Fig. 10. Plain small-scale (‘miniature’) vases of closed shapes. Fig. 11. Plain votive vases from the sanctuary: juglets, amphoriskoi and hydriskoi. Fig. 12. Locations of the sanctuaries of Demeter in (1) Apollonia, (2) Miletus, (3) Iasos, (4) Rhodes and (5) Thasos. CHAPTER 30 (Lungu) Fig. 1.

Cratère en cloche à figures rouges.

Fig. 2. Cratère en cloche à figures rouges. Détail de la tête de Dionysos cornu (kerasphóros). Fig. 3. Images de la fouille du tumulus T III-90 de la nécropole d’Orgamé, avec les vases brisés in situ. Fig. 4.

Pélikè d’Istros.

CHAPTER 31 (Chistov) Fig. 1.

Selected circular semi-dugouts (ground plans and sections).

Fig. 2.

Selected circular semi-dugouts.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXX

Fig. 3. Plan of the earliest structures (semi-dugouts and storage pits) within the area of sector ‘O’. Fig. 4. Cluster of circular dugouts in the northern part of the ‘O-Western’ sector. View from the north. Fig. 5.

Rectangular dugouts.

Fig. 6.

Rectangular dugout (room 18) of the ‘colonist’s house’-type. View from the west.

Fig. 7.

Apsidal wattle-and-daub structure (structure 53). View from the east.

Fig. 8.

‘Colonist’s house’ (room 18), 3D reconstruction.

Fig. 9. Cluster of circular dugouts, found in the northern part of the ‘O-Western’ sector, 3D reconstruction. CHAPTER 33 (Tsetskhladze 2) Fig. 1.

Map showing the location of Colchis.

Fig. 2.

Colchis in the Greek period.

Fig. 3.

Pottery from Gyenos.

Fig. 4.

Pottery from Eshera.

Fig. 5.

Pichvnari. General view of the ‘Greek’ cemetery.

Fig. 6.

Pichvnari. Golden objects from the ‘Greek’ cemetery.

Fig. 7.

Pottery from Batumis Tsikhe.

Fig. 8. Silver phiale from the Kuban, State Hermitage Museum, St Petersburg, Inv. No. 2234/18. Fig. 9.

Detail of the inscription on the phiale.

Fig. 10. Detail of Fig. 8. Fig. 11. Colchian tetradrachms. Fig. 12. Colchian didrachms, Type 1. Fig. 13. Colchian hemidrachms, Type 2. Fig. 14. Colchis in the 7th–3rd centuries BC. 1. Pitsunda (ancient Pityus); 2. Bambori valley; 3. Adelagara; 4. Gudauta; 5. Kulanurkhva; 6. New Afon; 7. Eshera; 8. Gvandri; 9. Sukhum(i) (ancient Dioscurias); 10. Gulripsh; 11. Atara; 12. Ochamchira (ancient Gyenos); 13. Karieti; 14. Simagre; 15. Kvemo Chaladidi; 16. Pichvnari; 17. Kobuleti; 18. Gonio; 19. Gurianta; 20. Batumi; 21. Vashnari; 22. Bukistsikhe; 23. Didi Vani; 24. Nokalakevi (ancient Tsikhegodzhi); 25. Sagvichio; 26. Lekhainurao; 27. Nosiri; 28. Dapnari; 29. Dablagoni; 30. Mtisdziri; 31. Partskhanakanevi; 32. Maglaki; 33. Meskheti; 34. Kvishiri; 35. Kutaisi; 36. Gelati; 37. Vani; 38. Sakanchia; 39. Chkhorotsku; 40. Sepieti; 41. Ureki; 42. Chkhari; 43. Terdzhola; 44. Sazano; 45. Shorapani; 46. Dzevri; 47. Kldeeti; 48. Ileti; 49. Bori; 50. Dimi; 51. Sargveshi; 52. Vardtsikhe; 53. Kharagauli; 54. Chibati; 55. Chiatura; 56. Sachkhere;

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

XXXI

57. Sairkhe; 58. Goradziri; 59. Bandza; 60. Grigoleti; 61. Tsikhisdziri; 62. Zugdidi; 63. Anaklia; 64. Tagiloni; 65. Gudava; 66. Lia; 67. Tsageri; 68. Chuberi; 69. Khaishi; 70. Brili; 71. Shosheti; 72. Kvashkhieti; 73. Achandara; 74. Gagra; 75. Tsebelda; 76. Gali; 77. Kelasuri; 78. Lata; 79. Gantiadi; 80. Otkhara; 81. Anukhval; 82. Machara. Fig. 15. A Colchian settlement according to Ps.-Hippocrates. Reconstruction. I. Plan of man-made hill; II. Section.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AA ARV2 BCH Beazley Addenda CAH CIG CIL CIRB CVA DGE FGrH FHG GASMG III GGM I.Didyma I.Ephesos IG IGBul I2 IGBul V IGDGG I IGDGG II IGDOP IGEP IGF IK Lyk

Archäologischer Anzeiger. J.D. Beazley, Attic Red-Figure Vase-Painters, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1963). Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. L. Burn et R. Glynn, Beazley Addenda. Additional References to ABV, ARV and Paralipomena (Oxford 1982). The Cambridge Ancient History. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. V.V. Struve et al., Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani (Leningrad/Moscow 1965). Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Diccionario Griego Español. Anejo 1: Diccionario Micénico, vol. 1 (Madrid 1985). F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. K. Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. R. Arena, Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia III: Iscrizionia delle colonie Euboiche (Pisa 1994). C. Müller, Geographici Graeci Minores (Paris 1855–61). A. Rehm, Didyma II: Die Inschriften (Berlin 1958). R. Merkelbach et al., Die Inschriften von Ephesos, vol. 7.1 (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 17.1) (Bonn 1979). Inscriptiones Graecae. G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae I: Inscriptiones Orae Ponti Euxini, 2nd ed. (Sofia 1970). G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae V: Inscriptiones novae, addenda et corrigenda (Sofia 1997). L. Dubois, Inscriptions dialectales de Grande Grèce I: Colonies eubéennes, Colonies ioniennes, Emporia (Geneva 1995). L. Dubois, Inscriptions dialectales de Grande Grèce II: Colonies achéennes (Geneva 2002). L. Dubois, Inscriptions grecques dialectales d’Olbia du Pont (Geneva 1996). M.P. de Hoz, Inscripciones griegas de España y Portugal (Madrid 2014). J.-C. Decourt, Inscriptions grecques de la France (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 38) (Lyons 2004). C. Schuler (ed.), Griechische Epigraphik in Lykien: eine Zwischenbilanz (Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums München, 24.–26. Februar 2005) (Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 354; Ergänzungsbände zu den tituli Asiae Minoris 25) (Vienna 2007).

XXXIV

I.Kios I.Kyme I.Lampsakos I.Magnesia I.Oropos IOSPE I.Priene ISM I ISM II ISM III IstMitt JHS KST LGPN LIMC LSJ MDAI Milet

I.3 VI.1 VI.3 Nadpisi Olvii Orph. frg. PMG PPE RE SEG SNG BM I SNG Pushkin II

SNG Stancomb SNG Turkey 1 TrGF

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

T. Corsten, Die Inschriften von Kios (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 29) (Bonn 1985). H. Engelmann, Die Inschriften von Kyme (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 5) (Bonn 1976). P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Lampsakos (Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 6) (Bonn 1978). O. Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Meander (Berlin 1900). V. Petrakos, Hoi epigrafes tou Orôpou (Athens 1997). B. Latyshev, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini (St Petersburg 1885–1901; I2: Petrograd 1916). F. (Freiherr) Hiller von Gaertringen, Inschriften von Priene (Berlin 1906). D.M. Pippidi, Inscripţiile din Scythia Minor greceşti si latine I: Histria şi împrejurimile (Bucharest 1983). I. Stoian, Inscripţiile din Scythia Minor greceşti si latine II: Tomis şi teritoriul sau (Bucharest 1987). A. Avram, Inscriptions grecques et latines de Scythie Mineure III: Callatis et son territoire (Bucharest/Paris 1999). Istanbuler Mitteilungen. Journal of Hellenic Studies. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı (Ankara). P.M. Fraser et al., A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford 1987– ). Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae. H.G. Liddell, R. Scott and H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. Mitteilungen des (Kaiserlich) Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung. A. Rehm, Das Delphinion in Milet (Berlin 1914). P. Herrmann, Inschriften von Milet, vol. 1 (Berlin 1997). P. Herrman, Inschriften von Milet, vol. 3 (Berlin 2006). T.N. Knipovich, Nadpisi Olvii (1917–1965) (Leningrad 1968). O. Kern, Orphicorum fragmenta (Berlin 1922). D.L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962). A. Avram, Prosopographia Ponti Euxini externa (Colloquia Antiqua 8) (Louvain/Paris/Walpole, MA 2013). Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. M. Price, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum IX: The British Museum. Part I: The Black Sea (London 1993). S.A. Kovalenko, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, The State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts. Coins of the Black Sea Region. Part II: Ancient Coins of the Black Sea Littoral (Colloquia Antiqua 11) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA 2014). W. Stancomb, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum XI: The William Stancomb Collection of Coins of the Black Sea (Oxford 2000). Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Turkey 1: The Muharrem Kayan Collection (Numismatica Anatolica 1) (Istanbul/Bordeaux 2002). B. Snell, Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen 1986– ).

INTRODUCTION IONIANS OVERSEAS Gocha R. TSETSKHLADZE

In considering Ionians in the West and East, in reality we are addressing the question of Ionian colonisation and settlement overseas.1 This was part of the larger Greek colonisation process: Greek colonial activity in the Archaic and Classical periods produced about 230 colonies and settlements outside East Greece and mainland Greece,2 just under 50 of which were Ionian (see Table 1).3 The situation in the Black Sea is complicated (Fig. 1). According to Seneca (Helv. 7. 2), there were 75 colonies; Pliny the Elder (NH 5. 112) has a number of 90. Both numbers are exaggerations and include Hellenistic and later foundations.4 The Copenhagen Inventory lists 53 Archaic and Classical foundations, with a further 24 given as pre-Hellenistic settlements not attested as poleis (Table 2).5 There are about 20 major primary settlements around the Black Sea; the others were small towns, villages, fortresses or harbours. The names of these are known to us principally from various written sources: we seldom have archaeological data, and quite often their locations remain unknown (as, for example, in the southern Black Sea where 85 places are named, many of them mentioned in connection with the voyage of the Argonauts to Colchis).6 It is obvious that 1 I use the term colonisation for convenience. Here is not the place to enter into disputes over terminology. This has been done many times. See Tsetskhladze and Hargrave 2011 (an updated and expanded version of which will appear as Tsetskhladze and Hargrave 2023); see also Hodos 2020; 66–94; Mauersberg 2023a; 2023b. 2 Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 152. The inventory contains altogether 279 colonies, 50 of which were situated in Hellas. Different publications give different numbers of Greek colonies and overseas settlements: A.J. Graham (1982, 160–62) listed 139 founded between 800 and 500 BC; R. Osborne (1996, 121–25) lists 146 from the beginning of the Dark Age to the end of the Archaic period; and I (Tsetskhladze 2006a, lxvii–lxxiii) have 149 from the Archaic period. T. Figueira, on Classical-period colonisation (2008, tables 1–3), lists 25 Athenian Classical colonies, seven Athenian cleruchies and 47 instances of Athenian re-colonisation. 3 According to A.J. Graham (1982, 160–62), there were 30 Ionian colonies in total; V.B. Gorman (2001, 257–58) lists 45. My Tables 1 and 2 here include not only Ionian primary colonies but secondary ones as well. 4 See, for example, Hind 1999. 5 Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004. 6 For a discussion of written sources, see Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 924–31.

Fig. 1. Map of the Black Sea showing major Greek colonies and local peoples (G.R. Tsetskhladze).

2 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

3

not all of these small settlements were the results of initial colonisation. Indeed, it is inconceivable that Ionia, especially Miletus, could have established so many – and, of course, Ionian colonies existed in the West as well.7 The earliest colonial foundation in the Mediterranean was Pithekoussai (in about the middle of the 8th century BC or soon thereafter). All major colonies were established in the course of the next 50–75 years, but this was not the end of colonisation. Many further colonies appeared in the first half to middle of the 7th century and later.8 These were often what we call ‘secondary colonies’, which means that the earlier colonies had expanded and were now establishing their own colonial offshoots. The reasons for this were many and various: through natural growth or the arrival of a new wave of settlers, the original colony might not be able to support its population; alternatively, a colony might seek to expand its influence, for a variety of economic and political motives, by gradual penetration of the lands of the local population, either peaceably or forcibly. In other instances, particular local circumstances may have produced particular local responses.9 In 1994, when we were organising in Oxford a seminar ‘The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation’ to mark the retirement of Sir John Boardman,10 we asked A.M. Snodgrass (Boardman’s first PhD student) to give an introductory lecture covering the reasons for Greek colonisation. He declined, citing J.-P. Morel’s 1984 paper,11 where Morel claims that the reasons had become less important.12 Nevertheless, J.-P. Descœudres was brave enough to discuss the subject in his large 2008 chapter;13 since then his conclusions have been confirmed.14 There is no simple or single answer to the why, but nobody migrates on a whim. Modern research has, for the most part, undermined or disproved older suppositions and conjectures, though they continue to receive support from some, at least as contributory causes.15 The Greeks’ homeland was not deficient in natural resources, it was not overpopulated and incapable of feedings its inhabitants, etc. And whatever the overall circumstances, the particular catalyst for any city to embark (singly or jointly, by private enterprise or state organisation) in settlement expeditions overseas was seldom the same. From ancient written sources, if we search for a single reason, then ‘forced migration’ taken in the 7

See, for example, Lombardo 2000; Morel 2006; and Domínguez 2006a; 2006b. For a brief conspectus of Greek colonisation, see Tsetskhladze 2006a, lxii–lxvi. 9 For secondary colonies, see now Frisone 2023. 10 The papers are published in Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994. 11 Snodgrass 1994, 1; Morel 1984, 123–24. 12 Snodgrass instead gave his lecture on the results: Snodgrass 1994. 13 Descœudres 2008. 14 For the latest, see Tsetskhladze 2019a. Cf. Ulf 2019. 15 Tsetskhladze 2006a; Descœudres 2008. See also Dougherty 1993a, 16–18; Bernstein 2004. 8

4

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

broadest possible way is our answer. But the forces themselves were varied, quite different for different cities (and) at different times. And how these ‘push’ factors related to and might be balanced by ‘pull’ factors is just as variable and, potentially, imponderable. To take a concrete example, Ionian colonisation was indeed enforced, a response to the deteriorating economic and geo-political situation in Anatolia: Lydian expansion, which destroyed the chorai of the Ionian cities, particularly that of Miletus, left close to famine (Herodotus 1. 14–18, 25–28, 73; 5. 28–29), was followed by Achaemenid, which produced or fanned political tensions, especially in Miletus, that were themselves a sufficient spur to migration (compounded, in particular, by Achaemenid destruction of Ionian cities after the failure of the Ionian Revolt).16 Thus, people desperate to emigrate readily succumbed to the lure of the (almost) unknown. Written sources point directly to the Ionians fleeing in order to avoid Persian conquest and enslavement (Herodotus 1. 168–169; Arrian Byth. fr. 56 Roos). Arian refers to the oikist of Phanagoria as Phanagoras, who ‘sought refuge from Persian interference’ (FGrH 2 BF 71).17 A love-hate relationship between Ionians and Lydians produced a very sophisticated cultural result: the Lydian elite developed a high demand for the services and expertise of Ionian architects and goldsmiths, in which they were echoes by the Phrygians. The presence of Lydians and Phrygians in Ionia, especially at Miletus and Ephesus, is very well documented.18 This fact is very important for explaining some recent developments in the Black Sea colonies: a small amount of Lydian/Lydian-type and Phrygian/Phrygian-type pottery has been discovered in Histria and Berezan.19 Now, such pottery is known from Panticapaeum as well.20 Interpretation of pottery is a difficult matter; we always 16 For the reasons for Ionian colonisation, see Tsetskhladze 1994, 123–26. My conclusions were accepted by Descœudres in his chapter mentioned above (Descœudres 2008). See also Ulf 2022. 17 The name Phanagoras is known from Ionia – ‘the Ionic form of the genitive singular is appropriate to a family originating in Teos’ (Hind 2019, 278) – but it is very difficult to say whether this is the same person as the oikist of Phanagoria, though Phanagoras looks to be an historical figure (Hind 2019): Phanagoras is also mentioned on an inscription from the Bosporan kingdom (CIRB 971) and on a graffito from Phanagoria (see Zavoikina 2018, 295, fig. 1; Kuznetsov 2022, 527, fig. 4). 18 Kerschner 2005a; 2005b; 2006b; 2008a; 2008b; 2010; Seipel 2008, 115, 220–22; Roosevelt 2009, 20–32; Weissl 2011. 19 On this pottery and its interpretation, see Tsetskhladze 2012, 350–52. 20 Astashova 2021. Another pot may have been discovered in Porthmion: ‘Among the materials found in the layer along the route of the eastern Archaic defensive wall is a fragmented vessel with a globular body of loose yellow clay, decorated with horizontal zigzag lines, applied with red paint, and mastoid protrusions. Its form and ornamentation do not find close analogies among Archaic Greek pottery. Perhaps, by analogy with finds on Berezan and in the most ancient layers

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

5

face the problem of post vs people. Another problem of pottery, especially that from Berezan, is its identification and dating. It is likely that this pottery in the Black Sea is not an indication of Phrygian and Lydian colonisation of this area. Rather, it is more likely to result from Lydians and Phrygians living in Miletus and other Ionian cities, forming part of the colonies themselves. It may indicate that the Ionian colonists were just picking up pots and bringing them with them – as demonstrated by a few fragments of Etruscan bucchero found in Apollonia Pontica and the Taganrog settlement on the Sea of Azov.21 This same kind of pottery is also known from Miletus.22 At a glance, it is not difficult to understand the concept of Ionian West and East. As Tables 1 and 2 show clearly, most of the Ionian colonies established in the West, were in the Iberian Peninsula and the south of France, with a few exceptions in Italy (Fig. 2), while those in the East were preponderantly in the Pontus and Propontis. The Pontus was indeed, for the Greeks, the eastern edge of the known world, like the Pillars of Hercules in the West.23 Once we consider the foundation dates of the first Ionian colonies, it becomes clear that the Ionian colonisation movement was much later, by almost a century, than that in other parts of Greece. Ionia itself was very fertile, excellent for agriculture, with plenty of minerals and other natural resources in nearby parts of Anatolia.24 But, as I mentioned above, life became more difficult for the Ionians once the Lydian dynasty embarked upon a course of territorial expansion in their direction; while the later arrival of the Achaemenids was a disaster for East Greece. Logically, the Ionians looked for territories that were lightly colonised or not colonised at all. Magna Graecia was already quite heavily settled with colonies and prospering. To establish colonies in the same territory invited conflict with those already established there. The best example is the battle for Alalia. Another pattern may be discerned: all Milesian colonies were established around the Black Sea (Fig. 1), while all Phocaean colonies were sent to the western Mediterranean (Fig. 2). Might this imply that there was some kind of agreement or arrangement between the different cities of Ionia? We have only a few joint establishments. Teos sent colonies to Abdera in Aegean Thrace and of Panticapaeum, it belongs to the non-Greek, Anatolian pottery brought to the northern Black Sea by the first Ionian colonists’ (Vakhtina 2022, 751). See also Solovyov 2013, 64–67; Dupont et al. 2009, 22–24; and Tolstikov 2017, fig. 6.1–12. 21 Nikov 2009; Kopylov 2009, 30. 22 See Naso 2009. Not only was Etruscan pottery found in Miletus and other Ionian cities, so too were Etruscan bronzes (see Naso 2001). On the discovery in Panticapaeum of an Etruscan bronze with a Greek inscription dedicated to Ephesian Artemis, see Treister 1999. 23 See A.V. Podossinov’s contribution to this volume. 24 See, for instance, Tsetskhladze and Treister 1995.

Fig. 2. The ‘Phocaean’ Mediterranean (after Morel 2006, 368, fig. 1).

6 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

7

Phanagoria on the Taman Peninsula in the northern Black Sea.25 So many were the colonies founded around the Black Sea that it is obvious that Miletus could not have done this alone, still less the even smaller Phocaea. We must suppose that these two provided the leadership but that other Ionian cities contributed to the personnel. Nor is a long-planned and carefully calculated colonial project on behalf of the founding cities of East Greece feasible in the circumstances in which they found themselves: little time was there to plan the how, the where and the wherefore when urgent flight was the foremost consideration. C. Dougherty was correct, as well as pithy, when she wrote ‘It’s murder to found a colony’.26 To repeat her words: … founding a colony overseas can be as dangerous and as violent as war. … the Greeks often settled territory occupied by native populations, and Thucydides shows us how dangerous and violent confrontations with local peoples could be; his account of the founding of Syracuse … mentioned the native Sikels, who had been expelled to make room for the Greeks. Two poets, contemporaries of the archaic colonization movement, also mention confrontations between the Greek colonists and local populations. Mimnermos, in a fragment from the Nanno, describes the violence of the settlement of Kolophon and the hybris of the colonists … Archilochos also recalls the hostility between Greeks and Thracians when Paros colonized the island of Thasos.27

Not everything is yet clear about the foundation dates of the Greek colonies. We are faced with discrepancies in some settlements between the written sources and the archaeological material. If, in the West, the dates of Thucydides and others and those from Greek pottery more or less coincide (see Tables 3–5), on the Black Sea we are still debating the dates of one of the first Greek settlements in that region – Berezan (ancient Borysthenes). We have Eusebius’ date and we have early Greek pottery that does not correspond with it (see Table 2). The same disparity is presented by Histria (Table 2). Another case is Sinope (see Table 2). Quite recently, I again addressed these problems,28 thus I shall not repeat the detailed discussion here. But we are coming to give greater and greater credence to the archaeological evidence. This indicates an establishment date 25 For the opinion that Phangoria was established directly by Abdera, not by Teos, see Kuznetsov 2002. This opinion has not gained any support. 26 Dougherty 1993b. 27 Dougherty 1993b, 187–88. 28 Tsetskhladze 2019b. The article contains the following sections: ‘Pottery and colonies’; ‘U. Schlotzhauer and D. Zhuaravlev vs G. Tsetskhladze’; ‘Local settlements and Greek pottery’; ‘Eusebius’ dates. “Pre-colonial” links again?’; ‘Emporion or royal residence?’; and ‘The Colchian Black Sea coast’.

8

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

for these colonies of the last quarter of the 7th century BC. Eusebius is a very late source and full of contradictions and misinformation. Despite these known problems with Eusebius, a few scholars still believe his dates and by giving high dates to the early Greek pottery,29 thus pushing it towards his dates, seek to square the circle. But as these scholars themselves accept, their new dating is provisional and requires further detailed study of the material (which is yet to be done).30 As my chapter on the eastern Black Sea (below in the current volume) shows, until very recently we were dating the foundation of the Greek colonies on that seaboard – Phasis, Dioscurias and Gyenos – to the middle of the 6th century BC, based on the general situation of that time in Anatolia and the Black Sea. But as the increasing quantity of early Greek pottery discovered at local elite sites demonstrates, colonisation started there just as it did in the whole Black Sea region, namely at the end of the 7th–first quarter of the 6th century BC (see below). Whether in the West or East, from the moment of their arrival the Ionians had to strike up a relationship with the local peoples. All of the territories where they set up colonies had an extensive population. Ionian colonisation was pacific and collaborative. In this it contrasted with Dorian, for instance. If we take Heraclea Pontica as an example of the latter, the colonists killed or enslaved the local population (Strabo 4. 1. 5); and when, in turn, Heraclea Pontica took over the Ionian settlement in Tauric Chersonesos in 421 BC, the local Taurians were expelled and pushed back into the mountainous hinterland.31 It is remarkable that the southern Black Sea shore, which stretches for more than 1000 km, contains a mere four major Greek cities – Heraclea Pontica, Sinope, Amisos and Trapezus. Written sources describe the territory as very fecund, well suited to agriculture and horticulture, and amply furnished with natural harbours (Xenophon Anabasis 6. 4. 2–6). Why were there so few settlements? Written sources indicate that the territory was populated mainly by locals hostile to Greeks.32 Emporion from the outset had to deal with locals, with whom a close relationship, especially in economic matters, was vital for the survival of the colony: it was surrounded by marshes and, at least until the 4th century BC, it had no chora. (The situation is echoed in the eastern Black Sea: the Greeks there too had to adapt their everyday life to the local conditions of marshes and 29 30 31 32

Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005; Kerschner 2006c. Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 52. On the Taurians, see now Khrapunov 2018. For details, see Tsetskhladze 2007b; see also Manoledakis 2018a; 2018b.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

9

coastal wetlands.33) Its establishment story as given by Strabo (3. 4. 8) is remarkable: The Emporitans formerly lived on a little island off the shore, which is now called the Old City, but they now live on the mainland. And their city is a double one, for it has been divided into two cities by a wall, because, in former times, the city had for neighbours some of the Indicetans, who, although they maintained a government of their own, wished for the sake of security, to have a common wall of circumvallation with the Greeks, with the enclosure in two parts – for it had been divided by a wall through the centre; but in the course of time the two peoples united under the same constitution, which was a mixture of both Barbarian and Greek laws – a thing which has taken place in the case of many other peoples.

The results of archaeological excavation have tended to confirm its accuracy (Figs. 3–5).34 The situation with Massalia was only slightly more favourable: the rocky territory surrounding it was good for growing grapevines and other fruit (as in the near chora of Tauric Chersonesos) (Fig. 6). Massalia took early advantage of this, quite rapidly developing extensive viticulture and creating Massaliotetype amphorae in which to transport its wine to the locals (including the Etruscans). In Massalia, the incomers formed a friendship with the local ruler who offered his daughter as a bride and encouraged the Phocaeans to establish a settlement (Aristotle fr. 549 Rose; Justin 43. 3–4).35 Or the well-known case involving the king of Tartessos and, again, the Phocaeans: their journeys brought them into contact, and he invited them to leave their homeland and resettle in his country (Herodotus 1. 163). The point is not that the Phocaeans refused, but that a relationship had grown up in which philia can be seen.36 The same can be said of Massalia, where the relationship can also be described as philia or xenia.37 According to Stephanus of Byzantium, Panticapaeum was established by the son of Aeetes, mythical king of Aeaea/Colchis, who received land from the king of the Scythians.38 Strabo gives contradictory information: at one point he says that the Greeks displaced the Scythians (11. 2. 5); at another he records that Bosporus was paying tribute to barbarians (7. 4. 4). Pompeius Trogus (which survives in Justin 2. 3. 5) mentions that the Scythians returned and lived in peace with the Greeks until the times of the Scytho-Persian Wars. 33

See my chapter on the eastern Black Sea (below in the present volume). Santos Retolaza 2008; Aquilué et al. 2010; etc. 35 For the literary evidence on Massalia, see now Domínguez 2012. 36 See Domínguez 2004, 430–32. 37 Morel 2006, 365; Domínguez 2004, 432; Bats 2012, 9. 38 λαβόντος τον τόπον παρα ʼΑγαήτου τοῦ Σκυθῶν βασιλέως (Steph. Byz. s.v. Panticapaeum). 34

10

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the ancient topography of Emporion in the period of the establishment of Palaiapolis at the beginning of the 6th century BC (after Domínguez 2006b, 444, fig. 8).

Thus we could assume that, despite the contradictory and mythical evidence, there was some kind of agreement between the Greeks and locals. Archaeological and other evidence has demonstrated very interesting modes of contact (see below). Greek colonies developed their civic identity and civic architecture from the beginning – we are obtaining more information for Ampurias thanks to new excavation. We lack details of Massalia. A difficulty is that the Archaic levels, especially those for the earliest phase of a colony, may not yet have been reached: indeed, for some colonies around the Black Sea it has taken more than a century to get to the initial settlement level! To continue with the Black Sea: new excavations of some colonies yield very interesting insights. First of all, those at Apollonia Pontica in Bulgaria revealed that the city had a temenos from the beginning, subsequently with several temples, and monumental buildings with clay plaque decorations.39 Recent studies of Phanagoria, a Teian colony on the Taman Peninsula, demonstrated that this city had, from the start, regular planning of some sort, a temenos 39

Stoyanova and Damyanov 2021; Apollonia 2019.

Fig. 4. Modern topography of Emporion, with Palaiapolis (north) and Neapolis (south) (after Domínguez 2006b, 475, fig. 26).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

11

12

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 5. Location of Emporion, Rhode and Ullastret in their palaeogeographical setting (after Domínguez 2006b, 482, fig. 29).

Fig. 6. Mediterranean Gaul (after Morel, 2006, 387, fig. 4).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

13

14

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

and small, rectangular dwellings of mud-brick, erected directly on the ground or on a stone foundation. Soon after the establishment of the colony in ca. 542 BC, the city built mud-brick fortification walls, which were destroyed in ca. 480 BC as a result of a siege by the Achaemenids.40 To continue with the Taman Peninsula, nowadays a single landmass but in antiquity an archipelago: a joint Russo-German project has studied its ancient geography for many years, suggesting that it was once several islands. This has consequences for the location of Greek colonies hereabouts. It is well known that parts of several of them are now submerged. Some have completely disappeared – for example, Corocondame, the only part of which to survive is part of the necropolis. Recent underwater explorations here have revealed stone monumental buildings, streets and a shipwreck of the 6th century BC (see Table 2). Others are being washed away year by year (such as Hermonassa – see Table 2). If the Russo-German team is correct, several settlements which are now inland were once on the ancient coast – such as Semibratnee city-site (ancient Labrys); and some of these once-inland settlements had been Greek colonies. Their excavation of some hinterland settlements yielded evidence to suggest that a number had had a mixed Greek-local population.41 We lack evidence of the physical appearance of Emporion. Its Archaic levels have been reached in some small areas and cultic deposits were recovered from them.42 As mentioned, we have scant details for Massalia, though there were undoubtedly monumental structures that were more impressive than anything erected by the locals until Roman times (Fig. 7).43 Thus, M. Dietler has no occasion for dismissing what was there as a fortified town, largely unimpressive (except for its size), of mud-brick construction, looking like a poor and destitute colony to the passing locals (Figs. 8–9).44 Archaic Athens itself would then have been an unimpressive overgrown village, visited by few if any locals, then or into the Classical period. By talking down the role of Greeks/colonists wherever possible, Dietler seems carried to an opposite but no less extreme posture, ever keen to stoke the bonfire he set under what he terms ‘Graecolatry’.45 During the Archaic period, Greek settlements were small, village-type affairs, often without fortifications, whether they were in mainland 40 On Archaic Phanagoria and its fortifications, see Kuznetsov 2022; 2018. An updated and enlarged version of the latter will appear in Ancient West and East 22 (2023). 41 On the Taman Peninsula, Greek colonies there and the results of the Russo-German team, with bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2007a; 2016. 42 A paper was given about this during the conference but unfortunately it was not submitted for publication. 43 Tréziny 2012. 44 Dietler 2010, 316. 45 Dietler 2010, 29–30.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

15

Fig. 7. Archaic Ionic capital from Massalia (after Tréziny 2012, 95, fig. 5).

Greece or the colonial world; and dwellings and other buildings were commonly small, built of mud-brick and not infrequently (semi-)subterraneous.46 From the outset, Greek colonies developed their own productive capacity. Neutron activation analysis of 111 pottery samples from Berezan revealed that not all the East Greek pottery here originated in Ionian workshops.47 So far, it is difficult to identify whence the rest of it came.48 We know of only two centres in Asia Minor outside Ionia strictly defined that were producing East Greektype pottery: one, somewhere in the Hellespontine area (but most probably Abydos), manufactured Milesian-type pottery; the other, at Aeolian Cyme, produced pottery in North Ionian style.49 R. Posamentir has suggested is that there was a third, situated on Berezan:50 At least one misfired table amphora in ‘North Ionian Style’ has been excavated by V. Nazarov on the site [Berezan] several years ago; the vessel is on display in the museum of Ochakiv with the inventory number AB-021213. A copy of a Fikellura Amphora in grey clay is kept in the collection of the State Hermitage.51

46

Tsetskhladze 2004; 2009. ‘Within the last decades of the 7th century BC, pottery produced in Southern Ionia, or Miletos, predominates the material at hand, while a look at the 6th century BC reveals a complete reversal, similar to that … for the Western colonies: vessels from Northern Ionia overrun the whole market and take the leading position on Berezan as well. Certain products of Aeolian(?) origin tend to become more popular as well, but these are restricted to certain specific groups – such as the so-called London Dinos group and black-polychrome oinochoai’ (Posamentir 2010, 67–68). 48 Kerschner 2006a; Mommsen et al. 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006. 49 Posamentir 2006, 164–67; Kerschner 2006a; Mommsen et al. 2006; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; 2007; Dupont 2008; Posamentir et al. 2009. 50 Posamentir 2006, 164–66. 51 Posamentir 2010, 67, n. 9. 47

16

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 8. Archaic Massalia (after Morel 2006, 363, fig. 3).

And Since much more pottery in North Ionian style has been found on Berezan, it would be more than tempting to postulate a similar phenomenon for the North Ionian region – a workshop with potters and painters from one or several North Ionian cities might have acted upon the same idea in order to be closer to the Black Sea trade and market. Possible and logical options would be the area around Byzantion/Kalchedon (maybe also Chrysopolis); mostly Megarian foundations we know practically nothing about or one of the Black Sea colonies itself. To date, some, but only scarce, traces seem to support the supposition of such a constellation.52

M. Kerschner has postulated that a ‘Borysthenes’ amphora-type existed, also produced at Berezan.53 If we consider that local centres of pottery production existed from the early 6th century BC onwards in Histria, Nymphaeum, Panticapaeum, Phanagoria, Gorgippia, Sinope, Chersonesos, etc., then it should occasion no great surprise to find the same on Berezan.54 Perhaps some if not 52 Posamentir 2010, 74: For the suggestion that a local workshop might have existed in Chrysopolis producing East Greek-type pottery, see also Karagöz 2010. 53 Kerschner 2006a, 152, fig. 25. 54 Tsetskhladze 1998, 42–43 (with bibliography); Dupont and Lungu 2009, 137–239; Dupont 2010.

1. vers 600 av. J.-C.

?

? ?

2. vers 560 av. J.-C.

?

? ?

3. vers 500 av. J.-C.

?

?

0

500 m

4. vers 100 av. J.-C.

goulet

Fig. 9. Urban expansion of Massalia. 1. ca. 600 BC; 2. ca. 560 BC; 3. ca. 500 BC; 4. ca. 100 BC (after Tréziny 2012, 87, fig. 2).

18

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

all of the earliest Greek pottery found in native settlements was made there.55 Moreover, turning to the West, it is known that the initial settlement in Emporion began to produce pottery soon after its foundation,56 just as pottery in Wild Goat style was produced locally in southern Italy.57 Recent studies also demonstrate that the production of pottery at Huelva commenced as soon as the Greeks had settled there.58 Moreover, in Italy, Greek and local potters were working alongside each other in the same workshop.59 As the section above has shown, discussion about pottery production in Berezan was based mainly on secondary evidence. Such important finds as pottery kilns were absent. The situation has now changed dramatically thanks to recent excavations and publications (see below).60 Dugouts were not just dwellings (see below), they were also places for production activities – in which case they might be either next to the dwellings or entirely independent of them. Until recently, furnaces for iron and copper were initially better studied than pottery kilns, and six iron-smelting workshops were found at Berezan in pits of the first half–last quarter of the 6th century BC.61 But several pottery workshops have been discovered there, dating mainly to the middle of the 6th century BC.62 They are known now in the literature.63 Mention should be made of two bronze punches found in Berezan, dated to the middle–third quarter of the 6th century BC and demonstrating the probable presence of jewellers from Lydia and North Ionia.64 In this context I should also mention a coin hoard from the beginning of the 6th century, discovered in Berezan in 1975; it contains electrum coins from Eretria and Miletus together with pieces of gold jewellery including two acorn pendants.65

55

For the latest, see Tsetskhladze 2019b; 2021; 2022; Zadnikov 2021; and Ryabkova 2022. Cabrera Bonet and Santos Retolaza 2000, 347–60. For local pottery production in Massalia, Gravisca and elsewhere, see Cabrera Bonet and Santos Retolaza 2000, 101–23; Domínguez 2007; Rouillard 2009. And see papers in the present volume. 57 See Denti 2000; 2008; 2009a; 2009b; 2009c; 2009d; 2010; Denti and Lanos 2007; Lentini 2006. See also Handberg and Jacobsen 2011, 178–85; and papers in the present volume. 58 González de Canales et al. 2017; 2018. 59 See Denti 2000; 2008; 2009a; 2009b; 2009c; 2009d; 2010; 2013; Denti and Lanos 2007; Lentini 2006. See also Handberg and Jacobsen 2011, 178–85; and papers in the present volume. 60 Bondarenko and Chistov 2021. 61 Chistov 2010 (with references). 62 Krutilov et al. 2017, 31. 63 See, for instance, Domanskij and Marčenko 2003. 64 Solvyov and Treister 2004. For the archaeological context of their discovery, see Solovyov and Treister 2004, 371–73. 65 Solovyov and Treister 2004, 370–71 (with references). 56

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

19

On the Berean temenos, where the temple of Aphrodite was excavated, an iron workshop was discovered in a room with mud-brick walls. It dates to the second half of the 6th–beginning of the 5th century BC and served the temple.66 Until recently, metalworking shops were unknown in Olbia. The discovery of semi-dugout no. 1586 corrects this: it contains a bronze-casting workshop, with traces of large fires on the floor, bronze slags of fill material, and a mould for cutting jewellery in Scythian Animal Style. Study of East Greek, Attic and Corinthian pottery as well as Lesbian and Chian amphorae found in the workshop permits it to be dated to ca. 530 BC.67 An iron-smelting pit found in Olbia, dated to the second quarter–middle of the 6th century BC, yielded about 3 kg of iron slag, unfinished iron items, etc. The pottery found in the pit is notable as well – 66.32% of all pottery finds were amphorae; the remainder was tableware and kitchenware (East Greek pottery 40.53%; grey ware 19.45%; handmade pottery 14%; red clay pottery 12.45%; Attic black-figure 7.08%; kitchenware 5.53%; thick wall pottery [louteria] 0.17%; other 0.95%). In addition to all of these finds there was reject pottery imitating East Greek ware. This is the first evidence to indicate the existence of pottery production in Olbia, not just in Berezan.68 As to pottery kilns: altogether about 16 were found at Berezan, among them dome kilns, portable kilns and cylindrical amphora necks in secondary use as kilns. They date to the first half–middle of the 6th century BC and have yielded wheel-made cooking ware, kitchen utensils including a griddle and also tableware. Once production of wheel-made pottery was underway at Berezan, it gradually displaced handmade.69 Five pottery kilns were excavated on Berezan between 2011 and 2013. Their fill and examples of reject pottery discovered thereabouts demonstrate the local production of ‘Ionian’ lamps and ‘Ionian band’ pottery (Figs. 10–11).70 Recent excavations in Tios/Tieion on the southern Black Sea uncovered a metalworking shop of the end of the 7th–early 6th century BC.71 The island of St Kirik, just off the peninsula at Sozopol, ancient Apollonia Pontica, which was established ca. 610 BC by Miletus, has revealed (as I mentioned above) the city’s temenos.72 Further archaeological excavation not far 66

Krutilov 2007. Buiskikh 2015. 68 Buiskikh 2005. 69 Chistov et al. 2015. 70 Gavrilyuk 2017, 186. For a reject table amphora of local production imitating North Ionian amphorae, see Krutilov and Bondarenko 2015, 206, fig. 2. 71 I am grateful to the excavation director, Dr Ş. Yıldırım, for this information. 72 Panayotova et al. 2014. 67

20

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 10. Locally produced ‘Ionian’ lamps from Berezan (after Krutilov and Bondarenko 2015, 209, fig. 5).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

Fig. 11. Locally produced ‘Ionian band’ pottery from Berezan (after Krutilov and Bondarenko 2015, 213, fig. 8).

21

22

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

from the temples has yielded traces of the earliest Greek metallurgy. Slags were recovered from so-called House 1, which is overlaid by an Archaic altar, and from Pits 1, 3 and 8. These features have been securely dated by plentiful pottery they contain and a kiln to ca. 600 BC or the early 6th century BC.73 To return to local production in Apollonia Pontica: we now have four kilns in the city itself and one in its environs. All local pottery here indicates Greek models.74 Let me come back to relationships between Greek incomers and local peoples.75 From the establishment of Greek settlement in Spain down to the beginning of the 4th century BC the cultural contacts between Greeks and natives were very strong. Of course, what we know is elite culture and elites have always been ‘cosmopolitan’, receptive to new and exotic elements. Greeks participated in the creation of Iberian elite culture, but this was not just a process of Hellenisation: the elite did not lose its local identity, it merely made use of the expertise of Greek craftsmen on its own terms – it took what it wanted and did so for its own purposes, it did not adopt wholesale or blindly. The best example is Iberian funerary sculpture (Figs. 12–13). Stylistic studies clearly indicate the involvement of Ionian sculptors in its creation. Even more: we know now that Phocaea has yielded sculpture very close stylistically to that of Iberia.76 Greek pottery was very well received by locals. We have evidence from both Spain and the south of France that a small number of Greeks lived within local communities.77 The Ullastret settlement, situated on a hilltop in the hinterland, beyond the marshes bordering Emporion, is the best example for illustrating collaboration between locals and Greeks. It was the residence of a local chief, but its fortifications systems are typically Greek, there is Greek-type architecture within the settlement itself – even local temples resemble Greek ones – and each house yielded a large amount of Greek pottery (Figs. 14–16). Locally produced pots replicated Greek shapes completely; it is obvious that Greek craftsmen had lived here.78

73 Damyanov and Panayotova 2018. See also Baralis et al. 2016, 159–60 (kiln and metal workshop). 74 Nedyalkov 2020, 252–54. 75 I find Tréziny 2010 still to be the most comprehensive volume on Graeco-native relations. 76 See Özyiğit 2012. For Iberian sculpture, see Hombres 2011. 77 De Hoz 2004. See also Burch et al. 2010; Pons et al. 2010. 78 For Ullastret, see Martin et al. 2010 and the contribution by Codina et al. to the present volume.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

23

Fig. 12. Iberian sculpture. 1. Sphinx from Agost (province of Alicante); 2. Bull with human head from Balazote (province of Albacete); 3. Wing of a siren, from Corral de Saus (province of Valencia); 4. Head of a griffin, from Elche (province of Alicante) (after Domínguez 2006b, 458, fig. 16).

Something happened within Iberian society at the beginning of the 4th century BC. Greek stylistic influence disappeared from tomb sculpture and the sculptures themselves were either destroyed or moved. In the 3rd century BC, the Greek Iberian alphabet was replaced by a South Iberian script. At the same time, Attic pottery practically disappears from native sites, though it makes a later return (Fig. 17).79 It is very difficult to explain why all of this is happening and it is outside the scope of this paper to do so. 79

For details, see Tsetskhladze 2014, 227–31 (with bibliography).

Fig. 13. Map of the principal sites in the Iberian Peninsula with stone sculpture (after Domínguez 2006b, 457, fig. 15).

24 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

25

Fig. 14. Plan of Ullastret (after Martin et al. 2010, 93, fig. 67).

What was the situation in Massalia and environs? The city was established on unoccupied land – the locals lived on higher ground or in caves further inland,80 but excavation has demonstrated that a local ethnic element formed an important component of its population from the outset.81 The surrounding territory was rocky, as I have already mentioned, thus unsuited to most agriculture, least of all grain production, but well suited to viticulture and olive groves (Strabo 4. 1. 5). As M. Bats notes: ‘The Phocaeans’ initial objective was the creation of commercial meeting places, rather than territorial conquest.’82 Step by step, local settlements grew up around Massalia as, most importantly, did mixed ones of locals and Greeks. Massalia even founded its own colonies (Agde and Olbia and perhaps elsewhere),83 and possibly established emporia.84 It started to produce not only its own amphorae but also grey 80

Bats 2012, 4. Morel 2006, 365–67. 82 Bats 2012, 9. 83 Bats 2012, 10. Rhode, in the Iberian Peninsula, might have been established by Emporion, as Strabo reports (3. 4. 8), but the information in the written sources is contradictory and archaeology cannot resolve it (see Domínguez 2006b, 481–84; Puig Griessenberger 2010). See also the paper by Puig Griessenberger below. 84 Bats 2012, 6–7, 10; Ugolini 2012. 81

26

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 15. Plan of Ullastret, zones 14, 16 and 25 (after Martin et al. 2010, 98, fig. 70).

monochrome pottery for use by local people.85 Many native settlements display some Greek architectural influences and there is even evidence of Greek influence on local sculpture.86 The multi-layered relationship between Massalia and the local population, from its foundation and through the following centuries, has recently been described in terms of trade relations, partnership, pacific coexistence, mixed settlements, ‘free’ acculturation of a variety of types and, sometimes, from the second generation after initial settlement, of some hostility from the Gauls.87 85

Bats 2012, 13–15; Ugolini 2012. Bats 2012. On Massalia and the local population, see also Morel 2006; Bernard et al. 2010; Boissinot 2010; Collin Bouffier 2012; and Isoardi 2012. 87 Bats 2012. 86

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

Fig. 16. Imitations of Greek pottery produced at Ullastret (after Martin et al. 2010, 95, fig. 69).

27

28

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 17. Map of the distribution of Greek pottery from the 6th century to ca. 480 BC (after Domínguez 2006b, 450, fig. 10).

Hostility between Greeks and locals seems never to have been a phenomenon of the first generation, developing only later and initiated indifferently by one ‘side’ or the other. Massalia echoes in this the experiences of Megara Hyblaea, Elea and Metaponto.88 The influence of Massalia stretched beyond the coast. The Hallstatt settlement of Heuneburg in the hinterland demonstrates that itinerant Greek craftsmen used to live there.89 Another remarkable site is Vix.90 Except for its northern shore (see below), the Black Sea was home to a diverse existing population. As in the West, here too the Greeks had to deal immediately with local peoples, and here too locals formed part of the inhabitants of the 88 89 90

Ulf 2009, 100; De Angelis 2003, 29; Domínguez 2002, 86–87; Carter 2004. Kimmig 2000; Kurz 2007. See now Krause et al. 2020. Rolley 2003. See now Chaume 2020.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

29

Greek settlements. There is no evidence to indicate hostile relations with, for instance, the Thracians/Getae in the western Black Sea91 and the Colchians in the eastern.92 As to the southern shore, more and more evidence is appearing every year to demonstrate that the local population of the areas of Ionian colonisation was Phrygian. In Sinope we now know that a local settlement existed at this location before the Greeks arrived, and that it afterwards formed part of the Greek colony.93 A shrine dedicated to Phrygian Kubaba has been discovered in the suburbs of Amisos, with dedications of terracotta figurines to Kubaba/Cybele and dedications to Kubaba on fragments of Greek pottery.94 New excavations in the territory surrounding Tios yielded not only Phrygian and Phrygian-type pottery but a fragment of an inscription in Old Phrygian.95 Characteristic of the colonies founded by Miletus around the Black Sea are the existence of subterranean dwellings (‘dugouts’) and handmade pottery from excavation of the earliest levels. In 2004, I published a large article dedicated to this problem.96 I revisited the question in 2021 in light of new material and studies.97 Here, I will not repeat in details the evidence and arguments, or give exhaustive bibliography, all of which can will be found in my 2021 article; rather I shall simply present my conclusions. Best excavated and studied are Berezan (with about 250 pit-houses) and Olbia (Figs. 18–21). Not all pit-houses were dwellings, some were kitchens and workshops. This kind of dwelling could not be borrowed from the local population of the northern Black Sea because there was none when the Greeks arrived. These are the dwellings of the first Greeks. In Berezan, the transition from pit-house to above-ground architecture began ca. 540–530 BC.98 If we address handmade pottery, it comprised ca. 11% of tableware in Berezan and 3–5% in Olbia. The vast majority of pottery in both places was East Greek, about 70–80% of it amphorae. Handmade pottery is characteristic not only of Greek colonies in the northern Black Sea, most importantly it was known from Miletus, and from such Greek Western colonies as Metaponto, 91

Damyanov 2018. See my chapter on the eastern Black Sea (below in the present volume). 93 Doonan 2016, 217–18; Doonan et al. 2017, 183–84. 94 Tsetskhladze 2015. 95 My thanks to Şahin Yıldırım for this information. See also Yıldırım 2022. 96 Tsetskhladze 2004. 97 Tsetskhladze 2021b. The paper has the following sections: ‘Subterranean Dwellings in Greek Colonies: Again’; ‘Subterranean Dwellings of the Local Population: A Brief Summary’; ‘Handmade Pottery and Ethnicity’; ‘Workshops: A Brief Summary’; ‘Local Population’; and ‘Other Types of Dwellings in Greek Colonies’. 98 On the urbanisation of the northern Black Sea, see Chistov 2022. 92

30

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 18. View of some pit-houses from Berezan (D. Chistov).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

31

Fig. 19. View of a rectangular pit-house from Berezan (D. Chistov).

Sybaris and Siris.99 And pit-houses and local pottery are found at North Aegean settlements as well.100 The same situation obtains with subterranean domestic architecture. Handmade kitchenware is also known from Athens.101 Thus, there was no need for the first colonists to take local handmade pottery for use – they were very well acquainted with it already in their homeland and in other areas of Ionian colonisation. Even more interestingly, handmade pottery from the northern Black Sea is now known as ‘Ionian pots’ because the first settlers were repeating designs from their homeland (Fig. 22). As I have noted, when the first Greeks arrived there was no local population: it appeared in the surroundings of Berezan and Olbia only at the end of the 6th/ beginning of the 5th century BC. This is why the earliest East Greek pottery from local settlements, which dates from the last quarter of the 7th century BC, is found nowhere near the colonies but in the deep hinterland of the Ukrainian steppes,102 where the Greeks forged some kind of relationship with those who 99

Handberg and Jakobsen 2011, 176–83. Tsiafakis 2013. 101 Rotroff 2015, 181–82. 102 Tsetskhladze 2019b. 100

32

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 20. Reconstruction of round pit-houses (D. Chistov).

Fig. 21. Reconstruction of rectangular pit-house (D. Chistov).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

Fig. 22. Kitchenware from Nymphaeum, Archaic and Classical periods (after Tsetskhladze 2021b, 168).

33

34

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 23. Latest map of the distribution of earliest East Greek pottery from local sites of the northern Black Sea littoral (G.R. Tsetskhladze). 1. Nemirov/Nemirovskoe; 2. Trakhtemirov/Trakhtemirovskoe; 3. Zhabotin/Zhabotinskoe; 4. Ivane-Puste; 5. Zalesya; 6. Motroninskoe; 7. Belsk/Belskoe; 8. Pozharnaya Balka; 9. Alekseevka/Alekseevskoe; 10. Burial ground Krasnogorovka III. Kurgan 14, grave 5; 11. Kurgan Temir-Gora; 12. Burial Boltyshka; 13. Kurgan 1 near the village of Kolomak; 14. Destroyed tomb, Kiobruchi village; 15. Filatovka; 16. Bolshaya; 17. Krivorozhie; 18. Krasnyi; 19. Tarasova Balka; 20. Razmennye.

lived there. This pottery is known from ten settlements and nine tumuli (kurgans), not just in the Ukrainian steppe but in the Kuban and Don area, the Crimea and Moldova (Fig. 23).103 These vessels may be interpreted as diplomatic gifts to prominent locals, and all settlements where they have been found were centres of local political, administrative and cultural power, residences of the elite, and all tombs that yielded them were rich, those of the local nobility.

103 For the latest on the early East Greek pottery from native sites of the northern Black Sea, see Ryabkova 2022; Zadnikov 2021; Tsetskhladze 2021a; 2022.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

35

We should pay more attention to the local people of the deep Ukrainian hinterland. Archaeological material shows that there were distinct local cultures. New developments in their study reveal that throughout the northern Black Sea, especially in its north-western sector, these cultures demonstrate very distinctive features which have allowed scholars to talk of the ‘Hallstattisation’ of this area. Hallstatt culture spread widely. The ‘Hallstattisation’ of the East Carpathian region took place in the 12th–8th/7th centuries BC. Dwellings provide the best evidence of this. Study of the dwellings tradition of different Hallstatt cultures (Gáva-Holihrady-Grăniceşti, Chişanău-Corlăteni, TămăoaniHoleracani, Cozia-Saharma and Basarabi-Şoldăneşti) makes it clear that woodframed above-ground houses with clay walls and dugouts were both common.104 The ‘Hallstattisation’ of several regions of the northern and north-western Black Sea occurred from the end of the Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. Study of fortified and open settlements, burial grounds, chance finds and imported items reveals the extent of it.105 It affected several cultures/cultural groups of the Carpatho-Danubian region, including the forest-steppe regions of the Dniester basin.106 The presence of Middle European Hallstatt culture is illustrated by materials found at the Nemirov city-site as well as by Hallstatt imports recovered in the forest-steppe area of the Dnieper and Dniester.107 Thus, Hallstatt (Carpatho-Danubian) cultures and the existence of Middle European Halllstatt materials were widespread in the northern Black Sea at the end of the 2nd–first half of the 1st millennium. Study of all of these cultural impulses has enabled the introduction of a new concept: ‘Hallstatt of the northern Black Sea’ (Ha-NP). This permits the use of a chronological scheme of HaA–HaD. But for the northern Black Sea it is also very important to correlate the European and Aegean chronologies.108 Round dugout dwellings with a central post or pole to support the roof were already common in HaB in the Basarabi Middle Hallstatt culture. Such dwellings were discovered in the Early Scythian forest-steppe sites of the Middle Dniester and Bug, and the most characteristic pottery found within them was Feridzhile-Byrsesht.109 In Nemirov city-site, which has provided more than a hundred examples of early East Greek pottery (Figs. 24–25), there are 17 main types of vessel; G. Smirnova identified 19 different sub-types. Some pottery is close to the

104 105 106 107 108 109

Kashuba Kashuba Kashuba Kashuba Kashuba Kashuba

2012a, 433. Cf. Bandrivskii 2012. and Levitskii 2012, 304. 2012a, 434. 2012b, 481. 2012b, 481. and Levitskii 2011, 527, 528.

36

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 24. Earliest East Greek pottery from Nemirov city-site (M. Vakhtina).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

Fig. 25. Earliest East Greek pottery from Belsk city-site (S. Zadnikov).

37

38

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Chernolessk and Zhabotin cultures of the Middle Dniester and Middle Dnieper.110 There is locally produced pottery too, showing different cultural influences, especially Hallstatt; further pottery which, according to typology and production technology, is actual Hallstatt (end of HaB–HaC) of the burial grounds of eastern Austria and adjoining regions of Hungary and Slovakia; and another type of pottery resembling Carpatho-Danubian Hallstatt (pottery of the Basarabi and Bîrseşti-Ferigile cultures).111 The culture of the middle Bug region has three phases: beginning, pre-colonisation and colonisation. Thus, in the northern Black Sea the Greeks were establishing themselves in uninhabited territory. Later, their presence attracted locals to settle nearby. If we turn our attention to other parts of the northern Black Sea such as the Cimmerian Bosporus, the picture is the same. No ‘phantom’ Scythians were living there – they inhabited the steppes of the Kuban and the northern Caucasus, moving in only in the later 5th century BC, when Scythian elite tombs appear next to the Bosporan Greek colonies. The same can be said now about the territories of Olbia and Berezan.112 This was also the time when the Scythians were moving to the modern Ukrainian steppes and the Crimea and were becoming sedentary or semi-sedentary. The vast majority of known Scythian rich tombs date from the end of the 5th and especially the 4th century BC (Fig. 26). This was also the period for which we know of the existence of Scythian settlements and towns, several dozen of which have been excavated. Fortification systems appeared in the later 6th century BC in the Cimmerian Bosporus at Myrmekion, Parthenion and Porthmion.113 I have already mentioned the mud-brick city walls of Phanagoria. These developments bear witness to unsettled times. In the past, they, like others, were linked to the phantom threat of the phantom Scythians. Now we know that this was when the Great King Darius and his army passed this way. Previously we could assess the relationship between the northern Black Sea region and the Achaemenids only through secondary written sources and the exceptionally large number of Achaemenid seals found in Bosporan cities, etc. Darius’ well known Scythian expedition of ca. 513 BC has been judged entirely through the eyes of Herodotus, who declared it a failure and a debacle for the Great King. The discovery of a fragmentary Old Persian inscription in Phanagoria114 110

Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017, 221–22; Smirnova et al. 2018, 137–92. Kashuba and Vakhtina 2017, 224–25. 112 See Kuznetsova et al. 2020. On the Scythians, see now Gulyaev 2019. 113 See, for instance, Vakhtina 2022. 114 See, for instance, Tsetskhladze 2019c (with references). See now Avram 2022. The late A. Avram and I were preparing a collection of articles on the Achaemenids and the Black Sea, in light of the Phanagoria inscription and other evidence, old and new, to appear in Colloquia Antiqua. I shall continue this project in his memory. 111

Fig. 26. Location of Scythian tombs of the late 5th–4th century BC (G.R. Tsetskhladze).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

39

40

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Fig. 27. Fragmentary Old Persian inscription of Darius from Phanagoria (V.D. Kuznetsov).

casts events in a different light (Fig. 27). I shall not dwell here on the details of the inscription. It is most probably one of Darius’.115 The following are important for the purposes of this paper: the coming of the Achaemenids, and the inclusion of Scythia and the Greek cities of the northern Black Sea in their empire, brought about new kinds of relationships. The southern and western Black Sea were already under Achaemenid dominion, while Colchis followed when Achaemenid troops passed through its Black Sea coastal regions on their way back to Iran.116 Inclusion of the northern Black Sea cities, especially those of the Cimmerian Bosporus, was not an easy task: there are traces of destruction from this time in Berezan and in most of the cities of the Cimmerian Bosporus. The fortification walls of Phanagoria 115 116

For details, see Tsetskhladze 2019c; Avram 2022. Details for all parts of the Black Sea, with references, can be found in Tsetskhladze 2019c.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

41

and Panticapaeum were destroyed at the beginning of the 5th century BC. Local kingdoms appeared in Thrace, Colchis and even in Scythia from the latter part of the 5th century BC, which was also when creation of the territorial Greek Bosporan kingdom commenced. The local elites from this time onwards look more ‘Persianised’ than ‘Hellenised’. I would like to draw attention to three pieces of evidence. I have already used them a few times,117 and here I shall not give a detailed presentation of them (and the bibliography) again, just restating my conclusions. They demonstrate very well the transformation of the relationship between Greeks and local peoples. It appears likely that the creation of local kingdoms was one result of Achaemenid conquest and that the local kings were clients installed by the Achaemenids.118 First of all, the evidence. 1.

… the Nomads are warriors rather than brigands, yet they go to war only for the sake of the tributes (phoros) due them; for they turn over their land to any people who wish to till it, and are satisfied if they receive in return for the land the tribute they have assessed, which is a moderate one, assessed with a view, not to an abundance, but only to the daily necessities of life; but if the tenants do not pay, the Nomads go to war with them (Strabo 7. 4. 6).

This is self-explanatory. Some believe that Strabo used 4th-century sources for most of what he writes above, so perhaps this is an accurate description of that time and later. The Royal Scythians remained semi-sedentary, more like the Archaic Scythians. Thus it should be no surprise that they could go to war with the Greek cities in their region in order to extract unpaid tribute from them. 2.

In the reign of Seuthes who was king after Sitalces and raised the tribute to its maximum, the tribute (phoros) from all the barbarian territory and the Greek cities which they ruled was worth about four hundred talents of silver which came in as gold and silver; and in addition, gifts (dora) of gold and silver equal in value were brought, not to mention how many embroidered and plain fabrics and the other furnishings, and all this was not given only to him but also to the other mighty and noble Odrysians. For they had established a custom opposite to that of the kingdom of the Persians, to take rather than to give; this custom was indeed practised by the other Thracians as well (and it was more shameful not to give when asked than not to receive when having asked), but because of their power the Odrysians exploited it even more; as a matter of fact, it was impossible to do anything without giving gifts. Consequently, the kingdom gained great strength (Thucydides 2. 97).

117 118

Tsetskhladze 2010; 2020. Tsetskhladze 2019c.

42

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Thus the organisation of the Thracian Odrysian kingdom was akin to that of the Achaemenid state. Furthermore, Odrysians kings obliged other Thracian tribes and the Greek cities on the modern-day Bulgarian Black Sea coast to pay them tribute. Gifts were paid in gold and silver, furnishings, etc., given not just to the king but also to minor Odrysian rulers and members of the Odrysian elite. The difference with the Achaemenids is that Odrysian kings thought it better to receive than to give. Maybe this was a general pattern, but we have archaeological evidence in the form of the Rogozen treasure to show that, sometimes at least, the Odrysians gave return gifts to local rulers (such as the kings of the Triballians). Tribute or gifts might take different forms; how they were rendered could also vary. Excavation of Odrysian elite tombs have yielded many metal objects, jewellery and ornaments made by Greeks, as the style and workmanship demonstrate, but with the craftsmanship adapted to Odrysian elite taste. Even the architecture and masonry marks show that these stone chamber-tombs were built by Greek architects and often painted by Greek artists. Vetren, in the Thracian hinterland, and the Pistiros inscription, a decree written on behalf of the Thracian king found 2 km from it, reveal that Odrysian kings invited Greeks to settle in the hinterland under their protection, in return for which the Greeks built royal residences (I regard Vetren as one such in view of the Greek-type fortifications, gate, streets, town planning, etc.) and helped in international trade. What is revealed is surely a demonstration of how mutual benefits could arise (and be formalised) between Greeks and locals, a different way of gift-giving, tribute/tax, or even mutual ‘bribery’(?), a consequence of which was the creation of art demonstrated by metal vessels, jewellery, etc. What are the Scythian parallels of one group dominating another? The Royal Scythians subjected other Scythian tribes to their control. We also have the overlordship by the nomadic Scythians occupying the Crimean steppe of the agricultural Scythians and their extraction of tribute (phoros) (Strabo 7. 4. 6). It is possible that the Scythian proto-kingdom was also organised in an Achaemenid manner. 3. A late 5th-century BC inscription from Kerkinitis: it is a letter written by one Greek to another, asking him to ‘find out how great are the taxes due to the Scythians’.119 Yet again, this is self-explanatory: the Scythians were demanding tax/tribute. Unfortunately, the inscription is fragmentary and provides little detail of what is meant by ‘taxes’, but, in view of other examples in a Scythian context, perhaps 119

See Bulletin épigraphique 1989, 477; 1990, 566; SEG XXXVII 665.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

43

these are better understood as ‘gifts’ or ‘tribute’. We may have parallels with the Odrysian relationship: we have the same Greek-type luxurious metal vessels and jewellery and the same type of tomb architecture as in Thrace. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence from some Scythian settlements of the existence of special quarters populated by Greek craftsmen and artisans. As in Thrace, most evidence dates from the Classical period, especially to the end of the 5th and the 4th century BC. Later sources demonstrate a similar relationship between local peoples and Greek states: in the 2nd century BC, locals demanded an increased tribute (phoros) from the Bosporan kingdom and this worsened relations between them (Strabo 7. 4. 4); whilst in the 3rd century BC, Olbia was constantly sending money and expensive gifts to the Scythian king (IOSPE I2 32), and the same relationship can be proposed in the late 2nd century for Chersonesos (IOSPE I2 352). ‘Scythian gold’ is itself good evidence of the Scythians’ demand for luxurious objects from the Greeks. These are really spectacular examples of artistry and craftsmanship, unique or bespoke in manufacture, and clearly not the result of trade. Several workshops can be identified, and stylistic analysis indicates that Greek craftsmen from the Hellespont who were based in Asia Minor, southern Italy and Macedonia were engaged in their production. Similar are the large numbers of bronze and silver items: made by Greeks, but not for trading. Excavation of Bosporan cities, especially Panticapaeum, has revealed that workshops producing golden objects were based there as well as in Olbia.120 The same gift-giving and tribute/taxation relationship is obvious when the nature of that between Greeks and Getae is considered.121 If we turn to Colchis, although we lack written or epigraphic evidence, the same outline may be discerned. Stylistic study of Colchian gold jewellery, seals and gems, found in abundance in the rich tombs of the local elite, gives grounds for suggesting that Ionian craftsmen participated in the inauguration and manufacture of such objects for the local nobility. Colchians paid a tribute of a hundred young men and a hundred girls to the Achaemenids quadrennially (Herodotus 3. 97); they also furnished troops for the Great King’s army when required to do so (Herodotus 3. 93, 97; 7. 79).122 The Achaemenids even introduced the first silver coinage to Colchis, which can be considered as satrapal silver coinage.123

120 For details, with references, see Tsetskhladze 2020, 142–44. These pages also present discussion of Scythian use of symposion items. 121 See Avram 2011. 122 For details, see Tsetskhladze 2019c, 138–42. 123 For details, see my chapter on the eastern Black Sea (below in the present volume).

44

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

As to the southern Black Sea, nearly all local peoples living around the Greek cities here were included in the 19th province of the Achaemenid empire and were obliged to pay 300 talents (Herodotus 3. 94). We know little about Sinope before the 5th century BC, when it fell under a tyranny before the appearance of Athenian settlers. Sources make it clear that Sinope acknowledged the power of the Great King and provided ships for the satrap Ariaramnes (Ctesias FGH 688 fr. 13 [20]) and also during the Graeco-Persian Wars (Diodorus 11. 3. 8). Archaeological evidence of Sinope’s inclusion in the Achaemenid empire is provided by metal objects which can be considered as gifts from the Achaemenid kings. Furthermore, some rock-cut tombs from the southern Black Sea display Achaemenid features, and Achaemenid-type pottery is found in the region.124 If we turn to Ionia itself, 1999 was a milestone year in its study and that of its colonies. There was an international symposium organised to celebrate German excavations at Miletus and other cities. The hefty proceedings appeared in 2007,125 showcasing the study of Ionia, of East Greece as a whole, and of overseas settlements. Many Eastern Europeans were brought to present the results of their investigations of Ionian colonies around the Black Sea, and there was a true dialogue between West and East. As a result of the symposium, many Western scholars became interested in the Black Sea, joint studies, especially of East Greek pottery, were launched, and joint archaeological excavations established. The same year saw publication, in three volumes, of the large celebration, held in Vienna in 1995, marking a centenary of Austrian excavation at Ephesus.126 Present were many colleagues studying the Greek Western colonies as well as some who investigated the Black Sea. West–East dialogue continued in Rome, where the German Archaeological Institute organised a conference in November 2018 to compare Greek colonies around the Black Sea with those in Italy (the volume of proceedings is due to appear soon). As the Ionian section (Part I) of the present volume demonstrates, study of Ionia continues successfully, although it has been slowed by some difficulties between Turkey and Austria and Turkey and Germany. Not only have the results of excavations been published, so too have studies of certain categories of material.127 124

For details, and bibliography, see Tsetskhladze 2109c, 134–35. Cobet et al. 2007. 126 Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999. 127 Just as examples: Cobet et al. 2007; Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999; Georges 2017; Kalaitzoglou 2008; Kunisch 2016; von Miller 2019; Muss 2008; Özyiğit 2020; Schaus 2021; and Seipel 2008. See also Gorman 2001; Greaves 2002; 2010; Mac Sweeney 2013; and Rubinstein 2004. 125

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

45

To sum up, Ionians West and East covers all Ionian movement outside their homeland. The reasons for colonisation are many and various, but for the Ionians it was a case of enforced migration in response to political developments on their doorstep in Anatolia. And why they went where they did is simple to answer as well. Magna Graecia, where only a few Ionian colonies were established, was heavily settled; it was already posting its ‘no vacancies’ sign by the time the Ionians embarked on their colonial endeavours. In the West, this left just the Iberian Peninsula and the south of France as areas without Greek settlement, and the former had already received Phoenician emplacements. The East may be understood as chiefly the Pontic area, though we have an Ionian presence in Naukratis as well.128 Other emporia were established, mainly in Etruria as parts of local cities.129 A consistent feature of the Ionians overseas – the northern Black Sea is the exception – is their settlement in areas heavily populated by locals. Foundation stories and archaeological evidence both show that the newcomers had to and did forge relationships with locals (who even formed part of the colonies). Emporion was set amidst marshes unsuited to agriculture, Massalia was in a rocky landscape, the eastern Black Sea coast was wetland. Thus, in all cases, the Greeks had to secure a stable modus vivendi with the locals, if only for their economic survival. From the outset, this was pacific, collaborative and productive, another characteristic of Ionian colonisation. Local rulers and members of the elite used Greek craftsmen to fabricate their material culture – the objects look superficially Greek but their local use and significance cannot be assumed to be ‘Greek’. Not only the economy but culture too is a two-way street of give and take.130 Recent excavations and studies, and the re-evaluation of old evidence, give new and interesting insights. I have already mentioned several such discoveries. To these can be added the Archaic necropolis at Myrmekion131 and new investigations of the local Sindian city of Labrys, which has revealed not just a Greek-type fortification system but also Greek-type monumental buildings (a Greek inscription with the name of this settlement is already well known) in a city that looks to have been the local residence of the Bosporan kings, who were also kings of the Sindians.132

128 129 130 131 132

See Johnston and Villing (below in the present volume); and Moller 2019. See now Gailledrat et al. 2018. Cf. Ulf 2009; 2014. Butyagin 2022. See Goroncharovsky 2022.

46

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

From the end of the 6th–5th century BC the situation in the Black Sea changes. The Greeks had to contend not just with the local peoples but the Achaemenids as well, Darius incorporating all parts of the Black Sea in his domain. Thanks to the discovery of an Old Persian inscription in Phanagoria, it is clear that Darius’ expedition was not the complete debacle described by Herodotus and that he achieved his goals: the Scythians as well as the Greek cities of the northern Black Sea and Colchis were all brought under Achaemenid control. One of the likely results was the creation of local kingdoms in the western, northern and eastern Black Sea. The kings of these new entities ruled them according to an Achaemenid template, obliging the Greek cities to pay tax and tribute, and making heavy use of Greek craftsmen in the creation of their material culture. As in the West, some Greeks resided in local settlements that were the political, military and economic centres of local chiefs. My main aim in this paper has been to bring together Ionians in the West and East. This is really a single phenomenon: Ionians overseas.133 As I have sought to demonstrate, there are many similarities and patterns to Ionian endeavour in both regions. Only one is left to consider: domestic architecture. I have mentioned that two main types predominate: subterranean, and simple, one-room, mud-brick, above-ground structures. The former type is known mainly from the Black Sea (though there are a few sites in Italy with it, as I mentioned above); the latter in the West. I am convinced that there is a pattern to this: subterranean is characteristic of Milesian colonies, and above-ground of Phocaean. The exception in the Black Sea is Phanagoria, where subterranean structures are completely absent and the dwellings resemble those of Emporion and Massalia (above-ground, single-room, mud-brick) – but Phanagoria was founded not by Miletus but by Teos, and thus demonstrates the pattern I have just outlined.134

133 134

See also Tsetskhladze 2002; 2014. See Kuznetsov 2022.

late 7th century

Miletus

Heraclea Pontica

Miletus and Clazomenae

Sinope

Heraclea Pontica

Miletus

Miletus

Sinope

Miletus

Berezan

Callatis

Cardia

Cerasus

Chersonesos Taurica

Cius

Colonae

Cotyora

Cyzicus

Miletus and Phocaea

Miletus

Amisos

Phocaea/Massalia

Alalia

Apollonia Pontica

ca. 545

Phocaea

Agathe

1. 756/5 2. 676/5 (Eusebius)

627

421

late 7th century

late 6th century

647 (Eusebius)

ca. 610 (Ps.-Scymnus)

shortly after 600

ca. 680–652 (Strabo)

Miletus

Abydos

1. 654 (Eusebius) 2. ca. 545

Literary dates for foundation

1. Clazomenae 2. Teos

Mother city/cities

Abdera

Settlement

first half–middle 5th century. Most probably Ionian settlement later taken over by Dorians.

4th century. Most probably Ionian settlement later taken over by Dorians.

ca. 630

late 7th century

ca. 600–575

ca. 575–550

third quarter of 7th century

second half of 7th century

Earliest archaeological material

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Earlier local population

Table 1. Main Ionian colonies and settlements (adapted and updated from Tsetskhladze 2006a, lxvii–lxxiii, table 6).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

47

709 550–500

Miletus

Miletus

Paros, Miletus, Erythrae

Miletus

Teos

Paesus

Panticapaeum

Parium

Patraeus

Phanagoria

585–539

ca. 542

647

Miletus

Miletus

Odessus

Miletus

Nymphaeum

ca. 655 (Strabo)

598 (Eusebius)

654 (Eusebius)

mid-6th century

657 (Eusebius)

ca. 600

ca. 540

Literary dates for foundation

Olbia

Miletus or Panticapaeum

Several Ionian cities

Myrmekion

Naukratis

Phocaea

Miletus

Massalia

Miletopolis

Miletus

Miletus

Leros

Miletus

Lampsacus

Limnae

Miletus

Miletus

Histria

Miletus and Mytilene

Hermonassa

Kepoi

Phocaea

Phocaea

Elea/Hyele

Emporion

Miletus

Mother city/cities

Dioscurias

Settlement

ca. 540

mid-6th century

590–570

620/610–590

ca. 560

580–570

last quarter of 7th century

575–550

ca. 600

7th century

580–560

630

575–550

ca. 600–575

7th/first half of 6th century

end of the 7th/first third of 6th century (local inland settlement)

Earliest archaeological material

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

?Yes

Yes

Yes

Earlier local population

48 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Miletus

Miletus

Miletus

Theodosia

Tieion

Tomis

Miletus

Miletus

Sinope

Tyritace

Miletus

Scepsis

Sinope

?Miletus

Prusias

Miletus

Miletus

Proconnesus

Tyras

Miletus

Priapus

Trapezus

Miletus

Mother city/cities

Phasis

Settlement

mid-6th century

757/6 (Eusebius)

550–500

1. pre-757 (Ps.-Scymnus) 2. 631/0 (Eusebius)

627 (Eusebius)

before ca. 690

Literary dates for foundation

Earlier local population

575–550

second half of 6th century

early 6th century

580–570

last third of 7th century

No

Yes

Yes

ca. first quarter of 6th century Yes

Earliest archaeological material

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

49

Batus (Batumi/ Miletus Batumis Tsikhe)

ca. 610 BC

Miletus

Apollonia Pontica

Literary dates for foundation

Miletus End of 7th– (and Phocaea) beginning of 6th century BC

Mother city/ cities

Amisos

Settlement

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Aristotle Met. 350 A, 435 1A; End of 7th–first half Yes Pliny NH 6. 12; Tabula of 6th century BC Peutingeriana 10; Arrian (610–570 BC) Periplus 7; Anon. Periplus 2

Batus/Batumi is overbuilt by the modern city of Batumi. The only archaeological material is a stamped Heraclean amphora from the marshes. Batumis Tsikhe, situated on a hill next to the river, is the site of a restaurant. Only small-scale rescue excavation has been possible.

Beneath modern town of Sozopol. Only rescue excavations are possible. Necropoleis of Classical and Hellenistic period are situated on the beach, which may indicate that the Archaic necropolis is already underwater. Recent excavation revealed Archaic temenos, monumental buildings, metalworking and pottery workshops.

Ps.-Scymnus 730–733; Late 7th century BC Yes Steph. Byz 96. 2–4; 160. 2; Aelianus Var. Historia 3. 17; etc.

Notes

Beneath modern Samsun. Rescue excavations in the city’s suburbs revealed pottery and other material of the 6th century BC.

Earlier local population Yes

Ps.-Scymnus 957, 961–962; ca. 600–575 BC Strabo 12. 1. 3; Theopompus fr. 389 apud Strabo 12. 3. 14; Hecataeus fr. 199 apud Strabo 12. 3. 25; Ephor. fr. 162. 12; etc.

References in ancient authors

Table 2. Main Archaic Greek colonies and settlements in the Black Sea.

50 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Miletus

Heraclea Pontica

Heraclea Pontica

Miletus

Callatis

Chersonesos Taurica

Corocondame

Mother city/ cities

Berezan/ Borysthenes

Settlement

422/1 BC

Late 6th century BC. Re-foundation by Heraclea Pontica in late 5th century. Initial coloniser unknown

647 BC

Literary dates for foundation Last quarter of 7th century BC

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Strabo 11. 2. 8–9, 14; Ps.-Arrian PPE 64; Ptolemy Geog. 5. 8. 5, 8; Steph. Byz. s.v.

Ps.-Scylax 68; Ps.-Scymnus 822–830; etc.

580–560 BC

525–500 BC?

Ps.-Scymnus fr. 4; Strabo 7. 4th century BC 6. 1; Memnon FGrH 434 fr. 13 (21); Pompon. 2. 2. 22; Arrian Anabasis 6. 23. 5; Diodorus 19. 73. 1; 20. 25. 1; etc.

Eusebius Chron. 95b; Herodotus 4. 17–18, 24

References in ancient authors

No

Yes

Yes?

No

Earlier local population

Corocondame has been identified with Cape Tuzla, south-western corner of the Taman peninsula. Settlement completely washed away by sea. Part of necropolis also washed away. About 180 graves, earlies of which dated by Ionian pottery to 580–560 BC.

525–500 BC was given by M. Zolotariev and Y.G. Vinogradov. New study of the material on which they based their conclusion demonstrates a date of middle/ second half of 5th century BC.

Overbuilt.

Peninsula in antiquity; now an island. From Classical period an emporion of Olbia. Not only subterranean architecture but stone monumental buildings were found. Latest investigation yielded metalworking and pottery workshops.

Notes

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

51

Miletus

Miletus

Megara and Boeotians

Gyenos

Heraclea Pontica

Mother city/ cities

Dioscurias

Settlement

554 BC

Literary dates for foundation

Earlier local population

Late 7th century BC/ Yes early or first third of 6th century Greek pottery (local inland settlements) (610–570 BC)

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Ps.-Scymnus 1016–1019; Strabo 12. 3. 4; Pausanias 5. 26. 7; Ap. Rhod. 2, 841–850; Ephor. fr. 44b; Xen. Anabasis 5. 6. 10, 19; 6. 2. 1, 18–19; 6. 4. 23; Thucydides 4. 75. 2; Aen. Tact. 12. 5; Ps.-Scylax 91; etc.

Yes

Ps.-Scylax 81; Pompon. 1. 110 First half of 6th cen- Yes tury BC (600–570 BC)

Ps.-Scylax 81; Strabo 1. 3. 2; 11. 2. 12, 16, 19; Arrian Periplus 10. 4; Steph. Byz. 233. 15; Pliny NH 6. 15–16; App. Mithr. 101; etc.

References in ancient authors

Mostly under modern town of Eregli. Part submerged.

Situated on man-made hills, surrounded by marshes and wetland. Only small-scale rescue excavation was possible.

Identified with modern-day Sukhum(i). Archaic and Classical period city is most probably under the Black Sea; Hellenistic and Roman period under modern city.

In 2019, underwater surveys revealed paved streets, stone remains of houses and basements dated to first quarter of the 6th–end of 5th century BC (BI 40). Shipwreck of 6th century BC also discovered here (PIFK 120–121).

Notes

52 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

(Miletus or) Middle–second Panticapaeum half of 6th century BC

Miletus

Miletus

Myrmekion

Nymphaeum

Odessos

585–539 BC

Middle of 6th century BC

Mid-6th century BC

Miletus

Kepoi

657 BC

Miletus

Histria

Literary dates for foundation

Miletus and Mytilene

Mother city/ cities

Hermonassa

Settlement

580–560 BC

ca. 633–630 BC

575–550 BC

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Ps.-Scymnus fr. 1; Strabo 7. 6. 1; Pliny NH 4. 11. 45; Ps.-Scylax 67; Diodorus 19. 73. 3; 20. 112. 2; Hippoc. Prorrheticon 1. 72. 3; etc.

Ps.-Scylax 68; Krateros FGrH 242 fr. 8; Aeschin. 3. 171; Strabo 7. 4. 4; etc.

ca. 560 BC

580–570 BC

Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 4. 5; 575–550 BC 11. 2. 16; Steph. Byz. 464. 1; etc.

Ps.-Scymnus 899; Pliny NH 6. 18; Strabo 11. 2. 10; Ps.-Scylax 72; etc.

Eusebius Chron. 95b; Herodotus 2. 33; Ps.-Scymnus fr. 6; Aristotle Politics 1305b5–6; Diodorus 19. 73. 2; etc.

Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71; Steph. Byz. 278. 10–12; Eustathius Comm. 549 = GGM II 324; Hecataeus FGrH 1 fr. 208; Ps.-Scymnus 886–891; etc. Name derives from wife of its oikist after he had died (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71)

References in ancient authors

?

Yes

No

?

Yes

?

Earlier local population

Beneath modern-day Varna. Roman and Byzantine remains survive well.

Panticapaeum may have established other cities: Tyritake and Porthmeus.

3 km north-east of Phanagoria. Identification not firm.

Not overbuilt in modern times.

Village of Taman, but no firm evidence found. Much of site washed away by the waters of the Taman Gulf – and more is lost each year.

Notes

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

53

Miletus

Miletus or secondary colony of Histria. More and more evidence to demonstrate that it was an independent foundation of Ionians.

Miletus

Miletus?

Orgame

Panticapaeum

Patraeus

Mother city/ cities

Olbia/ Borysthenites

Settlement

Beginning of 6th century BC

Literary dates for foundation

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Second half of the 7th century BC (Middle Wild Goat style ware)

Strabo 11. 2. 8; Steph. Byz. s.v.; etc.

Middle of 6th century BC

Strabo 7. 4. 4; 11. 2. 10; 575–550 BC Pliny NH 4. 26. 86; Ammian Marc. 22. 8. 36; Ps.-Scylax 68; Herodotus 4. 20. 1; Anon. Periplus 50; Diodorus 12. 31. 1; Ephor. fr. 158; etc.

Steph. Byz. 494. 16; etc.

Herodotus 4. 21. 3; 4. 24. 1; 620/610–590 BC 4. 78. 3, 5; 4. 79. 5; Strabo 7. 3. 17; Ps.-Scymnus fr. 10; Steph. Byz. 176. 14–16; etc.

References in ancient authors

No

No

Earlier local population

Village of Garkusha. Identification not firm. Large part is under the Taman Gulf.

Some pottery dates from the end of 7th–beginning of 6th century BC. Established three secondary colonies (see Myrmekion).

Urban remains of 6th– 4th centuries BC are poor as early levels destroyed by Late Roman citadel. Tumular cemetery produced remains from 7th–4th centuries.

Not overbuilt. Some parts are underwater.

Notes

54 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Teos

Miletus

Phasis

Mother city/ cities

Phanagoria

Settlement

ca. 545/542 BC

Literary dates for foundation

Yes

Ps-Scylax 81; Strabo 11. 2. 17; First half of 12. 3. 17; Herodotus 4. 86. 6th century BC 2; Heracl. Lemb. 46; (600–570 BC) Pompon. 1. 108; Steph. Byz. 661. 1; Arrian Periplus 9; Hippoc. Acr. 15; etc. The oikist, Themistagoras of Miletus (Pomp. Mela 1. 108) and the Aristotelean constitution of the Phasianoi (FGrH II, 218) are known.

Earlier local population No

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Ps-Scymnus 886–889; ca. 542 BC Dionysius Periegetes vv. 549–551; Strabo 11. 2. 10; Arrian Bith fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71; Ps.-Scylax 72; Hecataeus fr. 212 apud Steph. Byz. 657. 8; etc. Oikist Phanagoras is known (Arrian Bith. fr. 55 Roos = FGrH 156 fr. 71)

References in ancient authors

Not located. Pottery comes from surrounding settlements of the local population, especially Simagre.

Village of Sennaya, confirmed by two inscriptions found on site: CIRB 971; Y.G. Vinogradov and M. Wörrle in Chiron 22 (1992), 160–61. About 25 ha of 75 ha site is under the waters of the Taman Gulf. Recent excavations unearthed large Archaic quarter, temenos, mud-brick fortification wall built soon after establishment of city and destroyed by the Achaemenids. Mud-brick dwellings are with or without stone foundations. Existence of Archaic workshop producing life-sized bronze sculpture is well documented.

Notes

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

55

Miletus

Miletus

Miletus?

Miletus

Miletus (and Phocaea)

Sinope

Taganrog settlement

Theodosia

Tieion/ Tios

Mother city/ cities

Sindice/Sindic Harbour/ Gorgippia

Settlement

Late 7th–beginning of 6th century BC

550–500 BC

1 pre-657 BC 2 631/30 BC

Literary dates for foundation

Last quarter/end of 7th century BC

Last third of 7th century BC

Middle–last quarter of 6th century BC

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Strabo 12. 3. 5, 10; Ps.-Scylax 90; Pompon. 1. 104; Ps.-Scymnus 1005; Memnon FGrH 434; Steph. Byz. 624. 20–23; etc.

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Earlier local population

Four pieces of East Yes Greek pottery dating from the end of 7th–early 6th century BC

Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 4. 580–570 BC 4, 6; Arrian Periplus 19. 3; Anon. Periplus 51. 77; Dem. 20. 33

Ps.-Scymnus 981–997; Eumelus FGrH 451; Herodotus 1. 76. 1; 4. 12. 2; Xen. Anabasis 4. 8. 22; 5. 5. 7–8, 13, 23; Ps.-Scylax 89; Aen. Tact. 40. 4; Strabo 12. 3. 10–11; Plutarch Luc. 23; Plutarch Per. 20; Diodorus 14. 31. 2; Polybius 4. 56; etc.

Herodotus 4. 8. 6; 4. 28. 1; Strabo 7. 4. 6; 11. 2. 12, 14; Ps.-Scymnus 886–889; Ps.-Scylax 72; Arrian Periplus 18. 4–19. 1; Anon. Periplus 62; Ptolemy Geog. 5. 8. 8; Steph. Byz. s.v; etc.

References in ancient authors

Only one of the southern Black Sea colonies not overbuilt, but most of land is in private hands. Acropolis revealed Greek pottery, early and from later periods. Excavated for the last 10 years.

Overbuilt.

Settlement completely submerged by Sea of Azov. Large amount of pottery washed up on sea shore.

Situated under modern Sinop. Established three secondary colonies: Trapezus, Kotyora and Cerasus. Secondary colonies paid tribute to Sinope.

Large site beneath modern city of Anapa. Very well excavated as a result of rescue excavation. Identification as Sindice/Sindic Harbour is not firm at all. Gorgippia as Anapa is very well documented from 4th century BC.

Notes

56 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Miletus?

Sinope

Ionian?

Miletus

Trapezus

Tyramba

Tyras

Mother city/ cities

Toricos

Settlement

Mid-6th century BC

557/6 BC

Literary dates for foundation

End of 6th century BC

No archaeological excavation or material exist

Second half of 6th century BC

Foundation dates according to earliest pottery

Ps.-Scymnus fr. 9, 799–800; Second half of 6th Steph. Byz. 622. 4–5; 642. century BC 7–8; Alex. Polyh. fr. 138 (FGrH 273); Anon. Periplus 62; Ptolemy Geog. 3. 10. 7–8; Ps.-Scylax 68; Strabo 7. 3. 16; Pliny NH 4. 12(26). 82; etc.

Strabo 11. 2. 4; Ptolemy Geog. 5. 8. 4; etc.

Eusebius Chron. 95b; Xen. Anabasis 4. 8. 22–23; 5. 1. 11; 5. 4. 1–2; 5. 5. 15; Ps.-Scylax 85; etc.

Ps.-Scylax 74

References in ancient authors

Yes

Yes

Yes

Earlier local population

Not far from the town of Temryuk. Identification not firm at all.

Paid tribute to Sinope (like other two sub-colonies).

Not far from city of Gelendzik. Identification not firm.

Notes

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

57

734

733

729

728

688

628

Naxos

Syracuse

Leontini

Megara Hyblaea

Gela

Selinus

•

Chevron skyphoi   

   •





•

EPC (720–680)

Thapsos ware

733

729

728

Syracuse

Leontini

Megara Hyblaea

Key: LG – Late Geometric; EPC – Early Protocorinthian.

706 690

Taras

Gela

688

717

Before 717

736/734

741/736

Date per Eusebius

Mylae (Chersonesos)

After 734

734

Naxos

Zancle

Date per Thucydides

Colony

Many fragments of LG ceramics: Thapsos style

3 fragments LG Thapsos style

LG–EPC. Thapsos style: several skyphoi

LG skyphos

Earliest Corinthian Pottery Settlement

Some EPC ceramics

LG kotyle fragments

Some LG + EPC ceramics

Earliest Corinthian Pottery Sanctuary

Table 4. Earliest ceramics and the foundation dates of some Greek colonies on Sicily (foundation dates per Thucydides and Eusebius) (after Nijboer 2005, 257, table 1).

•



 •





















EC (610–590)

Some EPC and MPC ceramics

EPC aryballos

EPC aryballoi/ kotyle

EPC aryballoi

Earliest Corinthian Pottery Cemetery

LPC (650–610)









MPC (680–650)

Key: EPC – Early Protocorinthian; MPC – Middle Protocorinthian; LPC – Late Protocorinthian; EC – Early (Ripe) Corinthian. • = small quantity;  = large quantity.

Date of establishment per Thucydides (6. 3–5)

Site

Table 3. Relative chronology of Sicilian foundations (after Morris 1996, tables 1–3, fig. 1).

58 GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Initially emporion; later polis

Polichnion

Polis Stephanus of Byzantium s.v.)

Rhode

Hemeroskopeion

Alonis

Polichnion

Polis (Strabo 3. 4. 2; Ps.-Scymnus 146–147)

Emporion? Enoikismos?

Unknown

Mainake

Saguntum

Polichnion?

Initially emporion; later polis

Type of settlement

Emporion

Name

Literary date of foundation

It would be a polis according to both authors; today (almost) nobody thinks of Mainake as a Greek city. Almost certainly not a Greek city.

On the coast of Málaga, there is much Greek pottery from end of the 7th/ beginning of the 6th century BC ca. 580 BC

200 years before the Zacynthus (Pliny NH 16. 216; Livy 21. 7. 2; Trojan War Strabo 3. 4. 6; Appian (Pliny NH 16) Iber. 7)

Nothing is known about its name or localisation.

Phocaea (Strabo 3. 4. 2); None Massalia (Ps.-Scymnus 146–147)

Massalia (Strabo 3. 4. 6) None

Perhaps one of the three cities cited by Strabo (3. 4. 6). Santa Pola has been proposed as place of location.

Some pottery of 6th century. BC; more from beginning of 5th century BC

Massalia (Stephanus of None Byzantium s.v.; Strabo 3. 4. 6?)

End of the 6th/ begin- Perhaps a polis from ning of the 5th century the 4th century BC. BC

Not identified with certainty; the region of Denia-Jávea has been proposed.

Before the establishment of the Olympic Games (Strabo 14. 2. 10)

Remarks

End of the 7th/ begin- The only true Greek ning of the 6th century polis in Iberia (perhaps BC from the 5th century BC).

Earliest Greek archaeological material

Phocaea (Stephanus of None Byzantium s.v.); Massalia (Strabo 3. 4. 6)

Emporion (Strabo 3. 4. 8); Massalia (Ps.-Scymnus. 205–206); Rhodes (Strabo 3. 4. 8; 14. 2. 10)

Phocaea (Livy 34. 9). None Massalia (Strabo 3. 4. 8; Ps.-Scymnus 204–205)

Provenance of colonists/ Metropolis

Table 5. List of Greek settlements in the Iberian Peninsula (after Domínguez 2006b, 484–85).

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

59

60

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

BIBLIOGRAPHY Apollonia 2019: Apollonia du Pont: sur les pas des archéologues. Collections du Louvre et des musées en Bulgarie (Exhibition Catalogue) (Sofia). Aquilué, X., Castanyer, P., Santos, M. and Tremoleda, J. 2010: ‘Grecs et indigènes aux origine de l’enclave phocéenne d’Emporion’. In Tréziny 2010, 65–78. Astashova, N. 2021: ‘Specific features of ceramic materials from the earliest levels of Panticapaeum’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Greeks and Romans in the Black Sea and the Importance of the Pontic Region for the Graeco-Roman World (7th century BC–5th century AD): 20 Years On (1997–2017) (Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Constanţa, 18–22 September 2017) (Oxford), 524–32. Avram, A. 2011: ‘The Getae: Selected Questions’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Black Sea, Greece, Anatolia and Europe in the First Millennium BC (Colloquia Antiqua 1) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 61–75. —. 2022: ‘519 BC: Persians occupy the North Pontic coast’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 75–108. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 924–73. Bandrivskii, M.S. 2012: ‘Kommentarii k stat‘e M.T. Kashuby’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2, 473–78. Baralis, A., Bivolaru, A., Marriner, N., Morhange, C., Porotov, A.V. and Zinko, V.N. (eds.) 2016: Géomorphologie et géoarchéologie des littoraux de mer Noire (= Méditerranée: revue geographique des pays méditerranéens 126) (Montpellier). Bats, M. 2012: ‘Greeks and Natives in South Gaul: Relationship, Acculturation and Identity’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 3–20. Bernard, L., Collin-Bouffier, S. and Tréziny, H. 2010: ‘Grecs et indigènes dans la territoire de Marseille’. In Tréziny 2010, 131–45. Bernstein, F. 2004: Konflikt und Migration: Studien zur griechischen Fluchtbewegungen im Zeitalter der sogenannten Großen Kolonisation (Mainzer althistorische Studien 5) (St Katharinen). Boardman, J., Hargrave, J.F., Avram, A. and Podossinov, A.V. (eds.) 2022: Connecting the Ancient West and East (Monographs in Antiquity 8) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Boissinot, P. 2010: ‘Des vignobles de Saint-Jean du Désert aux cadastres antiques de Marseille’. In Tréziny 2010, 147–54. Bondarenko, D.B. and Chistov, D.E 2021: ‘“Kvartal goncharov” (uchastok “GSh” v sisteme zastroiki i v ekonomike arkhaicheskogo Borisfena)’. Stratum Plus 3, 235– 60. Buiskikh, A.V. 2005: ‘Novaya zemlyanka VI v. do n.e. v Ol’vii: novyi vzglyad na starye problemy’. In Bosporskii Fenomen: Problema sootnosheniya pis’mennykh i arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (St Petersburg), 183–86. —. 2015 ‘O datirovke bronzoliteinoi masterskoi v yuzhnoi chasti Ol’vii’. In Gavrilyuk, N.O., Buiskikh, A.V. and Kryzhitskii, S.D. (eds.), OLBIO in memoriam V.V. Krapivina (= Archeologiya i davnya istoriya Ukraini 14.1) (Kiev), 93–112. Burch, J., Nolla, J.M. and Sagrera, J. 2010: ‘L’oppidum ibérique de Sant Julià de Ramis’. In Tréziny 2010, 119–27.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

61

Butyagin, A. 2022: ‘The Archaic Necropolis of Myrmekion’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 195–204. Cabrera Bonet, P. and Santos Retolaza, M. (eds.) 2000: Ceràmiques jònies d’època arcaica: centres de producció i comercialització al Mediterrani Occidental (Actes de la Taula Rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al 28 de maig de 1999) (Monografies emporitanes 11) (Barcelona). Carter, J.C. 2004: ‘The Greek Identity at Metaponto’. In Lomas 2004, 363–90. Chaume, B. 2020: ‘Vix : The Temptation of the City’. In Zamboni, L., FernándezGötz, M. and Metnzer-Nebelsick, C. (eds.), Crossing the Alps: Early Urbanism between Northern Italy and Central Europe (900–400 BC) (Leiden), 349–60. Chistov, D.E. 2010: ‘Zhelezodelatel’nyi gorn iz raskopok Berezanskogo poseleniya’. In Zinko, V.N. (ed.), Bospor Kimmeriiski i varvarskii mir v period antichnosti ii srednevekov’ya. Remesla i promysly (Bosporskie Chteniya 11) (Kerch), 465–70. —. 2022: ‘Greek Urbanisation of the North Pontic Region in the 6th–Early 5th Centuries BC’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 217–39. Chistov, D.E., Ilina, Y.I. and Shcherbakova, O.A. 2015: ‘Pamyatniki material’noi i khudozhestvennoi kul’tury antichnykh gorodov Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’. Klio 11 (107), 13–25. Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.) 2007: Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Panionion-Symposion, Güzelcamli, 26. September–1. Oktober 1999) (Milesische Forschungen 5) (Mainz). Collin Bouffier, S. and Garcia, D. 2012: ‘Greeks, Celts and Ligurians in South-East Gaul: Ethnicity and Archaeology’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 21–36. Damyanov, M. 2018: ‘First Encounters and Further Developments: Greeks Meeting Thracians on the Western Pontic Coast’. In Gimatzidis, S., Pienążek, M. and Mangaloğlu-Votruba, S. (eds.), Archaeology Across Frontiers and Borderlands: Fragmentation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and Central Balkans from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (Oriental and European Archaeology [OREA] 9) (Vienna), 243–68. Damyanov, M. and Panayotova, K. 2018: ‘On the Chronology of the Earliest Greek Metallurgy at Apollonia Pontica’. Poster, 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Cologne/Bonn, 22–26 May 2018 (published on Academia.edu). De Angelis, F. 2003: ‘Equations of Culture: the Meeting of Natives and Greeks in Sicily (ca. 750–450 BC)’. Ancient West & East 2.1, 19–50. de Hoz, J. 2004: ‘The Greek man in the Iberian Street: non-colonial Greek identity in Spain and southern France’. In Lomas 2004, 411–27. Denti, M. 2000: ‘Nuovi documenti di ceramica orientalizzante della Grecia d’Occidente. Stato della questione e prospettive della ricerca’. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité 112.2, 781–842. —. 2008: ‘La circulation de la céramique du “Wild Goat Style” (MWGS I), de la Mer Noire à l’Occident. Les contextes de réception et de destination’. Revue archéologique 1, 3–36. —. 2009a: ‘Des grecs très indigènes et des indigènes très grecs. Grecs et Œnôtres au VIIe siècle avant J.-C.’. In Rouillard, P. (ed.), Portraits de migrants, portraits de colons I (Colloque de la Maison René-Ginouvès 5) (Paris), 77–89. —. 2009b: ‘Un contesto produttivo enotrio della prima metà del VII secolo a.C. all’Incoronata’. In Bettell, M., De Faveri, C. and Osanna, M. (eds.), Prima delle

62

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

colonie: organizzazione territoriale e produzioni ceramiche specializzate in Basilicata e in Calabria settentrionale ionica nella prima età del ferro (Atti del Giornate di Studio, Matera, 20–21 novembre 2007) (Venosa), 111–37. —. 2009c: ‘Les dépôts de céramique grecque du VIIe siècle avant J.-C. à l’Incoronata. De la modalité des dépositions à la reconstitution des gestes rituels’. Du matériel au spirituel: Réalités archéologiques et historiques des ‘dépôts’ de la Préhistoire à nos jours Actes (XXIXe Rencontres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’histoire d’Antibes, 16–18 octobre 2008) (Antibes), 339–52. —. 2009d: ‘Nouvelles perspectives à l’Incoronata. Une zone artisanale gréco-indigène du VIIe et les phases œnôtres de VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.’. In ‘Activités archéologiques de l’École française de Rome, Chronique, Année 2008’. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité 121.1, 350–57. —. 2010: ‘Pratiche rituali all’Incoronata nel VII secolo a.C. I grandi depositi de ceramica orientalizzante’. In Di Giuseppe, H. and Serlorenzi, M. (eds.), I riti del costruire nelle acque violate (Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, Palazzo Massimo, 12–14 giugno 2008) (Rome), 389–406. —. 2013: ‘The Contribution of Research on Incoronata to the Problems of Relations between Greeks and non-Greeks during Proto-Colonial Times’. Ancient West & East 12, 71–116. Denti, M. and Lanos, P. 2007: ‘Rouges, non rougies. Les briques de l’Incoronata et le problème de l’interprétation des dépôts de céramique’. Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome. Antiquité 119.2, 445–81. Descœudres, J.-P. 2008: ‘Central Greece on the Eve of the Colonisation Movement’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas (Mnemosyne Suppl. 193), vol. 2 (Leiden/ Boston), 289–382. Dietler, M. 2010: Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London). Domanksij, J.V. and Marčenko, K.K. 2003: ‘Towards Determining the Chief Function of the Settlement of Borysthenes’. In Bilde, P.G., Højte, J.M. and Stolba, V.F. (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies Presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Black Sea Studies 1) (Aarhus), 30–36. Domínguez, A.J. 2002: ‘Greeks in Iberia: Colonialism without Colonization’. In Lyons, C.L. and Papadopoulos, J.K. (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism (Los Angeles), 65–95. —. 2004: ‘Greek Identity in the Phocaean Colonies’. In Lomas 2004, 429–56. —. 2006a: ‘Greeks in Sicily’. In Tsetskhladze 2006b, 253–357. —. 2006b: ‘Greeks in the Iberian Peninsula’. In Tsetskhladze 2006b, 428–506. —. 2007: ‘Ionian Trade and Colonisation in the Iberian Peninsula: the Pottery Evidence’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.), Greeks and Natives in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 7th– 1st Centuries BC (Proceedings of the International Conference, October 2000, Taman, Russia) (BAR International Series 1729) (Oxford), 34–40. —. 2012: ‘The First Century of Massalia: Foundation, Arrival of Migrants and Consolidation of a Civic Identity’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 61–82. Doonan, O.P. 2016: ‘Sinope, new understandings of the early colony based on recent research at Sinop Kale’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.), The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 18–20 September 2015) (Oxford), 217–23.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

63

Doonan, O.P., Vural, H., Goldman, A., Bauer, A., Rempel, J., Sherratt, S., Krotschek, U., Maranzana, P. and Sökmen, E. 2017: ‘Sinop Kalesi Archaeological Excavations, 2015–2016 Field Seasons’. In Steadman, S.R. and McMahon, G. (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia II: Recent Discoveries (2015-2016) (Newcastleupon-Tyne), 178–99. Dougherty, C. 1993a: The Poetics of Colonization: From City to Text in Archaic Greece (Oxford). —. 1993b: ‘It’s Mudre to Found a Colony’. In Dougherty, C. and Kurke, L. (eds.), Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics (Cambridge), 179–98. Dupont, P. 2007: ‘Le Pont-Euxin archaïque: lac milésien ou lac nord-ionien? Un point de vue de céramologue’. In Bresson, A., Ivantchik, A.I. and Ferrary, J.-L. (eds.), Une koinè pontique: Cités grecques, sociétés indigènes et empires mondiaux sur le littoral nord de la mer Noire (VIIe s. a.C.–IIIe s. p.C.) (Bordeaux), 29–36. —. 2008: ‘“Ionie du Sud 3”. Un centre producteur des confines de la Grèce de l’Est et du Pont-Euxin?’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14.1–2, 1–24. Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. 2009: Synergia Pontica & Aegeo-Anatolica (Galaţi). Dupont, P., Lungu, V. and Solovyov, S.L. 2009: ‘Céramiquies anatoliennes du PontEuxin archaïque’. In Kopylov, V.P. (ed.), Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v basseine Chernogo mor’ya v skifo-antichnoe i khazarskoe vremya (Rostov-on-Don), 22–27. Figueira, T.J. 2008: ‘Colonisation in the Classical Period’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas (Mnemosyne Suppl. 193), vol. 2 (Leiden/Boston), 427–523. Friesinger, H. and Krinzinger, F. (eds.) 1999: 100 Jahre Osterreichische Forschungen in Ephesos (Akten des Symposions, Wien, 1995) (Denkschriften, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 260; Archäologische Forschungen 1), 3 vols. (Vienna). Frisone, F. 2023: ‘Greek Secondary Colonisation (8th-4th Centuries B.C.)’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 3 (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), forthcoming. Gailledrat, É., Dietler, M. and Plana-Mallart, R. (eds.) 2018: The Emporion in the Ancient Western Mediterranean: Trade and Colonial Encounters from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period (Montpellier). Gavrilyuk, N.A. 2017: ‘Khinterland kak ekonomicheskaya sostavlya shchaya arkhaicheskikh Borisfena i Ol’vii’. In Buiskikh, A.V. (ed.), Pivnichne Prichornomor’ za sntichnoi dobi (na poshanu S.D. Kruzhits’kogo) (Kiev), 177–94. Georges, T. (ed.) 2017: Ephesos (Civitatum Orbis Mediterranei Studia 2) (Tübingen). González de Canales, F., Serrano Pichardo, L., Llompart Gómez, J., Garcia Fernández, M., Ramon Torres, J., Domínguez Monedero, A.J. and Montáño Juston, A. 2017: ‘Archaeological Finds in the Deepest Anthropological Stratum at 3 Concepción Street in the City of Huelva, Spain’. Ancient West and East 16, 1–61. González de Canales Cerisola, F., Domínguez Monedero, A.J., Llompart Gómez, J. and Montano Justo, A. 2018: ‘A new group of Archaic Greek Pottery (“Group H”) manufactured in Tartessos (Huelva, SW of Spain)’. Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 44, 133–43. Gorman, V.B. 2001: Miletos, the Ornament of Ionia: A History of the City to 400 B.C.E. (Ann Arbor).

64

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Goroncharovsky, V. 2022: ‘Greek-Sindian Interactions in the Territory of the Cimmerian Bosporus in the 6th–4th Centuries BC’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 441–53. Graham, A.J. 1982: ‘The Colonial Expansion of Greece’. CAH III.32, 83–162. Greaves, A.M. 2002: Miletos: A History (London/New York). —. 2010: The Land of Ionia: Society and Economy in the Archaic Period (Malden, MA/Oxford). Gulyaev, V.I. 2019: Skify Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v VII–IV vv. do. n.e. (starye problemy – novye resheniya) (Moscow). Handberg, S. and Jacobsen, J.K. 2011: ‘Greek or Indigenous? From Potsherd to Identity in Early Colonial Encounters’. In Gleba, M. and Horsnæs, H.W. (eds.), Communicating Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities (Oxford), 175–94. Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.) 2004: An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford). Hermary, A. and Tsetskhladze, G.R. (eds.) 2012: From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts (Colloquia Antiqua 4) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). Hind, J.G.F. 1999: ‘The Dates and Mother Cities of the Black Sea Colonies (PseudoScymnus and the Pontic Contact Zone)’. In Lordkipanidzé, O.D. and Lévêque, P. (eds.), La Mer Noire. Zone de contacts (Actes du VIIe Symposium de Vani, 26–30 IX 1994) (Besançon), 25–34. —. 2019: ‘Phanagoria and Phanagoras – The Toponym and the Name of the Oikist’. Ancient West & East 18, 277–83. Hodos, T. 2020: The Archaeology of the Mediterranean Iron Age: A Globalising World c. 1100–600 BCE (Cambridge). Hombres 2011: ¿Hombres o dioses? Una nueva Mirada a la escultura del mundo ibérico (Exhibition Catalogue) (Madrid). Isoardi, D. 2012: ‘Demographic Analysis of Pre-Roman Populations near the Greek Colony of Massalia (Southern France)’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 37–59. Kalaitzoglou, G. 2008: Assesos: Ein geschlossener Befund südionischer Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Athena Assesia (Milesische Forschungen 6) (Mainz). Karagöz, S. 2010: ‘Archaeological Excavations at Üsküdar within Marmaray Project from 2004 to 2008’. In Istanbul Archaeological Museums: Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Marmaray-Metro Salvage Excavations, 5th–6th May 2008 (Istanbul), 85–109. Kashuba, M.T. 2012a: ‘Sravnitel’noe issledovanie domostroitel’stva gal’shtattskikh kul’tur Vostochnogo Prikarpat’ya (XII–VIII/VII vv. do n.e.)’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2, 433–72. —. 2012b: ‘Eshche o domostroitel’stve i gal’shtatte v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. Rossiskii Arkheologicheskii Ezhegodnik 2, 479–82. Kashuba, M.T. and Levitskii, O.G. 2011: ‘Kruglye zhilishcha ranneskifskogo vremeni v Severo-Zapadnom Prichernomor’e: naselenie i kontakty, istoki i traditsii domostroitel’stva’. In Bosporskii Fenomen: Naseleniye, yazyki, kontakty (St Petersburg), 522–33. —. 2012: ‘Gal’shtattskii (karpato-dunaiskii) faktor v kul’turogeneticheskikh protsessakh finala epokhi bronzy i rannego zheleznogo veka v Severnom Prichernomor’e’. In Kul’tury stepnoi evrazii i ikh vzaimodeistvie s drevnimi tsivilizatsiyami (Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posvyashchennoi 110-letiyu so

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

65

dnya rezhdeniya vydayushchegosya rossiiskogo arkheologa Mikhaila Petrovicha Gryaznova), vol. 2 (St Petersburg), 304–11. Kashuba, M.T. and Vakhtina, M.Y. 2017: ‘Nekotorie aspekti izucheniya materialov rannego zheleznogo veka iz raskopok Nemirovskogo gorodishcha v Pobuzh’e’. Arkheologicheskie Vesti 23, 211–28. Kerschner, M. 2005a: ‘Phrygische Keramik in griechischen Kontext. Eine Omphalosschale der schwarz glänzenden Ware aus der so genannten Zentralbasis im Artemision von Ephesos und weitere phrygische Keramikfunde in der Ostägäis’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 74, 125–49. —. 2005b: ‘Die Ionier und ihr Verhältnis zu den Phrygern und Lydern. Beobachtungen zur archäologischen Evidenz’. In Schwertheim, E. and Winter, E. (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu Ionien (Akten des Kolloquiums in Rothenberge bei Münster 01.03.–03.03.2004) (Bonn), 113–46. —. 2006a: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer ostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn und im Robertinum der Universität Halle-Wittenberg’. IstMitt 56, 129–56. —. 2006b: ‘Die ionische Wanderung im Lichte neuer archäologischer Forschungen in Ephesos’. In Olshausen, E. and Sonnabend, H. (eds.), ‘Troianer sind wir gewesen’ – Migrationen in der antiken Welt (Geographica Historica 21) (Stuttgart), 364–82. —. 2006c: ‘Zum Beginn und zu den Phasen der griechischen Kolonisation am Schwarzen Meer. Die Evidenz det ostgriechischen Keramik’. Eurasia Antiqua 12, 227–50. —. 2008a: ‘Keramik aus dem Heiligtum der Artemis’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums (Vienna), 125–32. —. 2008b: ‘Die Lyder und das Artemision von Ephesos’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums (Vienna), 223–33. —. 2010: ‘The Lydians and their Ionian and Aiolian Neighbours’. In Cahill, N.D. (ed.), Lidyalılar ve Dünyaları/ The Lydians and Their World (Exhibition Catalogue) (Istanbul), 247–65. Kerschner, M. and Schlotzhauer, U. 2005: ‘A New Classification System for East Greek Pottery’. Ancient West & East 4.1, 1–56. Khrapunov, I. 2018: ‘The Taurians’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018, 333–68. Kimmig, W. (ed.) 2000: Importe und mediterrane Einflüsse auf der Heuneburg (Römisch-germanische Forschungen 59; Heuneburgstudien 11) (Mainz). Kopylov, V.P. 2009: ‘Nizhne-Donskoi kul’turno-itoricheskii raion v sisteme mezdunarodnykh otnoshenii (VII–pervaya tret’ III v. do n.e.)’. In Kopylov, V.P. (ed.), Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v basseine Chernogo mor’ya v skifo-antichnoe i khazarskoe vremya/ International Relations in the Black Sea Region in the Scythian-Antique and Khazar Time (Rostov-on-Don), 28–38. Krause, D., Hansen, L. and Tarpini, R. 2020: ‘Earliest Town North of the Alps. New Excavations and Research in the Heuneburg Region’. In Zamboni, L., FernándezGötz, M. and Metnzer-Nebelsick, C. (eds.), Crossing the Alps: Early Urbanism between Northern Italy and Central Europe (900–400 BC) (Leiden), 299–317. Krutilov, V.V. 2007: ‘Zhelezodelatel’naya masterskaya s syrtsovymi stenami na territorii temenosa Berezanskogo poselaniya’. In Zinko, V.N. and Krapivina, V.V. (eds.), Drevnosti Severnogo Prichernomor’ya v antichnoe vremya. Posvyashchaetsya 75-letiyu Sergeya Dmitrievicha Kryzhitskogo (Simferopol), 117–26.

66

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Krutilov, V.V. and Bondarenko, D.V. 2015: ‘Keramicheskie obzhigatelnye pechi Borisfena serediny VI v. do. n.e. (po materialam raskopok 2011–2013 gg.)’. In Gavrilyuk, N.O., Buiskikh, A.V. and Kryzhitskii, S.D. (eds.), OLBIO in memoriam V.V. Krapivina (= Archeologiya i davnya istoriya Ukraini 14.1) (Kiev), 205–16. Krutilov, V.V., Smirnov, A.I. and Bondarenko, D.V. 2017: ‘Keramicheskii proizvodstvennyi kompleks Borisfena serenity VI veka do n.e.’. In Butyagin, A.M., Sokolova, O.Y. and Chistov, D.E. (eds.), Peripa: ot Borisfena do Bospora (= Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 88) (St Petersburg), 31–37. Kunisch, N. 2016: Milet V.3: Die Attische Importkeramik (Berlin/Boston). Kurz, S. 2007: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Heuneburg in der späten Hallstattzeit (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 106) (Stuttgart). Kuznetsov, V.D. 2002: ‘Phanagoria and its Metropolis’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and de Boer, J.G. (eds.), The Black Sea Region in the Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Periods (= Talanta 32–33 for 2000–2001) (Amsterdam), 67–77. —. 2018: ‘Oboronitel’nye sooruzheniya Fanagorii’. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Arkheologii Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 250, 215–19. —. 2022: ‘Phanagoria in Archaic Times’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 521–51. Kuznetsova, T.M., Elagina, N.G. and Kuznetsov, S.V. 2020: Kurgany u porogov Borisfena (Moscow). Lentini, M.C. (ed.) 2006: Vasi del Wild Goat Style dalla Sicilia e dai Musei Europei (Exhibition Catalogue) (Syracuse). Lomas, K.H. (ed.) 2004: Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (Mnemosyne Suppl. 246) (Leiden/Boston). Lombardo, M. 2000: ‘Profughi e coloni dell’Asia Minore in Magna Grecia (VII–V sec. a.C.)’. In Magna Grecia e Oriente mediterraneo prima dell’eta (Atti del trentanovesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 1–5 ottobre 1999) (Taranto), 189–277. Mac Sweeney, N. 2013: Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge). Manoledakis, M. 2018a: ‘The Local Peoples of the Southern Black Sea Coast’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018, 147–71. —. 2018b: ‘The Early Greek Presence in the Southern Black Sea’. In Manoledakis et al. 2018, 173–241. Manoledakis, M., Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Xydopoulos, I. (eds.) 2018: Essays on the Archaeology and Ancient History of the Black Sea Littoral (Colloquia Antiqua 18) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT). Martin, A., Codina, F., Plana-Mallart, R. and de Prado, G. 2010: ‘Le site ibérique d’Ullastret (Baix Empordà, Catalogne) et son rapport avec le monde colonial méditerranéen’. In Tréziny 2010, 89–104. Mauersberg, M. 2023a: ‘The Ancient Discourse of (Archaic) Greek (Overseas) Settlements’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 3 (Leuven/Paris/ Bristol, CT), forthcoming. —. 2023b: ‘A Short History of the Modern Framing of Archaic Greek Overseas Settlement as Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 3 (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), forthcoming.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

67

von Miller, A. 2019: Archaische Siedlungsbefunde in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos XIII.3), 2 vols. (Vienna). Moller, A. 2019: ‘Naukratis – Yet Again’. In Morais, R., Leão, D. and Rodríguez Pérez, D. (eds.), Greek Art in Motion: Studies in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday (Oxford), 355–57. Mommsen, H., Kerschner, M. and Posamentir, R. 2006: ‘Provenance Determination of 111 Pottery Samples from Berezan by Neutron Activation Analysis’. IstMitt 56, 157–68. Morel, J.-P. 1984: ‘Greek Colonization in Italy and the West. Problems of Evidence and Interpretation’. In Hackens, T., Holloway, N.D. and Holloway, R.R. (eds.), Crossroads of the Mediterranean (Papers delivered at the International Conference on the Archaeology of Early Italy, Haffenreffer Museum, Brown University, 8–10 May 1981) (Publications d’histoire de l’art et d’archéologie de l’Université catholique de Louvain 38; Archaeologia transatlantica 2) (Providence, RI/ Louvain-la-Neuve), 123–62. —. 2006: ‘Phocaean Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze 2006b, 358–428. Morris, I. 1996: ‘The Absolute Chronology of the Greek Colonies in Sicily’. Acta Archaeologica 67, 51–59. Muss, U. (ed.), 2008: Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums (Vienna). Naso, A. 2001: ‘La penisola italica e l’Anatolia (XII–V sec. a. C.)’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 37) (Vienna), 169–83. —. 2009: ‘Funde aus Milet XXII. Etruscan Bucchero from Miletus: Preliminary Report’. AA 1, 135–50. Nedyalkov, K. 2020: Mestnaya keramika ot Apoloniya Pontika, VI–I v. pr. khr (Rzkopki i prouchvaniya 44) (Sofia). Nijboer, A.J. 2005: ‘The Iron Age in the Mediterranean: A Chronological Mess or “Trade before the Flag”, Part II’. Ancient West & East 4.2, 255–77. Nikov, K. 2009: ‘Archaic Grey Pottery from Apollonia (Late 7th–6th Century BC). Occurrence, Origin and Distribution in Thrace’. In Pontic Grey Wares (Proceedings of an International Conference, Bucarest-Constantza, September 30th–October 3rd 2008) (= Pontica 42, Suppl. 1) (Constanţa), 245–46. Osborne, R. 1996: Greece in the Making, 1200–479 BC (London). Özyiğit, Ö. 2012: ‘The Horses of Phokaia’. In Bingöl, O. (ed.), Ord. Prof. Dr. Ekrem Akurga: 100 Yaşında (Ankara), 173–202. —. 2020: Phokaıa III: Arkaik Dönem Athena Tapınağı (Phokaıa Kazı ve Araştırmaları), 3 vols. (Istanbul). Panayotova, K., Damyanov, M., Stoyanova, D. and Bogdanova, T. 2014. ‘Apollonia Pontica, the Archaic Temenos and Settlement on the Island of St. Kirik’. In Álvarez, J.M., Nogales, T. and Rodà, I. (eds.), CIAC/ ICCA 18: Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, vol. 1 (Mérida), 595–98. Pons, E., Asensio, D., Fuertes, M. and Bouso, M. 2010: ‘El yacimiento del Mas Castellar de Pontós (Alt Empordà, Girona): un núcleo indígena en la órbita de la colonia focea de Emporion’. In Tréziny 2010, 105–18. Posamentir, R. 2006: ‘The Greeks in Berezan and Naukratis: A Similar Story?’. In Villing, A. and Schlotzhauer, U. (eds.), Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt.

68

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

Studies on Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (British Museum Research Publication 162) (London), 159–67. —. 2010: ‘Archaic Greek Culture: The Archaic Ionian Pottery from Berezan’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.), Archaic Greek Culture: History, Archaeology, Art and Museology (Proceedings of the International Round-Table Conference, June 2005, St Petersburg, Russia) (BAR International Series 2061) (Oxford), 66–74. Posamentir, R, Arslan, N., Bîrzescu, I., Karagöz, S. and Mommsen, H. 2009: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch-ionischer Keramik III: Funde aus den Hellespontstädten, Histria, Olbia und Istanbul’. IstMitt 59, 35–50. Posamentir, R. and Solovyov, S.L. 2006: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Ermitage von St. Petersburg’. IstMitt 56, 103–28. —. 2007: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch-ostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Ermitage von St. Petersburg II’. IstMitt 57, 179–207. Puig Griessenberger, A.M. 2010: ‘Rhodé (c. 375–195 av. J.-C.)’. In Tréziny 2010, 79–88. Rolley, C. (ed.) 2003: La tombe princière de Vix, 2 vols. (Paris). Rollinger, R. and Schnegg, K. (eds.) 2014: Kulturkontakte in antiken Welten: vom Denkmodell zum Fallbeispiel (Proceedings des internationalen Kolloquiums aus Anlass des 60. Geburtstages von Christoph Ulf, Innsbruck, 26. bis 30. Januar 2009) (Colloquia Antiqua 10) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA). Roosevelt, C.H. 2009: The Archaeology of Lydia: From Gyges to Alexander (Cambridge). Rotroff, S.I. 2015: ‘The Athenian kitchen from the Early Iron Age to the Hellenistic period’. In Spataro, M. and Villing, A. (eds.), Ceramics, Cuisine and Culture: The Archaeology and Science of Kitchen Pottery in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford), 180–89. Rouillard, P. 2009: ‘Les productions de type grec de la Péninsule Ibérique à l’époque archaïque: acquis et questions’. In Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. (eds.), Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époque grecque (Actes du colloque international Bucarest, 18–23 septembre 2004) (= Il Mar Nero 6 [for 2004–06]) (Rome), 177–83. Rubinstein, L. 2004: ‘Ionia’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 1053–1107. Ryabkova, T.V. 2022: ‘Early Ionian Ceramics in the Materials of the Tarasova Balka Settlement in the Trans Kuban Region’. Ancient West & East 21 (forthcoming). Santos Retolaza, M. 2008: ‘L’arqueologia grega a Empúries. Un discurs en construcció’. Annals de l’Institut d’Estudis Empordanesos 39, 49–79. Schaus, G.P. 2021: Milet V.4: Laconian and Chian Fine Ware Pottery at Miletus (Wiesbaden). Seipel, W. (ed.) 2008: Das Artemision von Ephesos: Heiliger Platz einer Göttin (Exhibition Catalogue) (Vienna). Smirnova, G.I. (†), Vakhtina, M.Y., Kashuba, M.T. and Starikova, E.G. 2018: Gorodishche Nemirov na reke Iuzhnii Bug. Po materialam raskopok v XX veke iz kollektsii Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha i Nauchnova arkhiva IIMK RAN (St Petersburg). Snodgrass, A.M. 1994: ‘The Nature and Standing of the Early Western Colonies’. In Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994, 1–10.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

69

Solovyov, S.L. 2013: ‘Narody Maloi Azii i problemy grecheskoi kolonizatsii Severnogo Prichernomor’ya’. In Kovalenko, A.N. (ed.), Prichernomor’ie v antichnoe i rannesrednevekovoe vremya (Rostov-on-Don), 62–77. Solovyov, S.L. and Treister, M.Y. 2004: ‘Bronze Punches from Berezan’. Ancient West & East 3.2, 365–75. Stoyanova, D. and Damyanov, M. 2021: ‘Late Archaic and Early Classical Monumental Architecture on the Island of St. Kirik, Apollonia Pontike’. In Braund, D., Stolba, V.F. and Peter, U. (eds.), Environment and Habitation around the Ancient Black Sea (Berlin/Boston), 8–38. Tolstikov, V.P. 2017: ‘O vremeni osnovaniya i arkhitekturnoi srede rannego Pantikapeya po materialam noveishikh raskopok’. Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha 88, 259–69. Treister, M.Y. 1999: ‘Ephesos and the Northern Pontic Area in the Archaic and Classical Period’. In Friesinger and Krinzinger 1999, 81–86. Tréziny, H. (ed.) 2010: Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire (Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses, 2006–2008) (Bibliothèque d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 3) (Aix-en-Provence). —. 2012: ‘Topography and Town Planning in Ancient Marseilles’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 83–107. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1994: ‘Greek Penetration of the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994, 111–36. —. 1998: ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, Native Populations’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschriften 121) (Stuttgart), 9–68. —. 2002: ‘Ionians Abroad’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Snodgrass, A.M. (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (BAR International Series 1062) (Oxford), 81–96. —. 2004: ‘On the Earliest Greek Colonial Architecture in the Pontus’. In Tuplin, C.J. (ed.), Pontus and the Outside World: Studies in Black Sea History, Historiography and Archaeology (Colloquia Pontica 9) (Leiden/Boston), 225–81. —. 2006a: ‘Revisiting Ancient Greek Colonisation’. In Tsetskhladze 2006b, xxiii– lxxxiii. —. (ed.) 2006b: Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas (Mnemosyne Suppl. 193), vol. 1 (Leiden/Boston). —. 2007a: ‘The Ionian Colonies and their Territories in the Taman Peninsula in the Archaic Period’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 551–65. —. 2007b: ‘Greeks and Locals in the Southern Black Sea Littoral: A Re-Examination’. In Herman, G. and Shatzman, I. (eds.), Greeks between East and West. Essays in Greek Literature and History in Memory of David Asheri (Jerusalem), 160–95. —. 2009: ‘The City in the Greek Colonial World’. In Lagopoulos, A.P. (ed.), A History of the Greek City (BAR International Series 2050) (Oxford), 143–67. —. 2010: ‘“Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts”: Gifts, Tribute, Bribery and Cultural Contacts in the Greek Colonial World’. In Rollinger, R., Gufler, B., Lang, M. and Madreiter, I. (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts (Philippika 34) (Wiesbaden), 41–61.

70

GOCHA R. TSETSKHLADZE

—. 2012: ‘Pots versus People: Further Consideration of the Earliest Examples of East Greek Pottery in Native Settlements of the Northern Pontus’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 315–74. —. 2014: ‘From the Pillars of Hercules to the Scythian Lands’. In Rollinger and Schnegg 2014, 215–51. —. 2015: ‘Greeks, locals and others around the Black Sea and its hinterland: recent developments’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC– 10th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Belgrade, 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford), 11–42. —. 2016: ‘Greeks in the Asiatic Bosporus: New Evidence and Some Thoughts’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.), The Black Sea in the Light of New Archaeological Data and Theoretical Approaches (Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity, held in Thessaloniki, 18–20 September 2015) (Oxford), 45–60. —. 2019a: ‘Some Recent Developments in the Study of the Greeks Overseas’. In Morais, R., Leão, D. and Rodríguez Pérez, D. (eds.), Greek Art in Motion: Studies in Honour of Sir John Boardman on the Occasion of his 90th Birthday (Oxford), 59–65. —. 2019b: ‘Once again about the Establishment Date of Some Greek Colonies around the Black Sea’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Atasoy, S. (eds.), Settlements and Necropoleis of the Black Sea and its Hinterland in Antiquity (Select Papers from the Third International Conference ‘The Black Sea in Antiquity and Tekkeköy: An Ancient Settlement on the Southern Black Sea Coast’, 27–29 October 2017, Tekkeköy, Samsun) (Oxford), 1–21. —. 2019c: ‘An Achaemenid Inscription from Phanagoria: Extending the Boundaries of Empire’. Ancient West & East 18, 113–51. —. 2020: ‘Two Kingdoms and Art’. In Grawehr, M. Leypold, C., Mohr, M. and Thiermann, E. (eds.), Klassik – Kunst der Könige. Kings and Greek Art in the 4th Century BC (Tagung an der Universität Zürich vom 18.–20. Januar 2018) (Zürcher Archäologische Forschungen 7) (Rahden), 137–53. —. 2021a: ‘Early East Greek Pottery from Local Sites of the Pontic Hinterland: Introductory Remarks’. Ancient West & East 20, 161–68. —. 2021b: ‘Pontic Greeks and Locals: Subterranean Dwellings Once Again’. In Manoledakis, M. (ed.), People in the Black Sea Regions from the Archaic to the Roman Period (Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on the Black Sea in Antiquity held in Thessaloniki, 21–23 September 2018) (Oxford), 149–84. —. 2022: ‘Nemirovo Settlement: A Hub of Ancient People’. Ancient West & East 21 (forthcoming). Tsetskhladze, G.R. and De Angelis, F. (eds.) 1994: The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph 40) (Oxford). Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Hargrave, J.F. 2011: ‘Colonisation from Antiquity to Modern Times: Comparisons and Contrasts’. Ancient West & East 10, 161–82. —. 2023: ‘What’s in a Word?: Colonisation Ancient and Modern’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, vol. 3 (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), forthcoming.

INTRODUCTION: IONIANS OVERSEAS

71

Tsetskhladze, G.R. and Treister, M.Y. 1995: ‘The Metallurgy and Production of Precious Metals in Colchis Before and After the Arrival of the Ionians’. Bulletin of the Metals Museum, Japan 24.2, 1–32. Tsiafakis, D. 2013: ‘Architectural similarities(?) between Black Sea and North Aegean settlements’. In Tsetskhladze, G.R., Atasoy, S., Avram, A., Dönmez, Ş. and Hargrave, J.F. (eds.), The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC–5th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Istanbul, 14th–18th September 2009) (BAR International Series 2517) (Oxford), 61–68. Ugolini, D. 2012: ‘D’Agde à Béziers: les Grecs en Laguedoc occidental (de 600 à 300 av. J.-C.)’. In Hermary and Tsetskhladze 2012, 163–203. Ulf, C. 2009: ‘Rethinking Cultural Contacts’. Ancient West & East 8, 81–132. —. 2014: ‘Eine Typologie von kulturellen Kontaktzonen (“Fernverhältnisse” – middle grounds – dichte Kontaktzonen) oder: Rethinking Cultural Contacts auf dem Prufstand’. In Rollinger and Schnegg 2014, 469–504. —. 2022: ‘Migrations – not Colonisation: What Motivated People to Leave their Community according to the Texts of Archaic Greece’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 1415–32. Vakhtina, M.Y. 2022: ‘On the Archaic Fortifications of Porthmion’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 743–56. Weissl, M. 2011: ‘Die großen ionischer Heiligtümer an der Grenze Lydiens’. In Matthäus, H., Oettinger, N. and Schröder, S. (eds.), Der Orient und die Anfänge Europas: Kulturelle Beziehungen von der Späten Bronzezeit bis zur Frühen Eisenzeit (Philippika 42) (Wiesbaden), 201–28. Yalçın, Ü. and Bienert, H.-D. (eds.) 2015: Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen: Aktuelle Forschungen und Perspektiven in den deutsch-türkischen Altertumswissenschaften (Tagungsband des Internationalen Symposiums ‘Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen’ in Bonn vom 7. bis 9. Juli 2014) (Der Anschnitt Beih. 27; Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 203) (Bochum/Bonn). Yıldırım, Ş. 2022: ‘Results of Recent Archaeological Investigations of Archaic Tieion’. In Boardman et al. 2022, 855–75. Zadnikov, S.A. 2021: ‘Early Greek Pottery from Bilsk (Belsk) City-Site’. Ancient West & East 20, 217–36. Zavoikina, N.V. 2018: ‘Spisok pozhertvovanii s upominaniem Fanagora tret’ei chetverti VI v. do n.e. iz Fanagorii’. In Bosporskii Fenomen: Obshchee i osobennoe v istoriko-kul’turnom prostranstve antichnogo mira, vol. 1 (St Petersburg), 292–99.

PART I

INVESTIGATING IONIA

LANGUES EN CONTACT ET COMMERCE: LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE* Marta OLLER GUZMÁN

Abstract The main purpose of this paper is to analyse some examples of contact between languages in the course of Ionian colonisation, especially within the context of trade between Greek and local populations. The focus is on two aspects: how mutual understanding reached in a multilingual sociological context, and what was the role played in language learning by the new needs for communication resulting from trade. Priority in analysing the sources will be given to examples from East and West Ionian colonisation, i.e. the Black Sea and the Iberian Peninsula, since the comparative study of these regions can help us better understand Ionians’ ability to adapt to completely different environments.

INTRODUCTION De nos jours, il est évident qu’il existe un lien étroit entre le multilinguisme et la compétitivité économique. Les entrepreneurs ont tout intérêt à maîtriser plusieurs langues s’ils veulent s’établir sur les marchés extérieurs. Bien sûr, il leur faut connaître l’anglais, mais aussi les langues locales, qui, selon des études récentes,1 sont de plus en plus utilisées par les petites et moyennes entreprises. Or, l’Union Européenne a publié plusieurs rapports sur l’intérêt et le besoin de promouvoir les compétences langagières des citoyens européens, car il s’agit d’‘aptitudes utiles dans la vie quotidienne pour tous les citoyens européens, qui leur permettent de profiter des avantages économiques, sociaux et culturels de la libre circulation au sein de l’Union.’2

* Cette recherche a été réalisée dans le cadre du groupe de recherche espagnol ‘Prosopographia Eurasiae Centralis Antiquae et Medii Aevi’ (FFI2014-58878-P). Je remercie mes collègues Rosa-Araceli Santiago et María José Pena pour leur aide dans la collecte de sources et la révision finale du texte. Je remercie également Thibaut Castelli pour l’aide qu’il m’a fourni dans la révision grammaticale de l’article. 1 Bel Habib 2011. 2 Felicia 2009, 526, qui contient plusieurs références aux résolutions européennes à cet égard.

76

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

Bien évidemment, le modèle économique actuel, très globalisé, ne peut pas être comparé avec celui du monde grec antique. Cependant, la question autour de l’apprentissage des langues s’était probablement posée aux Grecs au moins dans le cadre de la colonisation, qui les a mis en contact avec des peuples qui n’avaient pas le grec comme langue maternelle, de sorte qu’ils ont sûrement été contraint d’apprendre d’autres langues. Ce besoin devait être particulièrement ressenti durant les premières étapes de l’établissement dans un endroit quelconque et notamment dans le contexte des échanges commerciaux, où la communication verbale, après avoir surmonté une première phase d’échange, devient nécessaire.3 Il s’agit non seulement de mettre les ‘clients’ à l’aise et de leur donner confiance par le biais de leur langue, mais surtout de garantir une bonne intercompréhension dans le cadre de transactions commerciales complexes. Le but de cette communication est d’analyser un recueil de textes littéraires et épigraphiques où sont documentés des phénomènes de contacts linguistiques dans des régions coloniales, notamment dans le cadre des échanges commerciaux. Nous voulons évaluer jusqu’à quel point les nouveaux besoins communicatifs dans un contexte sociologique multilingue ont favorisé l’apprentissage des langues et l’émergence de phénomènes de bilinguisme ou de multilinguisme. La priorité sera donnée aux exemples tirés des limites extrêmes de la colonisation ionienne, c’est à dire, de la mer Noire et de la péninsule Ibérique, car l’étude comparée des ces deux régions peut nous aider à mieux comprendre la capacité des Ioniens à s’adapter à des milieux complètement différents. QUELQUES OBSERVATIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES Étant donnée que la portée de l’analyse est limitée à des documents écrits, qu’ils soient littéraires ou épigraphiques, une telle recherche est confrontée à un problème méthodologique majeur, car les sources grecques disponibles, notamment les textes épigraphiques, sont rares pour les temps les plus anciens, précisément ceux qui correspondent à la période qui nous intéresse davantage. Par conséquent, nous avons forcément pris en compte des textes plus tardifs dont les contenus peuvent fournir des informations intéressantes sur ce passé lointain, même s’ils risquent de ne pas être si objectifs et précis que nous le souhaiterions. D’autre part, l’inclusion d’inscriptions commerciales d’époque archaïque ajoute un élément de discussion central dans notre travail, qui est le rapport 3

de Hoz 1999a, 220.

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

77

entre le commerce et l’écriture dans la période archaïque. Ce binôme a été largement discuté au cours des dernières décennies, au-delà du débat traditionnel sur les motifs de l’adaptation de l’alphabet phénicien.4 À l’origine de cette discussion, il y a les trouvailles récentes et ininterrompues de lettres d’affaires privées dont l’interprétation a déclenché un débat autour de l’utilisation de l’écriture dans les pratiques commerciales – et même juridiques – archaïques.5 Dans la péninsule Ibérique la question de l’écriture s’avère encore plus importante qu’en mer Noire, car l’épigraphie et la numismatique locales font preuve d’une diversité remarquable dans les formes d’écriture.6 Or, l’adaptation réussie d’un système d’écriture pour une langue autre que celle pour laquelle il était utilisé à l’origine, implique, de la part de l’adaptateur, une connaissance de l’écriture originelle et de son usage, ainsi que de la langue réceptrice, ce qui n’est pas concevable hors d’un contexte de bilinguisme. Par conséquent, le contact linguistique, voire le phénomène de bilinguisme, est implicite dans l’émergence d’une nouvelle écriture par adaptation.7 Pouvons-nous documenter des phénomènes de contact linguistiques dans le contexte de la colonisation grecque? Sans aucun doute, mais, même auparavant, nous avons des preuves textuelles du fait que les Grecs avaient une conscience claire de la diversité des langues dans le cadre de la Méditerranée. Dans l’Iliade (2. 867) seuls les Cariens, alliés des Troyens, sont censés parler une langue non grecque. Ils sont βαρβαρόφωνοι, une différence linguistique qui établit un premier concept de l’‘étranger’. Un peu plus tard, dans l’Odyssée, cette idée est reprise par le mot ἀλλόθροος qui sert à définir des hommes de langue étrangère avec lesquels les Grecs entrent en contact dans deux circonstances précises: au cours des retours, plus ou moins hasardeux, en Grèce (Odyssée 3. 302; 14. 43) et dans le cadre des échanges commerciaux (Odyssée 1. 183; 15. 453). C’est ce dernier cas qui nous intéresse davantage. Ainsi, dans un premier passage, Athéna, déguisée en Mentès, affirme qu’elle va à Témésa,8 chez les ‘gens qui parlent une autre langue’ (ἐπ᾽ ἀλλοθρόους ἀνθρώπους), pour échanger sa cargaison de fer contre du bronze. Dans un deuxième passage, Eumée raconte à Ulysse comment, alors qu’il était encore enfant, il fut enlevé par des commerçants phéniciens, aidés par une esclave du palais, elle aussi 4

Signes Codoñer 2004, 54–59, avec una analyse critique de la bibliographie précédente. La bibliographie est très abondante à cet égard. Je cite quelques articles qui me semblent très utiles pour comprendre la problématique et les discussions savantes qu’elle a suscitées: Wilson 1997–98; Faraguna 2002; Bresson 2003; Santiago Álvarez 2013. 6 de Hoz 2010, 641–52. 7 de Hoz 2005, 64. 8 Témésa a été identifiée tantôt avec Tempsa, dans la région du Bruttium, tantôt avec Tamassos à Chypre, île renommée par sa richesse en cuivre, Heubeck et al. 1990, 100. 5

78

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

phénicienne de Tyr, pour être vendu chez ‘les gens d’une autre langue’ (κατ᾽ ἀλλοθρόους ἀνθρώπους). Ces passages montrent bien que la variabilité linguistique était une réalité dans le cadre du commerce et de la mobilité des personnes en Méditerranée en général. Et les Grecs le savaient bien. Cependant, cette réalité a dû être ressentie particulièrement dans les zones coloniales éloignées du domaine géographique de la langue grecque, où, comme le dit de Hoz: il devient normal pour une bonne partie des Grecs d’entendre presque quotidiennement une langue non grecque, de dédier des offrandes dans des sanctuaires de divinités pour lesquelles il existait une invocation étrange, ou de se mêler dans un marché régional à des gens venus de villages périphériques non helléniques.9

PLURALITÉ DE LANGUES AUX CONFINS DE

LA

MÉDITERRANÉE

Certes, les Grecs installés dans les régions méditerranéennes périphériques telles que le littoral septentrional de la mer Noire ou la péninsule Ibérique, étaient entourés de peuples qui présentaient eux-mêmes une grande diversité linguistique. Hérodote nous l’apprend maintes fois dans sa description de la Scythie, lorsqu’il parle des différentes tribus scythes ou scythoïdes de la région. Ainsi, il dit que les Scythes, quand ils se déplacent vers le nord pour atteindre la terre des Argipéens, doivent utiliser jusqu’à sept traducteurs et sept langues (δι᾽ ἑπτὰ ἑρμηνέων καὶ δι᾽ ἑπτὰ γλωσσέων) pour mener à bien leurs activités.10 À propos des Androphages, il nous raconte leur forme de vie nomade et souligne la ressemblance entre leur tenue et celle des Scythes, mais il remarque qu’ils ont leur propre langue (γλῶσσαν δὲ ἰδίην) (Hérodote 4. 106). Au sujet des habitants de la ville de Gélonos, située sur le territoire des Boudins, il dit qu’ils parlent une langue à moitié scythe et à moitié grecque (γλώσσῃ τὰ μὲν Σκυθικῇ, τὰ δὲ Ἑλληνικῇ) à cause de leur origine, que je discuterai en détail plus loin (Hérodote 4. 108). Et encore, en parlant des Sauromates, un peuple né de l’union des Scythes et des Amazones, il affirme qu’ils parlent ‘incorrectement’ la langue scythe (φωνῇ … Σκυθικῇ, σολοικίζοντες αὐτῇ) pour des raisons que j’expliquerai plus tard (Hérodote 4. 117). La ville de Dioscurias, près du fleuve Anthemus (Pline NH 6. 5), au nord de la Colchide (aujourd’hui Soukhoumi, capitale de l’Abkhazie), constitue un autre exemple illustratif de cette richesse linguistique du Pont-Euxin. D’après 9

de Hoz 1999, 214. Hérodote 4. 24. Même si Hérodote ne le dit pas, il est fort probable qu’il s’agit d’un déplacement à des fins commerciales par une route reliant les comptoirs côtiers et les territoires de l’arrière-pays, cf. How et Wells 1967, ad loc. 10

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

79

Strabon (11. 2. 16), la ville été un comptoir commercial très actif, fréquenté par plusieurs peuples venus des régions du nord et des alentours, chacun avec sa propre langue (πάντα δὲ ἑτερόγλωττα). Pline (NH 6. 5) ajoute encore qu’à l’époque romaine, on utilisait jusqu’à 130 interprètes pour y effectuer des transactions commerciales (CXXX interpretibus negotia gesta ibi), ce qui montre l’importance des compétences linguistiques pour les affaires dans ce genre d’emplacements, véritables carrefours de routes entre l’Orient et l’Occident, avec des populations d’origines très diverses.11 Une dernière preuve indirecte de la richesse linguistique des régions pontiques peut être lue dans la description du roi Mithridate VI Eupatôr par AuluGelle (17. 17). Ce grammairien et compilateur latin du IIe s. raconte que le roi du Pont maîtrisait jusqu’à vingt-cinq langues des peuples qu’il gouvernait (quinque et viginti gentium, quas sub dicione habuit, linguas percalluit), et qu’il n’avait jamais besoin d’interprètes pour leur parler (haut umquam per interpretem conlocutus est) car il était capable de le faire presque comme un locuteur natif (quam si gentilis eius esset). Bien que son royaume se soit étendu sur un territoire beaucoup plus vaste que celui que nous envisageons ici, il est néanmoins hautement probable que les régions nord-pontiques ont été aussi riches en termes de patrimoine linguistique. Malheureusement, la richesse qu’on leur accorde ne peut pas être confrontée avec des documents épigraphiques parce que les peuples scythes ou scythoïdes n’ont jamais utilisé un système d’écriture pour transcrire leurs propres langues. À cet égard, le contraste entre cette région et la péninsule Ibérique est énorme, car la pluralité linguistique est attestée dans cette dernière non seulement par les sources littéraires, mais aussi épigraphiques et surtout numismatiques. Ainsi Strabon, lorsqu’il parle de la région de la Turdétanie, dans le sud de la péninsule Ibérique, affirme-t-il que les Turdétans sont les plus savants (σοφώτατοι) d’entre les Ibères, car ils se servent de l’écriture (γραμματικῇ χρῶνται) et ils ont non seulement des chroniques des temps passés, mais aussi des lois très anciennes en vers. Le géographe insiste aussi sur le fait que la Turdétanie était un endroit d’une activité commerciale extraordinaire grâce à la richesse du territoire et à la topographie, très adéquate à l’importation et à l’exportation de marchandises (Strabon 3. 2. 4–6). Ce n’est probablement pas un hasard que la pratique de l’écriture soit diffusée plus largement chez un peuple marchand, même si ce n’est pas une exclusivité de cette région, car Strabon ajoute: ‘les autres Ibères se servent aussi de l’écriture (χρῶνται γραμματικῇ), mais non avec une forme unique, car ils ne se servent pas non plus d’une seule langue’ (οὐ μιᾷ ἰδέᾳ· οὐδὲ γὰρ γλώττῃ μιᾷ) (Strabon 3. 1. 6). Ce passage, 11

de Boer 2015, 76–77.

80

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

dont la source est due au moins partiellement à Polybe (34. 9. 1), nous donne la preuve à la fois de la diversité linguistique des Ibères et de la forte diffusion de l’écriture parmi eux, même avec des alphabets différents, situation qui a été prouvée par l’épigraphie et la numismatique locale. Pourtant, dans la suite de sa description, Strabon affirme que les Turdétans, en particulier ceux qui habitent dans la vallée du Betis, ont adopté le mode de vie romain (εἰς τὸν Ῥωμαίων … τρόπον) au point même qu’ils ne se souviennent même plus de leur propre langue (οὐδὲ τῆς διαλέκτου τῆς σφετέρας ἔτι μεμνημένοι) (Strabon 3. 2. 15). À notre avis, cette contradiction n’est qu’apparente, car, même s’ils ont oublié leur langue, cela indique qu’auparavant elle existait bel et bien. Ce sont les seuls passages mentionnant la langue des peuples de la péninsule Ibérique dans le troisième livre de Strabon. On peut se demander si la forte empreinte romaine dans la péninsule Ibérique à l’époque où Strabon écrivait son œuvre avait déjà rendu anecdotique la question des langues locales, mais, en tout cas, il est évident qu’il n’accorde pas une large place à la description de la diversité linguistique locale. Cependant, comme nous l’avons déjà souligné, cette diversité linguistique est attestée par l’épigraphie, la numismatique et la toponymie ibériques. Nous n’allons pas nous attarder dans la description détaillé de la géographie linguistique paléohispanique, un sujet qui dépasse largement l’objectif de cette communication, mais les études approfondies permettent de distinguer au moins cinq régions linguistiques principales:12 la zone ibérique, qui s’étend largement le long de la côte, dès l’Andalousie orientale jusqu’au fleuve Hérault en France, où est attestée l’écriture semi-syllabique ibérique;13 la zone au Nord de l’Èbre et aquitaine, dont la langue est rapprochée du basque; l’aire méridionale, en Andalousie, avec une écriture propre présentant des caractéristiques linguistiques différenciées par rapport à la langue du Levant péninsulaire; la zone celtibérique, entre les cours supérieurs de l’Èbre et du Tage, de langue sans doute indo-européenne; et finalement, l’aire nord-occidentale, très mal connue, mais dont les langues appartiennent aussi à la famille indo-européenne. À cette diversité des langues autochtones, il faut ajouter les langues des peuples méditerranéens qui se sont installés progressivement sur le littoral pour tirer profit des ressources naturelles, faire des échanges commerciaux ou même la soumettre. Ces sont d’abord les Phéniciens, comme le souligne Strabon (3. 2. 14), puis les Grecs, les Puniques et les Romains.

12 13

de Hoz 2010, 35–43. de Hoz 1993.

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

81

COMMENT ARRIVE-T-ON À L’INTERCOMPRÉHENSION? Ce recueil de textes prouve que les Grecs, dans ce cas des Ioniens, qui sont arrivés dans ces zones périphériques de la colonisation, ont trouvé des réalités linguistiques complexes où ils ont forcement été obligés de chercher des moyens pour assurer l’intercompréhension. Comment ont-ils fait pour réussir? Les textes mentionnent plusieurs moyens d’y parvenir. D’abord ils ont eu recours aux interprètes. Hérodote, nous l’avons vu auparavant, parle de sept interprètes qui accompagnaient les Scythes le long de leur voyage au pays des Argipéens. Pline, pour sa part, en mentionne 130 dans la ville des Dioscurias, toujours, semble-t-il, dans le cadre des affaires commerciales. D’ailleurs l’épigraphie en donne quelques exemples pour la région nord-pontique, même s’ils appartiennent à une époque postérieure. Ainsi à Rome, une stèle funéraire du début du Ier s. ap. J.-C. (10–37) mentionne-t-elle un certain Aspourgos, fils de Biomasos, Bosporan, interprète des Sarmates (ἑρμηνεὺς Σαρματῶν) (IG XIV 1636 = CIL VI 5207).14 Une autre inscription funéraire de Panticapée (Kertch), du IIe s. ap. J.-C., mentionne Pairisalos, fils de Saurophos, interprète (ἑρμηνεύς) (CIRB 698 = IOSPE II 86[2]). On arrive même à trouver un certain Hérakas du Pont qui est le ‘chef des interprètes des Alains’ (ἀρχερμηνέως Ἀλανῶν) dans une inscription d’Hermonassa (Taman) de 208 ap. J.-C. (CIRB 1053).15 Leur existence est aussi mentionnée dans plusieurs inscriptions latines de la période impériale.16 Mais, à propos de ces interprètes, la question sur la façon dont ils ont acquis la double compétence langagière se pose à nouveau. Comment donc sont-ils devenus bilingues? Les textes nous offrent des indices très sûrs de l’existence de mariages mixtes dans ces régions nord-pontiques déjà à une époque ancienne.17 Les enfants nés dans ce type de couples avaient beaucoup de chances de devenir bilingues d’une façon, disons, naturelle. C’est le cas, par exemple, de deux Scythes illustres: le roi Skylès et le philosophe Anacharsis. Pour Skylès, Hérodote raconte qu’il est né du roi scythe Ariapeithès et d’une femme d’Istros qui lui avait appris la langue et l’écriture grecque (γλῶσσάν τε Ἑλλάδα καὶ γράμματα ἐδίδαξε) (Hérodote 4. 78. 1). Anacharsis, pour sa part, 14

Sur ce personnage, cf. PPE 594–595. Sur ce personnage, Alemany 2000, 111–12. 16 Voir, par exemple: CIL III.10505 interpres Germanorum (Aquincum); CIL III.14349 interprex Sarmatorum; AE 1947.35 interprex Dacorum (Brigetio); CIL III.8733 et 14507 interpretes (Viminacium et Germania Inferior); etc. Je remercie Agustí Alemany de m’avoir proposé ce recueil de sources épigraphiques. 17 Sur le rôle des femmes dans le processus d’intégration des colons, surtout dans les premières phases, cf. Van Compernolle 1983; Chiai 2006, 284; Oller Guzmán 2013a, 85–86; Avram 2012, 197. 15

82

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

était fils de Gnouros, frère du roi scythe Kadouïdas et d’une femme grecque, dont le nom ne nous est pas parvenu. Pour cette raison, il était bilingue (διὸ καὶ δίγλωττος ἦν) (Diogène Laërce 1. 101). Il arrive aussi que l’on trouve de vraies communautés mixtes, où les langues ont fini par se mélanger jusqu’au point de créer une sorte de ‘créole’ avec des éléments grecs et non grecs. Hérodote en donne deux exemples fort intéressants: celui des Gélons et celui des Sauromates. Les Gélons étaient des habitants de la ville de Gélonos localiséé sur le territoire des Boudins, de sorte que les Grecs avaient une tendance à les confondre avec eux, mais l’historien souligne qu’ils n’ont pas la même langue ni le même genre de vie. Tandis que les Boudins sont des nomades autochtones, les Gélons étaient à l’origine des Grecs (τὸ ἀρχαῖον Ἕλληνες) qui avaient émigré des comptoirs côtiers (ἐκ τῶν δὲ ἐμπορίων ἐξαναστάντες) vers l’intérieur. Ils ont fondé la ville de Gélonos dans un milieu complètement indigène où ils ont réussi à préserver les cultes grecs, mais ils finirent par parler une langue à moitié scythe et à moitié grecque (γλώσσῃ τὰ μὲν Σκυθικῇ, τὰ δὲ Ἑλληνικῇ) (Hérodote 4. 108. 2). D’après nos connaissances, l’existence d’une telle ville n’a pas été prouvée, mais des sites archéologiques de la région nord-pontique tels que Belskoe18 laissent supposer la présence d’artisans grecs au sein des communautés indigènes. La mobilité des Grecs dans le cadre des échanges commerciaux non seulement ne semble pas impossible, mais elle est très probable. D’ailleurs, dans l’épigraphie nord-pontique, on en trouve un exemple ancien dans la lettre dite d’Achillodôros (IGDOP 23), provenant de Bérézan et datant de la seconde moitié du VIe s. av. J.-C. Dans cette lettre, Achillodôros, un marchand grec, dont la personne a été saisie par un certain Matasys, exhorte son fils à aller chercher sa mère et ses frères, qui sont chez les Arbinates, un peuple très probablement indigène, et les amener en ville aussi rapidement que possible pour des raisons de sécurité (l. 11–12). Cet exemple, sur lequel nous reviendrons plus tard, nous rappelle les dangers qui menaçaient les Grecs lorsqu’ils parcouraient les territoires indigènes, surtout dans le cadre des échanges commerciaux. En revenant aux communautés mixtes, un cas supplémentaire est attesté à Emporion, sur le littoral nord-est de la péninsule Ibérique. Ce sont des Phocéens, venus très probablement de Marseille qui initialement ont fondé ce petit comptoir commercial où dès le début des Grecs et des indigènes ont vécu côte à côte.19 D’après Strabon (3. 4. 8), les deux communautés se sont rapprochées d’abord spatialement, puis, avec le temps, ils ont fini par constituer une entité politique gréco-indigène avec un mélange de coutumes barbares et grecques 18 19

Tsetskhladze 1998, 50; Vachtina 2007. Aquilué et al. 2010.

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

83

(πολίτευμα … μικτόν τι ἔκ τε βαρβάρων καὶ Ἑλληνικῶν νομίμων). Il s’agissait sans doute d’une solution pratique et valable pour les deux communautés en contact, qui n’est probablement pas un cas isolé.20 Malheureusement, Strabon, ne fait aucune mention de la langue ou des langues dont ils se servaient pour communiquer. En fait, le processus de fusion entre deux communautés qui n’ont pas la même langue est assez énigmatique. Pourtant, Hérodote nous en donne un récit instructif à propos de l’origine des Sauromates, un peuple résultant de l’union des Scythes et des Amazones (Hérodote 4. 111–117). Bien qu’il s’agisse d’une histoire mythique,21 le modèle théorique, à notre avis, reste valable pour d’autres situations historiques analogues: d’abord, les Scythes ne comprennent rien de ce que les Amazones disent, mais ils veulent avoir des enfants avec elles. Un Scythe réussit à avoir des rapports intimes avec une Amazone et elle lui fait un signe de la main (τῇ δὲ χειρί) en l’exhortant à venir le lendemain avec un ami et en lui donnant à entendre (σημαίνουσα) qu’elle amènera aussi une amie. À partir de ce moment, les Scythes et les Amazones s’unissent et, au bout de quelque temps, les femmes apprennent la langue scythe, car les hommes ne peuvent comprendre la leur. Une fois que la compréhension mutuelle est possible, ils accordent les termes de leur vie commune, d’où naîtra le peuple des Sauromates. En raison de leur origine, pour Hérodote, les Sauromates parlent une variante incorrecte de la langue scythe, car les Amazones ne réussirent jamais à la maîtriser. Dans ce cas là, le processus finit par la création d’une communauté monolingue, qui se sert d’une langue mélangée, créée sur la base de la langue scythe. Néanmoins, pour y aboutir, une phase de bilinguisme est nécessaire. Dans le récit des Sauromates, l’apprentissage d’une langue étrangère se réalise aussi dans le cadre de mariages mixtes, mais il est intéressant de souligner que dans ce cas l’intercompréhension verbale n’est pas une condition requise, car les unions entre Scythes et Amazones ont lieu bien avant qu’ils puissent se comprendre mutuellement, comme on vient de le montrer. Toutefois la coexistence stable et la nécessité de réglementer la situation ont fini par pousser les femmes à apprendre la langue scythe. Il s’agit bien entendu d’un mythe. Cependant, la connaissance de la langue de l’autre est presque indispensable dans d’autres contextes de communication bien réels. Tel est le cas des relations diplomatiques et commerciales.

20

Oller Guzmán 2013b, 192–96. Sur la construction du mythe à propos de l’origine des Sauromates et sa diffusion parmi les savants modernes, cf. Ivantchik 2013. 21

84

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

En ce qui concerne les premières, Mithridate, on l’a vu, tirait profit des ses capacités linguistiques comme instrument pour consolider son pouvoir. Dans l’Égypte des Lagides, Cléopâtre VII avait aussi appris plusieurs langues et pouvait parler sans interprète aux diplomates, ce qui lui donna un avantage précieux (Plutarque Ant. 17). Mais c’est surtout dans le contexte des échanges commerciaux que les capacités linguistiques étaient particulièrement requises. COMMERCE ET COMPÉTENCES LANGAGIÈRES Lors de la visite de Dion de Pruse à Olbia, vers la moitié du Ier s. ap. J.-C., les ravages dus à l’incursion des Gètes dans la ville sont encore visibles. Suite à l’attaque barbare, non seulement les bâtiments et les infrastructures urbaines furent clairement endommagés, mais les commerçants grecs avaient cessé de fréquenter son port, parce que, entre autres, ils n’y trouvaient plus des individus qui parlaient la même langue, ils n’étaient pas ὁμοφώνοι (Dion Chrysostome 36. 5). Ce passage met en évidence l’importance d’une lingua franca pour faciliter la compréhension mutuelle lorsqu’il s’agit d’affaires commerciales parmi des populations de langue non grecque, du moins à partir du moment où la complexité du commerce requiert la participation de plusieurs agents et que le transfert de biens se fait à moyenne et longue distance.22 Or, les lettres privées grecques à contenu commercial de la péninsule Ibérique et de la région nord-pontique montrent que ce moment était déjà arrivé vers la fin du VIe s. av. J.-C.23 Il faut dire que dans ces lettres d’affaires, à notre connaissance, il n’y a aucune mention d’un phénomène de bilinguisme, voire de multilinguisme, dans le cadre d’un échange commercial. Pourtant la présence d’individus avec des noms non grecs, qui sont apparemment bien intégrés dans le système de l’emporion archaïque,24 nous laisse deviner de véritables enjeux linguistiques pour les marchands grecs. Ils devaient du moins se procurer des interprètes de manière à garantir des négociations réussies ou même des voyages d’affaires plus sûrs à travers les territoires indigènes. On en a vu plusieurs exemples dans les pages précédentes.

22

Sur ce passage, Oller Guzmán 2013a. Wilson 1997–98, 53; Faraguna 2002, 240; Dana 2007, 91. 24 C’est le cas de Basped-, pour la lettre d’Emporion, cf. Santiago Álvarez 2013, 215–21, ou de Matasys, pour la lettre de Bérézan, cf. Oller Guzmán 2013a, 85–86. C’est le cas aussi des témoins au prénom non grec dans le document de Pech-Maho, cf. de Hoz 1999b, 72–73; Santiago Álvarez 2013, 224–30. 23

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

85

Or, ce n’est que dans quelques inscriptions plus tardives qu’on trouve la preuve effective de l’apprentissage des langues de la part des marchands, bien que les niveaux de langue acquis soient très variables: ainsi, par exemple, sur une amphore punique tripolitaine trouvée à Emporion et datée de la première moitié du IIe s. av. J.-C., on peut lire en grec le timbre Μάγων,25 un nom punique des plus fréquents qui est attesté très souvent sur des cols d’amphores fabriquées à Carthage en écriture punique.26 Dans ce cas, le fabricant s’est contenté d’inscrire le timbre en alphabet grec sûrement pour rivaliser dans le marché international avec d’autres produits marqués en grec. Le geste est très simple, mais nécessaire si l’on veut s’établir dans les marchés extérieurs. Or, il arrive aussi que le marchand ‘apprend’ carrément à parler la langue ou les langues de sa clientèle potentielle: ainsi dans une inscription bilingue de Palerme (IG XIV 297 = CIL X 7296), dont la datation se situerait autour du début de notre ère, un tailleur de pierres fait de la publicité pour son atelier en grec et en latin, mais avec des erreurs grammaticales si flagrantes dans les deux langues qu’on a suggéré qu’il s’agit en réalité d’un artisan d’origine punique s’adressant à sa clientèle.27 Ce ne sont que deux exemples, quoique très illustratifs, de l’importance accordée à la connaissance des langues étrangères pour la réussite des entreprises commerciales sur un marché international. Bien que dans les deux cas ce soit un marchand punique qui s’adapte à la réalité linguistique de sa clientèle, très probablement les commerçants grecs ont également déployé des stratégies similaires pour pénétrer sur les marchés étrangers. Jusqu’ici on a surtout vu des pratiques privées, mais nous avons aussi quelques exemples d’initiatives ‘publiques’ concernant l’apprentissage des langues. Ainsi Hérodote, dans son récit sur les mercenaires ioniens et cariens établis dans la vallée du Nil dans les environs de Bubastis, rapporte-t-il que Psammétique envoya auprès des Ioniens des enfants égyptiens afin qu’ils apprennent la langue grecque et deviennent des interprètes (Hérodote 2. 154. 2). Compte tenu de l’importance du comptoir emporique de Naukratis à l’époque, les intérêts commerciaux devaient être à l’origine de cette initiative du pharaon.

25

IGEP 122.1. Empereur et Hesnard 1987, 39; pour les exemplaires attestés en péninsule Ibérique, voir Aranegui Gascó 2000; Rodrigo et al. 2015, 41–43. 27 Tribulato 2011, 138. 26

86

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

CONCLUSIONS En conclusion, les Grecs établis dans les zones périphériques telles que la région nord-pontique ou la péninsule Ibérique ont dû faire face à une réalité multilingue où la langue grecque était clairement minoritaire. Cette situation a mené forcément à la promotion de l’apprentissage des langues du côté grec et indigène. Le phénomène du bilinguisme est attesté principalement dans le cadre des mariages mixtes, qui pouvaient parfois aboutir à la création de communautés avec un mélange de langues. Les sources en donnent plusieurs exemples en mer Noire. Cependant, le bilinguisme est aussi indirectement mentionné lorsque les sources soulignent le rôle des interprètes pour la réussite des échanges commerciaux en région coloniale, notamment nord-pontique, ce qui nous laisse supposer l’intérêt des marchands pour se procurer l’aide d’individus polyglottes, dont la compétence dans les langues locales leur permettait de s’introduire sur les marchés indigènes. Alors comme maintenant, l’idée fondamentale était de garantir la compréhension mutuelle afin de faciliter la négociation en suscitant la confiance de la clientèle ou des intermédiaires et en assurant autant que possible le transport et la distribution des produits sur les marchés locaux.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE Alemany, A. 2000: Sources on the Alans. A Critical Compilation (Handbuch der Orientalistik Abt. 8; Handbook of Uralic Studies 5) (Leyde/Boston/Cologne). Aquilué, X., Castanyer, P., Santos, M. et Tremoleda, J. 2010: ‘Grecs et indigènes aux origines de l’enclave phocéenne d’Emporion’. Dans Tréziny, H. (éd.), Grecs et indigènes de la Catalogne à la Mer Noire (Actes des rencontres du programme européen Ramses, 2006–2008) (Bibliothèque d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 3) (Aix-en-Provence), 65–78. Aranegui Gascó, C. 2002: ‘Las ánforas con la marca ΜΑΓΩΝ’. Dans Rivet, L. et Sciallano, M. (éd.), Vivre, produire et échanger: reflets méditerranéens. Mélanges offerts à Bernard Liou (Archéologie et histoire romaine 8) (Montagnac), 409–16. Avram, A. 2012: ‘Le rôle des époikoi dans la colonisation grecque en mer Noire: quelques études de cas’. Pallas 89, 197–215. Bakker, E.J. 2010: A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language (Malden, MA/Oxford). Bel Habib, I. 2011: ‘Multilingual Skills provide Export Benefits and Better Access to New Emerging Markets’. Sens public. International Web Journal 2011.10, 1–27 (16 février 2016). Bresson, A. 2003: ‘Merchants and Politics in Ancient Greece: Social and Economic Aspects’. Dans Zaccagnini, C. (éd.), Mercanti e politica nel Mondo Antico (Saggi di storia antica 21) (Rome), 139–63.

LES DÉFIS LINGUISTIQUES DANS LE CADRE DE LA COLONISATION IONIENNE

87

Chiai, G.F. 2006: ‘Völker, Sprachen und Kulturen der Troas in der archaischen Zeit (9.–8. Jh. v. Chr.)’. Dans Olshausen, E. et Sonnabend, H. (éd.), “Troianer sind wir gewesen” – Migrationen in der antiken Welt (Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 8, 2002) (Geographica Historica 21) (Stuttgart), 276–90. Dana, M. 2007: ‘Lettres grecques dialectales nord-pontiques (sauf IGDOP 23–26)’. Revue des études anciennes 109.1, 75–76. de Boer, J.G. 2015: ‘Sinope and Colchis: colonisation, or a Greek population in “poleis barbaron”’. Dans Tsetskhladze, G.R., Avram, A. et Hargrave, J.F. (éd.), The Danubian Lands between the Black, Aegean and Adriatic Seas (7th Century BC–10th Century AD) (Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Belgrade, 17–21 September 2013) (Oxford), 73–80. de Hoz, J. 1993: ‘La lengua y la escritura ibéricas, y las lenguas de los íberos’. Dans Untermann, J. et Villar, F. (éd.), Lengua y cultura en la Hispania prerromana (Actas del V Coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la Península Ibérica, Colonia, 25–28 de noviembre de 1989) (Acta Salmanticensia. Estudios filológicos 251) (Salamanca), 635–66. —. 1999a: ‘Identité-différenciation au travers des témoignages linguistiques et alphabétiques: le monde celtique et ibère’. Dans Confini e frontiera nella Grecità d’Occidente (Atti del trenta-settesimo convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 3–6 ottobre 1997) (Tarente), 213–46. —. 1999b: ‘Los negocios del señor Heronoiyos. Un documento mercantil, jonio clásico temprano, del sur de Francia’. Dans López Férez, J.A. (éd.), Desde los poemas homéricos hasta la prosa griega del siglo IV d.C.: Veintiséis estudios filológicos (Estudios de filología griega 4) (Madrid), 61–90. —. 2005: ‘Epigrafías y lenguas en contacto en la Hispania antigua’. Dans Acta Palaeohispanica IX (Actas del IX coloquio sobre lenguas y culturas paleohispánicas. Barcelona, 20–24 de octubre de 2004) (= Palaeohispanica 5) (Saragosse), 57–97. —. 2010: Historia lingüística de la Península Ibérica en la Antigüedad 1: Preliminares y el mundo meridional prerromano (Manuales y anejos de “Emérita” 50) (Madrid). Empereur, J.-Y. et Hesnard, A. 1987: ‘Les amphores héllenistiques’. Dans Lévêque, P. et Morel, J.-P. (éd.), Céramiques hellénistiques et romaines, t. 2 (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 331; Centre de recherches d’histoire ancienne 70) (Paris), 10–72. Faraguna, M. 2002. ‘Commercio, scrittura, pratiche giuridiche. Recenti studi sull’«emporía» greca’. Dike 5, 237–54. Felicia, C. 2009: ‘Les langues étrangères comme facteurs d’avantage concurrentiel dans une économie globalisée’. Annals of the Faculty of Economics 1.1, 526–32. Heubeck, A., West, S. et Hainsworth, J.B. 1990: A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey 1: Introduction and Books 1–8 (Oxford). How, W.W. et Wells, J. 1967: A Commentary on Herodotus 1: Books 1–4 (Oxford). Ivantchik, A.I. 2013: ‘Amazonen, Skythen und Sauromaten: Alte und moderne Mythen’. Dans Schubert, C. et Weiss, A. (éd.), Amazonen zwischen Griechen und Skythen: Gegenbilder in Mythos und Geschichte (Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 310) (Berlin/Boston), 73–87. Oller Guzmán, M. 2013a: ‘Quelques réflexions autour du commerce grec au littoral septentrional de la Mer Noire d’après l’épigraphie (VIe–IVe siècles av. J.-C.)’.

88

MARTA OLLER GUZMÁN

Dans Tsetskhladze, G.R., Atasoy, S., Avram, A., Dönmez, Ş. et Hargrave, J.F. (éd.), The Bosporus: Gateway between the Ancient West and East (1st Millennium BC–5th Century AD) (Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on Black Sea Antiquities, Istanbul, 14th–18th September 2009) (BAR International Series 2517) (Oxford), 83–87. —. 2013b: ‘Griegos e indígenas en Empórion (siglos VI–IV a.C.): un estado de la cuestión’. Dans Santiago Álvarez, R.A. et Oller Guzmán, M. (éd.), Contacto de poblaciones y extranjería en el mundo griego antiguo: Estudio de fuentes (Faventia Suppl. 2) (Bellaterra), 187–202. Rodrigo, E., Carreras, C. et Porcheddu, V. 2015: ‘Marques africanes i ròdies de Can Tacó, Barcelona (Catalunya)’. Pyrenae 46.2, 31–47. Santiago Álvarez, R.A. 2013: ‘Comercio profesional: infraestructura personal y operacional. Repaso de léxico y selección de inscripciones’. Dans Santiago Álvarez, R.A. et Oller Guzmán, M. (éd.), Contacto de poblaciones y extranjería en el mundo griego antiguo: Estudio de fuentes (Faventia Suppl. 2) (Bellaterra), 205–31. Signes Codoñer, J. 2004: Escritura y literatura en la Grecia arcaica (Akal. Serie interdisciplinar 235) (Madrid). Tribulato, O. 2011: ‘The Stone-Cutter’s Bilingual Inscription from Palermo (IG XIV 297 = CIL X 7296): A New Interpretation’. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 177, 131–40. Tsetskhladze, G.R. 1998: ‘Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Stages, Models, and Native Population’. Dans Tsetskhladze, G.R. (éd.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area: Historical Interpretation of Archaeology (Historia Einzelschriften 121) (Stuttgart), 9–68. Vachtina, M.J. 2007: ‘Greek archaic orientalising pottery from the Barbarian sites of the forest-steppe zone of the northern Black Sea coastal region’. Dans Gabrielsen, V. et Lund, J. (éd.), The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and Interregional Economic Exchanges (Black Sea Studies 6) (Aarhus), 23–37. Van Compernolle, R. 1983: ‘Femmes indigènes et colonisateurs’. Dans Forme di contatto e processi di transformazione nelle società antiche (Atti del convegno di Cortona, 1981) (Collection de l’École française de Rome 67) (Pise/Rome), 1033–49. Wilson, J.P. 1997–98: ‘The “Illiterate” Trader?’. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 42, 29–53.

THE WESTERN ANATOLIAN LITTORAL FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE END OF THE DARK AGES: THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE* Yaşar Erkan ERSOY

Abstract Clazomenae in North Ionia provides a long history of occupation from the 4th millennium BC onwards. This aspect makes the site exceptional, particularly for tracing and evaluating its development throughout its history, by analysis in relation to other centres located on the west coast of Anatolia as well as the Aegean. In separate headings below, major characteristics of Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Clazomenae are discussed. The most important contribution of the site is the diversity of the data from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Ages. Stratified deposits dating to the 12th–10th centuries BC suggest that there was a continuity at the site during the Bronze Age to Iron Age transition, and this feature makes it similar to various sites in mainland Greece during the period concerned. The discovery of a pottery installation dating to the early 10th century BC, from a period of which the physical evidence of manufacture is so limited, is a welcome contribution. Also, the excavation of the Iron Age cemetery, located at the western limits of the Archaic settlement, provides fresh data for understanding and constructing social organisation and cultural changes. The Iron Age burial ground in the area where the fortification wall of the 7th-century city passed through appears to have coincided directly with the overall layout of the city that was then reorganised following this major defence initiative.

In contrast to the wealthy archaeological data compiled from various sites in mainland Greece and the central Aegean islands relating to the Early Iron Age, the situation for the same period in the western Anatolian littoral is rather disappointing. Among the reasons that evidently create such a poor state of

* I would like to express my sincere thanks to the organisers of the conference, both for inviting me and for their kind hospitality. I am also grateful to Gocha Tsetskhladze for his extreme patience in the process of the preparation of my contribution. I also wish to thank to Rik Vaessen, Elif Koparal, Hayat Erkanal, Ayşegül Aykurt and Vasıf Şahoğlu for their comments and suggestions and also for the visual material of Liman Tepe/Bronze Age Clazomenae used in my paper. The overall results relating to Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Clazomenae are based upon the evidence gathered up to the 2016 campaign at the site. In 2017, architectural remains of the Late Bronze were identified under the Early Iron Age structures in the South Sector near Liman Tepe, but a discussion of these is not incorporated into this paper.

90

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

understanding of cultural dynamics and the material evidence for this period, one may count the lack of long-term research or excavation projects, particularly at the key sites in Aeolis, Ionia as well as Caria and the adjacent islands in the south-eastern Aegean sphere. Moreover, the absence of extensive studies devoted to the pottery groups from the earlier excavations in Ionia make the situation far more disappointing. Aeolis, in particular, can be named almost as terra incognita for the 2nd millennium BC as well as the Early Iron Age. For many sites in the region, we lack physical evidence related to the Archaic period; for some even their locations are dubious or questionable. In this region, Panaztepe and Cyme stand in a different category. Panaztepe, located quite close to the modern course of the Hermos river, is extremely rewarding, especially for the Middle as well as the Late Bronze Age. Largescale excavations in the cemeteries of the site produced numerous graves accompanied by various goods, mostly pottery, including Aegean decorated styles, as well as plain wares associated with local workshops of western Anatolia.1 Among the other finds are personal objects, made of metal and glass, as well as bronze weaponry, seals and also exotic artefacts like cylinder seals and scarabs originating from Syria, the southern Levant or Egypt.2 The presence of these items suggests that the local elites at Panaztepe were able to acquire a variety of imported luxuries from overseas. Although it is not yet proven with geomorphological studies, the topographical position of Panaztepe suggests that it was a harbour town, on a small offshore island, which was apparently not that far distant from the mainland. The occupation history of the site goes back to the 3rd millennium BC, but the Early Bronze Age remains are extremely limited and restricted to isolated pottery finds without an association to any architectural remains.3 One of the major contributions of Panaztepe excavations to the Bronze Age archaeology of western Anatolia is the substantial evidence gathered at the site dating to the Middle Bronze Age. Under the Late Bronze Age burials of the West Cemetery is a well-preserved domestic quarter, which revealed two phases and was composed of multi-roomed units. There are also cobbled roads running between individual complexes, which were sometimes equipped with 1 Apart from the brief annual reports published in the Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı volumes, the most comprehensive study devoted to the Late Bronze Age burials at Panaztepe is by the director of the project (see Erkanal-Öktü 2008, 72–84; 2018). 2 Erkanal-Öktü 2008, 80–84 and figs. 14a–b; Çınardalı Karaaslan 2012; Vaessen 2016, 48. 3 During the test excavations in the area named as the Harbour Town, mixed pottery ranging in date from the Early Bronze Age to the late 2nd millennium BC is compiled in some trenches (see Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2010, 109). Also for the depas amphikypellon of Early Bronze Age II, which came from a later context in the same area, see Erkanal-Öktü 2000, 280, 285, figs. 2–3.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

91

ovens. This level, according to the pottery found in these remains, is attributed to the Middle Bronze Age I period and dated to 2000–1850 BC.4 Unfortunately, domestic evidence dating to the Late Bronze Age was uncovered in only limited areas and so far all the architectural remains come from the ‘Harbour Town’, which was revealed on the slope and the flat terrain to the east of the hill. The stratigraphy of the structures suggests the existence of five individual architectural phases from this period and supports the chronology of the Late Bronze Age burials uncovered at the site.5 Within the limits of the excavations on the acropolis, however, no evidence was found contemporary with the graves of the Late Bronze Age. Remains of a multi-roomed complex exposed in the southern end of the acropolis seem to have been quite impressive in terms of its layout. This complex was seriously disturbed during the 6th century; the available finds, although limited in number, point the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC for its chronology.6 There is hardly any archaeological evidence dating to the Early Iron Age at Panaztepe. An architectural level with two individual phases, identified during the excavations of the Harbour Town, produced a rather well-preserved multiroomed complex. Unfortunately, no small finds or pottery associated with these structures have so far been published; therefore, defining the chronological limits of this Iron Age activity is hardly possible.7 In the recent excavations on the hilltop at Panaztepe, almost no material evidence was found from a period prior to the 8th century BC. The excavators at Panaztepe also initiated a regional survey in the area. Although full-scale results of this project are yet unpublished, only one sherd of a skyphos decorated with compass-drawn full circles was found.8 Apart from this piece, the earliest decorated pottery of the Iron Age is once again from the 8th century BC. 4 Erkanal-Öktü 2004, 247–48; Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2005, 26–27; 2006, 193–95, 198–203, plans 2–4, figs. 4–9; 2007, 396–408; 2010, 105–09, 113, fig. 6, 116, plan 4; 2011, 21, 23, plan 2, 25–27, figs. 1–5; 2012, 419–29, 432–35, figs. 1–7. 5 For a discussion of the Late Bronze Age levels revealed on the flat terrain labelled Harbour Town, see Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2008, 22–32, 34–35, plans 4–6, 37, figs. 3–5; 2009, 476–88, 490–96, plans 5–9, figs. 4–6; 2011, 14–15; Çınardalı Karaaslan 2008, 62–66. 6 Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2014, 25–26, 31–32, figs. 3–4; Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2015, 607, 610, fig. 2. 7 In the preliminary reports, the dating of the Iron Age level of the Harbour Town (Level IV) is not consistent. In some reports, Geometric is used for this level (see Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2009, 474–75); in the others specifically Late Geometric is stated (Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2006, 192–93; 2007, 394). On the other hand, in the preliminary reports of 2008, pottery finds associated with the earlier phase of Level IV is dated explicitly to the Early Protogeometric period (Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı-Karaaslan 2008, 24). Çınardalı Karaaslan, however, in the overall discussion of the architectural remains and the stratigraphy of the Harbour Town at Panaztepe dates the pottery from the earlier phase of this level to Early Geometric to Late Geometric periods (Çınardalı Karaaslan 2008, 60–61). 8 İren 2008a, 31–32, fig. 2.3, no. 5, 2.5, no. 3.

92

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

The second site, Cyme, also located in the southern half of Aeolis, is one of the few sites in the region under investigation. This vast city, which is unfortunately under threat of industrial development, produced substantial evidence especially from the burial grounds surrounding the ancient settlement. The salvage projects directed by the Izmir Museum staff, in areas registered as third-grade archaeological zones in the territory of Cyme, produced substantial funerary activity, mostly dating to the Late Classical and the Hellenistic periods.9 The earliest remains uncovered at Cyme do not belong to a period before the late 8th century BC. Among these finds, Euboean imports found along with the local Late Geometric-style vases are quite interesting for showing the traffic between Euboea and western Asia Minor during the 8th century.10 If we put aside these two cases in Aeolis proper, there is extremely limited archaeological evidence dating especially to the Early Iron Age in the region.11 When we look at Ionia itself, the current state of research results is more diverse than Aeolis, particularly for the 2nd as well as the early 1st millennium BC, and the data is gathered from settlements, sanctuaries and finally burial grounds. Four sites, namely Miletus and Samos in the south and Colophon and Clazomenae in the north, stand at the forefront because of the relatively diverse archaeological evidence from the periods in question. Furthermore, new excavation projects initiated recently at Erythrae and Teos and the renewed mission at Old Smyrna may shed further light on various problems related to the early history and archaeology of the region.12

9 For the preliminary reports of these salvage excavations, see Ünlü and Özsaygı 2007; Küçükgüney and Tunç Altun 2009; Çırak and Kaya 2011; Korkmaz and Gürman 2012; Konak Tarakcı and Selçuk 2013; Atıcı and Karakaş 2014; Korkmaz and Küçükgüney 2016; Atıcı and Beyazçam 2016. Among the many burials excavated in the various necropoleis of Cyme, some are dated to the early 6th century. For the re-evaluation of some Archaic graves at the site, see İren 2008b. 10 Frasca 1998; 2001. 11 Also for the discussion of the Early Iron Age pottery from south Aeolis, including isolated finds from Pitane, Cyme, Larisa and environs of Menemen/Panaztepe, see İren 2008a, 29–32. 12 The evidence related with the early history and archaeology of Erythrae is still quite poor. Earlier material essentially comes from the excavations on the acropolis and among it no pottery can yet be dated prior to the late 8th/early 7th centuries BC. Likewise, in the recent excavations at Teos no substantial evidence was yet gathered from the Archaic period. In the early campaigns at the site, a pot burial belonging to a young infant was found in Trench E, close to the theatre (Öğün 1964, 117, 121 fig. 9). Apart from the bands, there is actually no other decoration on the vase. The overall shape, however, suggests a Late Protogeometric if not a Sub-Protogeometric date for the piece. Among the material found in the Trench E, still kept in the Izmir Museum, no Protogeometric finds are attested. I would like to thank Seval Konak Tarakcı from the Izmir Museum, who studied the finds from the older excavations at Teos for kindly sharing this with me. Also in the surveys at the site, there is no ceramic material datable to a period earlier than the late 8th century.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

93

For cult activities, archaeological evidence comes mostly from the sanctuary of Apollo at Klaros near Colophon, and the Artemision at Ephesus further to the south. Although the available literary sources indirectly suggest a Bronze Age date for formation of the cult at Klaros, the excavations do not provide solid evidence for this argument. In the recent excavations at the sanctuary, directly over the bedrock was found a layer of about 0.4 m in thickness, mixed with charcoal ash and bones as well as pottery.13 There are apparently no solid architectural remains associated with it, and the pottery finds, quite fragmentary in nature, suggest the second half of the 11th century for its date (Early Protogeometric period).14 In the same fill were found a few pottery sherds which at first glance look Mycenaean, such as the fragment of a closed vessel, perhaps a stirrup jar, decorated with freely drawn semi-circles on the shoulder.15 Over the ashy layer directly resting upon the bedrock, which produced mixed pottery ranging in date from the second half of the 11th to the late 8th century BC, comes the earliest architectural edifice in the sanctuary, which is a roughly circular structure around 6.3 m in diameter and about 1.2 m high.16 Its exterior was made of finely cut ashlar blocks and inside it was left rough, indicating that it was designed to be closed following its filling process with pottery, metal artefacts and especially burnt remains of animals sacrificed in the sanctuary. It is, therefore, likely that prior to the formation of a proper structure in the sanctuary, cult practices took place in the open air. Among the metal artefacts found in the circular structure mostly filled with stones were two bronze knives, and a fibula as well as a stone axe, which may belong to a date earlier than 1200 BC.17 From the fill inside the structure, and especially through its bottom, numerous pottery, bronze and iron artefacts and fragments of terracotta bulls and horses as well as animal bones were gathered. Pottery finds in particular suggest a date ranging between the Protogeometric period and the middle of the 7th century BC.18 Akar Tanrıver argues that, 13

Akar Tanrıver 2009, 75; Şahin et al. 2005, 293; Zunal 2016, 172–82. Akar Tanrıver 2009, 75, n. 281 and pls. 110, 141 (BE 121). 15 Akar Tanrıver 2009, 75, n. 287, pls. 107, 158 (BE 108). The date one may postulate for the piece ranges in between the Late Helladic IIIC:2 and Early Protogeometric. 16 Akar Tanrıver 2009, 77–82; Zunal 2014a, 9–12. 17 For bronze knives, see Verger 2003, 173–74, 177, fig. 57.1, 2; for the fibula, see Verger 2003, 174 and 177, fig. 57.3; for the stone axe, see Şahin 2007, 346, 350, fig. 1. 18 For selected pottery found inside the circular structure, see Zunal 2014b; 2016, 173–89. Zunal suggests that there was a clear stratification inside it and he dates the pottery found in the lowermost fill exclusively to the SM/Early Protogeometric period (Zunal 2014b, 112–13). In his current paper, Zunal suggests that structure served as an altar and it was used from around 1100 and throughout the Protogeometric and Geometric periods according to pottery and other artefacts found in it (Zunal 2016, 173–74 and n. 3). Akar Tanrıver, however, rejects the altar theory for the function of the complex and suggests that it was evidently built for storing goods accumulated in 14

94

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

rather than an altar proper, this circular edifice was built for storing sacred relics and remains of animal sacrifices in the area like a time-capsule prior to the formation of the proper cult in the sanctuary, and compares it with stonepaved platforms, attested at various sites in the Aegean such as Asine, Nichoria, Mycenae, Cyme in Euboea and finally Troy.19 In all of these examples, stone circles are definitely not as high as at Klaros, all are paved with stones and, as indicated by the archaeological material found around them, they were used as places for rituals associated with ancestor cult or funerary meals. Over the remains of this earlier structure was built a rectangular altar of the Archaic temple, which seem to have been constructed in the late 6th century. It is argued that the cult activity in the Artemision at Ephesus – according to some finds including pottery, terracotta figurines and bronzes, discovered under the early peripteral temple – goes back to the Late Bronze Age date. This assumption, however, is seriously challenged and some of these early finds are now attributed to the Iron Age.20 Above this level is a layer where we find substantial archaeological material, including decorated pottery of Protogeometric style, simple handmade pots, some terracotta figurines and, finally, numerous bones of sacrificed animals.21 It is argued that the existence of Attic style examples among the decorated pottery from this particular period supports the Athenian origin of the colonists who reached Ephesus during the Ionian migration.22 This suggestion not only confirms the migration as an historical reality but also validates written accounts claiming the Athenian origin

the open-air spot dedicated to Apollo prior to the construction of the proper altar for the deity. She also stresses the long timespan of the pottery and the other finds inside the structure and postulates a chronology ranging in between the 11th and the mid-7th century BC (Akar Tanrıver 2009, 77–78). 19 Akar Tanrıver 2009, 77–82. For the discussion of the circular platforms with stone paving, attested at many sites in the Aegean during the Early Iron Age, see Aslan and Rose 2013, 11–15 and figs. 5–7 and n. 18. 20 Unfortunately the entire assemblage from this particular level was not published, but, in the overview of the cult area in the early periods, it is stated that around 60 sherds were found in this particular layer. See Forstenpointner et al. 2008, 43, fig. 11; Bammer 1999. Also for the later dating of some material formerly attributed to the Late Bronze Age, see Klebinder-Gauss 2003; Niemeier 2007a, 54–55, n. 202. 21 The study of faunal remains in the sanctuary during the Early Iron Age revealed interesting results. Among the sacrificed animals, the majority of bones belong to young piglets. Bones of puppies in the same deposits indicate a local Lelegian or Carian character of the cult and the dedicators in the sanctuary. In addition to these, bones of bears and even lions recall the practice and the rural characteristics of the cult activity in the sanctuary, which was also the case for the Artemis cult at Kalapodi in Boeotia, see Felsch 2001, 195–96; Archibald 2013, 20–21; Lemos 2012b, 19–21. 22 Kerschner 2003, 248–49; 2006, 369–74.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

95

of the settlers reaching Ephesus.23 This presumption, however, may be identified as an attempt to equate archaeological culture with an ethnic group, and should be treated with caution.24 The small handmade jugs, quite coarse in appearance, found along with decorated pottery of Greek style, may perhaps be identified as dedications made by local groups around the site, particularly for a deity related to water.25 As in Klaros further to the north-west, it is highly likely that there was no permanent device in the sanctuary other than a spot, namely an altar, marking the area for various votive and animal sacrifices. Current excavations at Clazomenae, especially, provide more diverse and substantial archaeological data both for the domestic as well as the funerary sphere, particularly for the Early Iron Age. Another unique characteristic of Clazomenae, in comparison with the other sites in the region, is that it had a long occupation history, which evidently goes back to the 4th millennium BC. This long sequence of occupation makes Clazomenae extremely distinctive, particularly for tracing the development of the site, and also understanding the cultural characteristics and the dynamics of the community from the Late Chalcolithic through to the end of the Classical period. The existence of a Bronze Age occupation at Ionic Clazomenae, located on the southern coast of the deep Izmir Gulf, was first identified in the 1960s by Akurgal on the basis of the pottery gathered at Liman Tepe, which was 23 In contrast to earlier scholarship, which validates historical sources and attributes an Athenian origin for the settlers (i.e. Desborough 1964, 163, 254; Kerschner 2006, 369–74), the historicity of the so-called Ionian migration is seriously questioned after the results of new excavations in the region. Lemos argues that, since the amount of ‘Submycenaean’ and Protogeometric ceramics found so far on the west coast of Asia Minor are extremely limited, they are, therefore, very difficult to associate with the large-scale Ionian migration mentioned in the texts. She suggests that a migration from the Greek mainland to the west coast of Asia Minor, if it ever happened, took place in a number of waves during the 12th century (Lemos 2007, 713–20). Crielaard, on the other hand, completely rejects the Ionian migration as an historical event and argues that the high degree of continuity at Ionian sites during the Bronze–Iron Age transition is similar to the sites in mainland Greece and therefore must be the result of an intensive trade and communication between different parts of the Aegean rather than mass movement of population (see Crielaard 2009, 49–57). Especially for the critical assessment of historical sources and further references related with the so-called Ionian migrations, see Hall 2000, 51–56; Mac Sweeney 2013, 157–73; Vaessen 2014, 224–29. In the same context, for the negative appraisal of the historical and archaeological ‘reality’ of the Aeolian migrations, see Rose 2008. For the discussion supporting the historical accounts of a migration to north-western Anatolia during the early 1st millennium BC, see Hertel 2007, 104–06, 116–20; 2008a, 187–93. 24 For further discussion and the critical analysis of archaeological evidence and the question of ethnicity, see Hall 2000, 131–35; 2002, 19–22. 25 Among the handmade vessels, small flasks with pointed bottoms find their closest parallels not in the Aegean islands or mainland Greece but in western and central Anatolia, including Gordion and Hattuša, see Kerschner 2003, 248–49, pl. 39.2–4, 7–8; Forstenpointner et al. 2008, 36, figs. 13, 18.

96

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

apparently the heart of Bronze and Iron Age Clazomenae.26 In order to understand the historical and stratigraphic sequence of the settlement, the first systematic excavations at the site took place in the Liman Tepe district of Clazomenae in 1979–81, and it became clear that particularly post-Bronze Age activities at this location were largely disturbed in modern times. These brief excavation campaigns at prehistoric Clazomenae/Liman Tepe were halted at the end of 1982 and then reinitiated in 1992 by Hayat Erkanal and his team from Ankara University as an independent mission. In other words, there are two individual projects, one on Classical Clazomenae and another on Liman Tepe, focusing on the prehistoric period of the same site, by the two independent teams. In the following sections, the overall results gathered from the excavations at Clazomenae, related both to the Bronze and the Early Iron Age will be discussed under separate headings. ARCHAEOLOGY OF PREHISTORIC AND BRONZE AGE LIMAN TEPE/CLAZOMENAE Essentially, seven distinctive occupational phases were identified during the excavations at Liman Tepe/prehistoric Clazomenae. Major highlights of these periods will be discussed in individual headings, below.27 Liman Tepe VII: Transition of Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age I, ca. 3200–3000 BC The earliest human activity at the site, represented by roughly circular storage spaces as well as small, independent curvilinear buildings of a grill plan, which have parallel rows of stones inside, aligned to raise the living floors of them, is attested directly over the bedrock during the excavations of the northern part of the North Sector at Liman Tepe. Associated pottery from these levels suggests a date of the end of the 4th–beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.28 26 A small collection of Mycenaean pottery sherds now kept in the National Museum of Athens and said to have been collected at Clazomenae by Georgios Oikonomos during his brief campaigns at the site in 1921–22, is now rejected and claimed to have been gathered from sites in the Argolid. 27 The stratigraphic sequence and the chronology of Bronze Age occupation of the site is compiled from Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 159, fig. 2; Tuğcu 2012, 17–22; Erkanal 2008c; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2015. 28 See Erkanal and Günel 1997, 314; Erkanal et al. 2016, 331–32, figs. 7–8. Apart from the Late Chalcolithic remains at Liman Tepe, some pottery, evidently pointing to a date of the Late Neolithic period, came to the ground in the loose fillings of the Early Bronze Age buildings. Based upon this material, an older phase, namely Liman Tepe VIII, is defined by Hayat Erkanal. There are, however, yet no architectural remains associated with this period (see Erkanal 1999,

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

97

Also among the pottery collected in the deep layers of the prehistoric mound were some diagnostic pieces, suggesting Middle Chalcolithic period for their chronology.29 Liman Tepe VI: Early Bronze Age I to ca. 3000–2750 BC In ca. 3000 BC, one finds a dramatic change in the overall layout of the settlement. This phase belonging to Early Bronze Age I, labelled as Liman Tepe VI, evidently showed a new architectural concept, in which we notice the abandonment of small independent units and the emergence of long elongated rows of houses with common walls. Another unique aspect of the settlement during this period is the construction of a robust defence wall built in stone, a ramp-like supporting wall made of rubble stones on its exterior, as well as a gateway flanked by two trapezoidal bastions or towers (Fig. 1).30

Fig. 1. Row-houses and the defensive wall of Early Bronze Age I period (Liman Tepe VI) (courtesy of the Liman Tepe Expedition). 326). For the overall characteristics as well as the architecture of the settlements in the region during this period, see Erkanal 2008b, 179–80; Kouka 2009, 141–47; 2014; Horejs and Schwall 2015, 457–67. 29 See Tuncel and Şahoğlu 2018. 30 Kouka 2016, 206, 209 and fig. 9.4, 5.

98

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

These remains, with long houses attached to the fortification wall, were uncovered in the North Sector immediately next to the modern road; and they clearly suggest the growth of the settlement and the rise in the economic wealth of the community during the period concerned. The architectural configuration of the Early Bronze Age I settlement at Liman Tepe, especially with rows of houses attached to the defence wall, enhances the security of the site and restricts access to living units from outside the community. Although a rather small segment of the settlement is exposed by the excavations, it is clear that there is a radial arrangement of the settlement during the Early Bronze Age I. Multi-roomed house blocks of this period with flat roofs, face northward to an open area. In these dwellings, which reached almost 20 m in length, substantial evidence has been gathered suggesting that various production activities took place inside them, including metallurgy (for instance at House 2), textile production (as indicated by numerous terracotta discs from House 3) as well as tool-making from obsidian. In addition to that, the existence of hearths and work platforms, as well as a good amount of pottery found in them, support the domestic function of these lavish structures. These house blocks were evidently used for a rather long period of time and renovated following their destruction by earthquakes. Especially in the final floor levels of some units, rather abundant pottery assemblages, which include Early Cycladic as well as Early Helladic imports along with Melian obsidian, suggest a strong interaction between Clazomenae and the western Aegean during the period.31 This peculiar settlement layout is frequently attested, especially at the coastal and inland sites of western Anatolia during the early 3rd millennium BC and, as the available archaeological evidence indicates, it did not develop locally on the coastal sites but was instead adopted from the inland part of western Anatolia.32

31

Şahoğlu 2011b, 174–75. The layout of the former settlement at Clazomenae, during the Late Chalcolithic period, was composed of small independent units roughly rectangular in shape (Erkanal 2011, 130–31; Erkanal et al. 2016, 331–32, figs. 7–8; Kouka 2009, 144). The same design is also known from Bakla Tepe as well as Çukuriçi Höyük (Şahoğlu and Tuncel 2014, 68–71, and figs. 4–6; Horejs and Schwall 2015, 460–64). In contrast to this, in inland western Anatolia, rows of rectangular structures with lateral walls are first attested at Beycesultan during the Late Chalcolithic period and later on at Küllüoba in transition to the Early Bronze I from the Late Chalcolithic period (Schachner 1999, 110 and fig. 38; Efe 2005, 31 and 38, fig. 3). Also for further discussions related with the advantages of this type of settlement design, which provides a cost-effective solution for living units and enhance the defence of the site, see Ivanova 2013, passim. 32

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

99

Liman Tepe V: Early Bronze Age II (Early)–Early Bronze Age III, ca. 2750–2000 BC In this period, corresponding to early Early Bronze Age II, the settlement underwent a change; but this process appears to have developed gradually. As suggested by imported finds originating from the Cyclades as well as mainland Greece, long row-houses first built during Early Bronze Age I continued to serve to the community during Early Bronze Age II, corresponding to the Liman Tepe V period.33 In the course of time, the defence system of the earlier period was completely abandoned and a new one was built further south. By doing that, the citadel at Liman Tepe was further enlarged towards the south (Liman Tepe V-2, V-1 corresponding to late Early Bronze Age II). The new fortification wall, grandiose in size, was composed of small slabs of local limestone horizontally inserted into the mud-brick core. In addition to the strong wall and a large bastion, a monumental stone-built gateway, providing access to the citadel, was also constructed during the late Early Bronze Age II period.34 This new reorganisation displays enormous initiative by the society and a change in the way the settlement was organised in the course of the Early Bronze Age II. After the construction of the new defence system, the use of row-houses was terminated and multi-roomed, free-standing units were then gradually erected inside the citadel during the advanced stages of Early Bronze Age II (Liman Tepe V-2 and Liman Tepe V-1) and the earlier part of Early Bronze Age III periods (Liman Tepe IV-2). In one of these large and independent structures built around the middle of the fortified peninsula, one finds specialised rooms such as storage facilities along with serving and drinking vessels, phalloi made of clay and stone as well as a clay rhyton in the shape of a bull.35 All these finds suggest that it was a central communal building with a different character from a regular house that may include economic, administrative as well as cultic functions. During the early part of Early Bronze Age III (Liman Tepe IV-2), this large complex fell out of use following the destruction caused by severe fire. During the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, another unique aspect of Clazomenae was the communal initiative taken for defending such a vast area beyond the limits of Liman Tepe proper, which might be termed Lower Town. In the limits of the research, it is yet not known whether it was completed or not, but around 700 m south-west of Liman Tepe, in the area where the defence 33

Şahoğlu 2011b, 174–76; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 161–62. Erkanal 2008b, 182–83 and figs. 4–8. 35 Şahoğlu 2005a, 101–04, fig. 15; 2005b, 350, fig. 3; 2011, 138–39, fig. 3, cat nos. 105–109, 112, 115 and 123. 34

100

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

system of Archaic Clazomenae was investigated, a large bastion was found, as well as a massive wall that was partly disturbed during the construction of the 7th-century fortification (Fig. 2).36 The construction technique of the horseshoe-shaped bastion, with relatively thin but long and rectangular slabs inserted into the mud-brick core, closely follows the one protecting the promontory at Liman Tepe during the late Early Bronze Age II period. Since it was found partly concealed by the Archaic gateway, it is quite obvious that it should be dated earlier than the 7th century. Moreover, in the same area, Iron Age burials as well as a large pottery kiln were discovered around the Archaic city wall. In particular, the setting of the kiln, placed immediately to the south of the bastion, and the large pithos burial uncovered next to the western face of the same tower, suggest that this architectural feature was earlier in date than the Early Iron Age remains in the area (Fig. 3). When the excavation inside the bastion progressed, more evidence was gathered that is crucial for dating this major initiative. The mud-brick core behind the stone face of the tower produced some pottery dating to the late 3rd millennium BC.37 Among this material were fragments of red-slipped and wheel-thrown dishes, one of the most characteristic types of pottery of Troy III, but which was first attested in the middle of the Troy II period. There is also an obvious difference of the masonry between the bastion and the main fortification wall. The bastion itself is similar to the Early Bronze Age II defence system at Liman Tepe promontory. The main wall, facing to the west and running north–south, was built of roughly shaped large boulders of dark colour. According to diagnostic pottery uncovered in the area, especially over the bedrock, it seems quite likely that this major enterprise, aimed at creating a vast defended area in the Lower Town, began during the advanced years of late Early Bronze Age II (Liman Tepe V-2 and V-1) and the earlier part of Early Bronze Age III (Liman Tepe IV-2) periods.38 It is not yet certain whether the site had a dual character in this particular period, with a wall surrounding the promontory at Liman Tepe and the new one protecting the Lower Town. Other than limited pottery coming from loose fillings discussed above, no Bronze Age material or architectural evidence was gathered during the excavations further to the east of the Early Bronze Age defence system; therefore, it is not certain that this enterprise had been accomplished during the late 3rd millennium BC. If such an initiative were 36 For the scope of the settlement during this period, see Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 158, fig. 1. For the preliminary reports on the defence system of the Early Bronze Age Lower Town at Clazomenae, see Ersoy, Güngör and Cevizoğlu 2011, 169–71; Ersoy et al. 2013, 193–95. 37 Ersoy et al. 2013, 193–95, figs. 3–8. 38 For further discussions of the chronology and the development of the site, see Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 162–64.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

Fig. 2. Bastion of the Lower Town of the late Early Bronze Age II period (Liman Tepe V-1) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

101

102

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Fig. 3. Horseshoe-shaped bastion of the Lower Town dating to the late Early Bronze Age II period and the Early Iron Age pithos burial, next to it (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

103

completed, the estimated size of the settlement in the limits of the fortification system would then be approximately 15 ha, quite substantial for the period, especially when compared with many other sites in the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia.39 Unfortunately, the archaeological evidence gathered for Early Bronze Age III is relatively scarce because of the severe destruction of the remains particularly in the North Sector, caused by the reorganisation of the settlement during the Middle Bronze Age. The available evidence, on the one hand, suggests a decline, but also a continuity in terms of the character of the site during this period.40 For instance, there is an open space immediately to the south of the Early Bronze Age II residential complex. This area had been used for communal practices since Early Bronze Age I, and this strongly suggests a continuity for almost an entire millennium. Numerous pits revealed in this quarter, dating to Early Bronze Age III produced archaeological evidence suggesting a ritual character. The copious amount of animal bones, sea shells and cereals, as well as pottery, indicate that they were related to communal feasts at the site. As argued by Kouka, the existence of a tortoise shell in each of the pits was perhaps related to ritual banquets dedicated to life and fertility.41 Liman Tepe III-4–III-1 (Middle Bronze Age I–III, ca. 2000–1600 BC) The culture of the Early Bronze Age III continues into the Middle Bronze Age without a discernible break. At Clazomenae, four major architectural phases are identified as related with the Middle Bronze Age (Liman Tepe III-1–Liman Tepe III-4). Since there is hardly any association between the Anatolian and the Aegean chronologies, especially of mainland Greece and Crete, one is obliged to use a general terminology such as the early, middle and late Middle Bronze Age for the eastern Aegean or correlate certain pottery groups with the individual settlements and sub-periods of Troy, the site identified as the key settlement most thoroughly studied and published in the region. In comparison with the material culture of the Early Bronze Age, the archaeological evidence related to this period in western Anatolia is limited. This is partly due to the fact that overall analysis of the stratigraphy, architectural remains and also pottery groups, uncovered in some of the major sites under investigation, is still lacking, and this definitely causes our fragmentary understanding of interactions 39

Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 158–59, fig. 1. For the built terraces made by rubble stones over the central building complex related with the former period, discussed above, see Erkanal et al. 2003, 433, plan 1, 435, fig. 4; 2004, 178 figs. 6 and 8; Erkanal and Şahoğlu 2016, 164 and fig. 11. 41 Kouka 2011, 47–48; 2013, 573–74. 40

104

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

between the central and the eastern Aegean cultures in this period.42 This situation eliminates the coordination of regional chronologies and leads to a way to less accurately contextualise the material for the individual sites. For the Middle Bronze Age Liman Tepe/Clazomenae, so far only the overall development of the site, based on the stratigraphy and its architectural features have been studied.43 In addition to this, a group of matt-painted pottery, quite likely the product of the Aeginetan workshops, coming from the Middle Bronze Age levels at the site, was published as an article.44 Otherwise, there is, as yet, no study providing the overall shape repertoire of various pottery groups of the period, as well as other small artefacts found at the site.45 Four major phases are identified associated with the Middle Bronze Age (Liman Tepe III-4–III-1). The last two phases, namely Liman Tepe III-1 and III-2 (ca. 1750–1600 BC), are unfortunately severely disturbed and produced only a few scraps of walls and pottery, which is rather fragmentary in nature. The earlier phases of the period, especially the one (Liman Tepe III-4, ca. 2000– 1850 BC) above the Early Bronze Age III (Liman Tepe IV.1) are more rewarding, particularly for identifying the architectural characteristics of the era. Excavations in the North Sector at Liman Tepe yielded oval structures placed around an open area. At least ten different units, all exclusively of curvilinear plan were exposed in that Sector. These large units, roughly 10 × 5 m in dimensions, retained permanent hearths and seemed to have been used for domestic purposes along with some production activities (Fig. 4). Some contain stone 42 For further discussions on problems related with the chronology of the plain pottery from the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, see Roosevelt and Luke 2017, 125–27; Pavúk 2005; 2007; 2010; 2014, 221–38. 43 Tuğcu 2012, 17–80. 44 Günel 2004. At Clazomenae there were also a few fragments of light-on-dark pottery examples, dating to the very late Middle Bronze Age and Early Late Bronze Age; they seem to have been the products of the workshops on the eastern Aegean islands, highly likely based on Kos. This class of pottery is also attested at Iasos in Caria. For further discussions, see Momigliano 2007; 2009, 124–25, 134–35; 2012, 18–19, n. 76, 46–58. 45 For general discussions on different pottery groups found in the various sites of western Anatolia including Liman Tepe, see Günel 1999; Aykurt 2010; 2013. Also for the overall discussion of the chronology of Troy IV–V and VI settlements, corresponding to Early Bronze Age III to Late Bronze Age (mid-15th century BC, also supported by 14C dating), see Pavúk 2014, 389– 405. Also at Iasos, further to the south, recent analysis of the pottery said to have been related with the Middle Bronze Age is now considered to be very late Middle Bronze Age and early Late Bronze Age in date, and these finds also include some Middle Minoan as well as Minoanising imports (Momigliano 2009, 124–37). Other key sites for the period include Panaz Tepe and, particularly for the advanced stages of the Middle Bronze Age, Miletus and Çeşme/Bağlararası. For further references related to Panaztepe see above pp. 90–92 and nn. 4–5. For Miletus, see Raymond 2005; 2009; Kaiser and Raymond 2015, 147–53. For Çeşme-Bağlararası, see Şahoğlu 2007, 310–17; 2015, 599–605. Also, for the overall analysis of the period for western Anatolia, see Kull 1988, 42–75.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

105

Fig. 4. Oval structure from the early phase of the Middle Brinze Age (Liman Tepe III-4) (courtesy of the Liman Tepe Expedition).

paved areas at one short end, which were occasionally raised slightly as a platform. The thickness of the walls ranges between 0.40 and 0.50 m and some blocks of these units were placed vertically, like an orthostate, in order to provide additional support to the structure. In the architecture of the Early Iron Age we will once again observe the same masonry technique in the curvilinear structures, a phenomenon quite well rooted at the site. The entrance to the oval complexes of Middle Bronze Age was made possible by the gateways placed at their short ends. As indicated by different floors of hearths retaining the same location, it is quite obvious that these curvilinear structures were used for an extended period of time. Also, the construction of newer buildings to the same plan, in roughly the same location, superimposed on the former ones, clearly suggests that there was a strong social link and a well-rooted cultural tradition at the site during this period. Unfortunately, the remains of this period exposed in the South Sector at Liman Tepe are relatively poorly understood. This is partly due to the natural slope to the south in the area, which we will discuss below. The existence of architectural remains belonging to different periods and lying roughly in the same horizon supports this argument. Among architectural features revealed around the Early Bronze Age II bastion were some rather robust walls belonging to a multi-roomed structure of a rectilinear plan. According to the small finds, these remains belonged to the earlier phase

106

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

of the Middle Bronze Age level and were perhaps reconstructed as a multistoried structure with a deep cellar in the ground level. The later phase of the same period, particularly in the North Sector, is characterised by a new architectural tradition: the preference of rectilinear plan over the curvilinear one (Liman Tepe III-3, ca. 1850–1750 BC). Some of the structures of this period are rather spacious and ornate, as exemplified by M-71, which also has rather fine stone paving inside the unit.46 Along with rectangular blocks, one finds also a single example of the curvilinear plan that was the hallmark feature of the preceding phase. The last two phases of the Middle Bronze Age Level (Liman Tepe III-2 and III-1) are unfortunately seriously disturbed by the later activities in the area and did not produce anything substantial in terms of architecture. Among the pottery, there are copious amounts of matt-painted examples, related to Aeginetan workshops, and a few Minoan imports.47 Liman Tepe II-3–II-1 (Late Bronze Age, ca. 1400–1150 BC) The Late Bronze Age occupation at Liman Tepe is divided into three major phases (Liman Tepe II-1–II-3). Until the 2006 campaigns, this period at the site was actually the least known because of the disturbances of the topmost layers, particularly in the North Sector at Liman Tepe. The only substantial remains related with the Late Bronze Age come from the south-east corner of the North Sector, which was largely uncovered during the 2006 campaign.48 Other than this area, both small finds and the architectural remains are quite limited, especially in the South Sector. The earliest phase of this period, as supported by the numerous examples of Mycenaean decorated pottery found along with local Anatolian plain wares, is dated to the 14th century BC, according to the Aegean style examples corresponding to the Late Helladic IIIA period. The middle and later phases are correlated with the 13th century BC, according to the Mycenaean-style pottery of Late Helladic IIIB date, and the 12th century by the Late Helladic IIIC early and middle pottery, respectively. In the limits of the excavation there are as yet no architectural remains that can be firmly dated to the 16th and the 15th centuries BC. Also, the ceramics attributable to these centuries are not that substantial among the entire assemblage of Mycenaean decorated pottery at the site. 46

Erkanal et al. 2016, 326–27, 337, fig. 4. See n. 44. 48 For further discussions on the character of the Late Bronze Age remains at Liman Tepe, see Erkanal 2008c; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2011; 2012, passim; 2015, 647–62. 47

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

107

The earliest phase of this period, namely Liman Tepe II-3, provides relatively better information about the layout of the site as well as the organisation of the units. From this particular period, we have a cluster of units composed of rectangular rooms and open courtyards, which are arranged on both sides of the cobbled street about 3 m wide (Fig. 5). There are also narrow alleys, around a metre wide running between each cluster and joining with the street. The open spaces of these structures were used for different activities, including pottery production. Seven kilns from this particular phase are found at the site.49 These examples, which are roughly circular in shape, measure around 1.30 to 1.10 m and have an opening on the west. In none of the examples was the perforated floor preserved, but the supports for it were identified in two instances; according to pottery found in some, they were highly likely to have been used for the production of plain, red-slipped ware.

Fig. 5. Aerial view of the Late Bronze Age domestic quarters (Liman Tepe II-3 and II-2) (courtesy of the Liman Tepe Expedition). 49 Erkanal 2008c, 92–94, 96, figs. 4, 6; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 17–30, pls. 9–11; 2015, 650–55, figs. 5–6. Also for the discussion of the earlier kiln, as well as the associated finds, which date to the beginning to the 2nd millennium BC, see Aykurt and Erkal 2016.

108

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

The middle phase of the Late Bronze Age occupation at the site (Liman Tepe II-2) was severely disturbed during the construction of structures of the latest phase of the same period; nevertheless, it is quite clear that there was no dramatic change in the layout of the settlement. The roads and the alleys were reused and the unit with pithoi continued to serve the community with some modifications. The use of pottery kilns, which are associated with the settlement of the former period, was not continued in this particular phase. The last phase (Liman Tepe II-1), which was dated to the early 12th century BC, is characterised by multi-roomed units of similar design as in the earlier phases of the Late Bronze Age. One of the novel features of this phase is the re-emergence of the curvilinear plan for architecture, which was actually the hallmark at Clazomenae during the Middle Bronze Age. The unit (M50) to this plan, according to diagnostic pottery uncovered within it, was built and used during the Late Helladic IIIC early and middle periods. One also finds a peculiar masonry technique, the use of large blocks vertically placed in the lower courses of walls like orthostates. As we discussed above, this was a common feature of the architecture of the Middle Bronze Age at the site and its re-emergence in the succeeding period argues for a well-rooted tradition at Clazomenae. Although there is no solid statistical evidence for the overall material found in Late Bronze Age contexts at the site, it is beyond question that both imports as well as locally produced examples of Mycenaean decorated pottery are rather minimal among the entire corpus of Late Bronze Age ceramics. The overall pottery related to the Late Bronze Age occupation at Clazomenae is essentially made up of local unpainted wares that include grey ware, orange-brown and red wares as well as gold-wash ware. CLAZOMENAE IN THE EARLY IRON AGE (11TH–8TH CENTURIES BC) The core of the Early Iron Age settlement was once again Liman Tepe and its immediate surroundings. In rather limited areas, the architectural remains of the Early Iron Age are found upon Late Bronze units in the south-east corner of the North Sector. For instance, in Unit M-56, which was constructed in the latest phase of the Late Bronze Age level (LMT II-1), one finds an alteration: the construction of benches inside the structure on the east and west walls of the building.50 In addition, Unit M-52, also exposed in the south-east corner of the North Sector, was likely constructed during this period.51 In the North Sector, the post-Bronze Age remains, labelled Liman Tepe I in the overall 50 51

Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 39–40, pls. 4–5, 8. Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 20–21, pl. 5.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

109

chronological scheme, include everything between the Iron Age and the Roman Imperial period, as exemplified by some cisterns as well as a few inhumation burials and water wells dating to the 6th century BC. The South Sector, an area beyond the limits of the Early Bronze Age II bastion, is much more rewarding for the Early Iron Age, as suggested by rather large and spacious buildings of the period. The disintegrated mud-brick debris once associated with the Early Bronze Age defence wall must have created a slope dropping down dramatically to the south. Because of this peculiar feature, there was hardly any structure postdating the Early as well as the Middle Bronze Ages, immediately next to the horseshoe-shaped bastion. But when we move further to the south, one finds architectural features of the early 1st millennium BC, roughly around the same elevation or even deeper than the Middle Bronze Age remains next to them. There are two rather large curvilinear buildings constructed during the 11th century (Fig. 6). These structures, which were built in close proximity and next to the heart of the 2nd-millennium site argue for the fact that there was probably no break in the occupation or no sharp and dramatic difference in the character of the site as well as the society during this period.

Fig. 6. Aerial view of the Early Iron Age buildings immediately to the south of the Early Bronze Age II bastion at Liman Tepe (curvilinear building, Unit I is on the right, Unit II is on the left and under Unit II lies Unit III with curved corners) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

110

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

The first unit was partly excavated in the 1998 campaign and in the following seasons studied further. Preliminary reports dealing with its architectural features, associated finds and its chronology were presented in various formats.52 Following a long gap, the Clazomenae expedition once again turned to this period and this particular area after the discovery of the Early Iron Age cemetery next to the defence wall of Archaic Clazomenae, which we will discuss below. In 2015, the area adjacent to the first Early Iron Age building was investigated and a new structure, roughly similar in dimensions and also in the same alignment with a curved ending in the west was uncovered. This discovery proves that the Early Iron Age structure that was revealed in the earlier campaigns was not an isolated feature of the period, but instead argues strongly for the area used for habitation during the 2nd millennium BC being also the core of the settlement in the Early Iron Age. We may therefore assume additional buildings from the same period in the surroundings. These two curvilinear structures were evidently built and used around the same time, as suggested by the narrow passageway between them, measuring about 1 m wide (Fig. 7). In neither of the two buildings were the short ends to

Fig. 7. Narrow passage way between curvilinear Units I and II from the west (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition). 52 Aytaçlar 2004; see also Bakır et al. 2001, 28–32, figs. 2–7; 2002, 41–44, figs. 2–5; 2003, 205–06, figs. 1–2; 2004, 101–05, figs. 1–5.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

111

the east revealed. In Unit I this area was seriously disturbed during the 4th century BC, quite likely the result of a robbing trench; and it is almost certain that there was no chance to expose the building in its entirety. This structure, in the limits of the excavation measures 10.8 m long and 5.95 m wide, with rather robust walls 0.6 m in width. Large stones, placed vertically like orthostates, appear to be a peculiar construction characteristic of these Early Iron Age structures. At Troy, the use of orthostates, although attested occasionally before and after, became widespread at Level VIIB2 and it is sometimes argued as a feature marking close links with Thrace, the Balkans and the Lower Danube region.53 At Clazomenae, however, this technique was not solely restricted to the Early Iron Age and it was frequently attested since the early 2nd millennium BC. The second building (Unit II) lies immediately to the south of the first one and measures about 7.2 m long; in the limits of the excavation only its north wall as well as the curved ending on the west side were uncovered. Both of these buildings also revealed two major phases along with numerous subphases as suggested by separate floors in each of them. This also indicates their long-term use, as supported by the small finds and pottery gathered in each period. In their early phase, both structures appear to have been rather spacious with a single room. In their second or later phase, a dividing wall running north–south was constructed and this evidently caused a rearrangement within. In Unit I, following the addition of a division wall, a paved area made from stone slabs was added to the west end. Although the available evidence is somewhat meagre, we may argue for the existence of such paving, made of large pebbles. partly exposed in the west end of the building.54 The re-examination of the complex in the 2015 campaign revealed a small gateway, based upon the placement of a vertically set block in the southern half of the dividing wall during its later phase. The early floor of the first building is much more rewarding, particularly for providing a relative chronology. From it come numerous containers classified as Group I amphorae by Richard Catling following the study of the examples from Troy, Phocis, the Locris region, Macedonia as well as Thessaly.55 In addition to these, there were 53 For further discussions and the references of the connections of Troy with the Balkans and the North, see Aslan and Hnila 2015, 189 and n. 13, 191. 54 This feature was attested in the 2015 study in the limits of the complex, and only a rather small part of it was revealed. Such a feature as paved ground, which was made of pebble stones, was also attested in the early floor level of the second building further to the south. 55 For the chronology and the distribution of the series, see Catling 1998; Lenz et al. 1998, 196–208; Aytaçlar 2004, 20–24; Papadopoulos 2005, 427–30; Aslan et al. 2014, 284–86; Danile 2011, 80–81; 2012, 80–81, 83, figs. 4–5; Lemos 2012a, 177–81. Type I of this amphora series is dated to the end of the 11th and beginning of the 10th century BC (Early to Middle Protogeometric periods).

112

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

also numerous terracotta spools, highly likely to have been used as loomweights, suggesting textile production within this building. The pottery gathered from the early phase of the unit points toward a rather long period of use. According to diagnostic pottery, it can be dated to the second half of the 11th and the first half of the 10th century BC (Early–Middle Protogeometric according to Aegean terminology). Unfortunately, the later phase of the complex was less rewarding in terms of the finds because of the disturbance caused by the construction of later structures overlying the Protogeometric building. Still, some pottery examples, including a fragmentary piece attributable to the transitional Group I–II amphora, a hydria with languettes on the shoulder, can be dated to the second half of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th century BC. The neighbouring Unit II, slightly further to the south, was also built and used in the same period. The size of the entire structure is also not known; within the limits of the excavation it is about 7 m long and 3.9 m wide, but the south wall of the building has not yet been exposed during excavation. Inside the structure is a support for a wooden post, made by two mud bricks placed vertically and found with mixed charcoals and sea shells (Fig. 8). Since this post, supporting the horizontal beam of the roof would be placed at the centre of the structure, we may calculate the width of the building by multiplying its distance from north wall (about 2.2 m), which would make its width around 4.4 m. Because of their sheer size, these Early Iron Age structures are apparently spacious buildings with robust architectural features. Also in its early phase, as identified in its eastern half, the unit appears to have been paved with pebble stones. These paved areas, which were observed in different elevations, argue for there being successive sub-phases or renovations in the structure throughout its use. The finds from the early phase of the unit are diverse and include food-processing utensils such as stone querns, a whetstone with pierced hole for a suspension and clay spindle-whorls (Fig. 9), clay spools and a pyramidal loom-weight (Fig. 10), as well as pottery sherds with rounded edges, including a pierced hole (Fig. 11).56 All these finds suggest a household function for the unit that includes cooking and weaving. The diagnostic pottery from the same floor includes some cups as well as fragments of a krater that point to a date once again from the second half of the 56 For the earlier series of clay spools, dating back to the Middle/Late Bronze Age, see especially Pavúk 2012, 123–26; and for the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age series, in addition the studies cited in Aytaçlar 2004, 21–22 and n. 26, see especially Rahmstorf 2003. The pierced discs made of a pottery sherd are usually identified as spindle-whorls (see Rahmstorf 2003, 402 and 413, fig. 16). It was, however, recently suggested that such pieces made of small pottery sherds might have been used for fishing and employed as hook sinkers for keeping the line deep in water (see Dakaronia and Kounouklas 2015, 37–38, 46, fig. 4).

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

113

Fig. 8. Support for the central wooden post inside curvilinear Unit II (view from the west) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

11th and the first half of the 10th century. The later phase of the structure, like Unit I further to the north, did not produce any substantial finds to provide solid evidence for dating. Luckily, the small cist grave once belonging to a child, placed in the western half of the building following its abandonment, yields this for its terminal date: a skyphos accompanying the burial, with a conical foot, solidly painted on the body and decorated with a zigzag pattern on the reserved lip, suggests the end of the 10th century BC (Fig. 12).57 The chronology of the two curvilinear buildings covers a long period between late 11th to the second half of the 10th century from their construction through to their abandonment. After these structures were terminated, one finds a group of burials in the area exclusively belonging to young infants, made in pots as well as in cists. In addition to the cist grave, two more pot burials in handmade vessels were 57 Bakır et al. 2004, 103–04, 108, fig. 3 (cist grave). For the parallels of dark painted skyphos with a conical foot and decorated with a zigzag on the rim, see Popham et al. 1980, 298–300, fig. 8e, pl. 13.28, 31–32, pl. 152.7–8. Lefkandi finds suggest that examples with a high conical foot do not continue into the 9th century.

114

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Fig. 9. Whetstone and clay spindle-whorls found in Unit II (KET-2015-029, KET-2015-087) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

Fig. 10. Clay spools and a pyramidal loom-weight from Early Iron Age structures (KET-2015-105, KET-2015-015, KET-2015-035), the spool on the left was found in Unit III and dates earlier than the rest (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

Fig. 11. Small pierced body sherds found in the earlier floor of the curvilinear Unit II (KET-2015-008, KET-2015-082, KET-2015-126, KET-2015-130 and KET-2015-155) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

115

Fig. 12. Dark painted skyphos found in the cist grave (T.6) placed over Unit II (KET-2002-1053) (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

exposed within the limits of the structure, although lacking grave-goods (Fig. 13). The burial of a young child in a pithos was found outside the limits of Unit I further to the north. This burial, accompanied by an oinochoe decorated with semi-circles on the shoulder, a one-handled cup as well as the plain version of the same shape, can also be dated to the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 9th century BC.58 All these graves suggest that the area with lavish curvilinear buildings, once used for habitation, functioned essentially as a burial ground, particularly for young individuals, through to the end of the 10th century BC. The renewed excavations, especially further to the south, which led to the exposure of space used by the curvilinear Structure II, also suggest that there was probably no extensive building activity in the area until the late 8th century BC. The earth accumulated between the debris over the Early Iron Age building and the 7th-century structures above it is extremely thin and definitely not compact enough to cover such a long period. As suggested by finds and architectural remains, it is highly likely that the core of the settlement had shifted to the west and south-west of Liman Tepe.59 As stated above, the evidence of human activity in the South Sector of Liman Tepe, particularly during the Late Bronze Age, is rather obscure. In order to provide more evidence, further excavations took place in the western half of Unit II. In this new investigation an earlier building, roughly square in plan but different in terms of layout, a rectilinear building with curved corners, 58 59

Aytaçlar 2004, 27–28, figs. 13–14. See Aytaçlar 2004, 25–27 and fig. 10; Ersoy 2004, 43–45; 2007, 153–54.

116

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Fig. 13. Burial of an infant placed in a pot found in the passageway between Units I and II (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

Fig. 14. Early Iron Age structure with curved corners inside exposed under the curvilinear Unit II (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

117

was identified immediately under Unit II (Fig. 14). This new structure is relatively small in size and measures 2.6 m long and 1.55 m wide within the limits of the excavation. Its walls, about 0.3 m, are almost half the thickness of the later curvilinear buildings of the Early Iron Age in the area. Unfortunately, a large part of it, especially its floor, was severely damaged during the construction of curvilinear Unit II, which was built in the middle of the 11th century. Therefore, pottery associated with is extremely limited in quantity. However, a few diagnostic examples, including an amphora with rather odd ornaments in multiple zones, containing panelled decoration and free-drawn semi-circles on the shoulder, point to a date somewhere in the first half of the 11th century. This earlier structure, found under the building constructed in the middle of the 11th century, also clearly shows that the Early Iron Age structures in the area were stratified one over another and evidently had a long history of occupation, from the late 12th to the late 10th centuries BC. Test excavations inside the western half of curvilinear Building II continued down to 0.4 m below sea level, and only a rather homogenous loose fill with few pottery with profiles were identified under the first structure. The character of the fill, which is more than 0.5 m in thickness, argues for its being made deliberately in order to create a flat ground for the Early Iron Age structure with curved corners above. The material found in the fill includes a few examples of decorated pottery including a neck-handled amphora with sets of concentric circles on its shoulder, which indicates a date during the late 12th and early 11th centuries BC. Around the depth of 0.2 to 0.3 m were found bones of at least three individual bovines dumped into the ground. Unfortunately, due to the rise of the ground water, no further excavations took place and no certain evidence was found for activity in the area during the Late Bronze Age. The area around the upper citadel at Liman Tepe was evidently abandoned during the second half of the 10th century BC and the habitation, as indicated by architectural remains as well as the stratified deposits, moved further to the west and south-west, close to the fortification wall of the Archaic period (Fig. 15).60 In the area where the defence wall of the Archaic city as well as the bastion of the Lower Town of the 3rd millennium were found, numerous graves of the Early Iron Age, most belonging to infants, were discovered. At first glance, the compact nature of the Iron Age habitation at Clazomenae recalls somewhat the nucleated settlement design where the limits of the habitation quarters are well defined, as at Lefkandi.61 Isolated burials quite far from the core area of the settlement, however, imply a pattern of habitation 60 61

Aytaçlar 2004, 25–26; Ersoy 2004, 43–45; 2007, 151–54. Mazarakis Ainian 2012, 126–27.

118

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Fig. 15. Historical topography of Clazomenae during the Early Iron Age. H1 denotes the area used for habitation during the 11th and the late 10th centuries BC, H2 for 9th century and after. C marks the area extensively used as a burial ground during the Early Iron Age (from late 10th until late 8th century BC), T’s with a star and an asterisk shows the locations of isolated burials from the Early Iron Age (drawing by Polat Ulusoy after the original by Michele Massa).

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

119

whose boundaries were not clearly demarcated at the outset, as is the case for instance in Athens and Oropos in Attica or Eretria in Euboea during the Early Iron Age.62 THE EARLY IRON AGE POTTERY KILN EXPOSED NEAR THE ARCHAIC DEFENCE WALL Clazomenae is identified as one of the major pottery production centres in North Ionia according to groups of finds such as black-figured pottery of the 6th century as well as large terracotta coffins conventionally named as Clazomenian sarcophagi.63 Apart from these, following clay analysis, production of simple bowls with different decorative elements, like bands, rosettes or lotus flowers between the handles are associated with the site. In the same fashion, drinking vessels including bird kotylae and bird bowls of the late 8th and the 7th centuries BC were also attributed to Clazomenae as well as to Teos in North Ionia, according to the results of the clay analysis.64 Unlike many sites in the eastern Aegean, the prolific role of Clazomenae in pottery production was not solely based upon the results of scientific methods, there was also diverse physical evidence in relation to pottery production gathered at the site, and this includes pottery kilns as well as misfired pieces or wasters, which belong to different periods.65 From the 6th century BC, there are the remains of at least four pottery kilns, as well as numerous wasters including Wild Goat-style examples, transport amphorae and banded pottery, all uncovered in the outskirts of the settlement, next to the acropolis hill.66 The stratigraphic sequence in the area provides a date for the termination of these complexes in the advanced years of the second quarter of the 6th century BC. In addition to these examples, there was also a rather well-preserved example established over the houses of the Late Classical period, which seemed to have been abandoned before the military campaigns led by Alexander the Great against Persian domination in Asia 62

Mazarakis Ainian 2012, 126–27; see also Lemos 2002, 195–97. For further discussion of Ionian pottery groups related to Clazomenae, see Cook and Dupont 1998, 95–107; Walter-Karydi 1973, 77–87. For the results of the clay analysis of the Ionian black-figured pottery coming from different sites, see Dupont 1983, 31–33; Jones 1986, 664–66; Akurgal et al. 2002, 75–78. For Clazomenian sarcophagi, see Cook and Dupont 1998, 121–28. For the typological discussion of Clazomenian amphorae, see Doğer 1986; Cook and Dupont 1998, 151–56; Monakhov 2003, 50–55; Sezgin 2012, 21–82. 64 Akurgal et al. 2002, 63–72. 65 For discussion of the pottery kilns at Clazomenae, all from post-Bronze Age contexts, see Cevizoğlu and Ersoy 2016. 66 Cevizoğlu and Ersoy 2016, 117–22; Ersoy 2003, 254–57. 63

120

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Minor in 330s. This kiln, as the numerous wasters gathered in the area suggest, seemed to have been used for producing mushroom-rimmed amphorae, which became extremely common particularly in the late 4th century BC and were manufactured at numerous centres in the eastern Aegean including the Cycladic islands, the Dodecanese as well as the coast of western Anatolia.67 In addition to the Archaic and Late Classical examples uncovered on the mainland, there were also additional kilns, quite large in size, concentrated on the north-western tip of Karantina Island (where the heart of Clazomenae was located following the doomed Ionian Revolt). Large parts of these kilns were unfortunately washed away by the sea; however, some fragments of roof tiles fixed on the walls of these kilns cut into bedrock, as well as numerous amphora fragments belonging to the mushroom-rimmed type and collected in the area, argue for the fact that they were used during the late 4th and 3rd centuries BC.68 The physical evidence relating to pottery production at Clazomenae is not restricted to the Archaic to Late Classical and/or Hellenistic examples discussed briefly above. There are also numerous kiln complexes uncovered by the Ankara University team at Liman Tepe.69 The earliest one so far identified dates to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. Although its preservation is not entirely good, pottery finds inside and around the kiln complex suggest a date in the first quarter of the 2nd millennium BC.70 Because of the later disturbances in the area, no substantial evidence was gathered architecturally; therefore, it is not easy to remark further on the spatial layout of the area including this installation. From the earliest occupation phase of the Late Bronze Age settlement (Liman Tepe II-3), seven different kiln complexes were identified and these were integrated into the courtyards of the multi-roomed houses. Liman Tepe kilns evidently belong to two distinctive types in terms of their designs: they are rather smaller than the new Early Iron Age example. On the basis of the existence of many kilns in the open spaces of these Late Bronze Age structures dated to the Liman Tepe II-3, they were identified as workshop installations which also fulfilled a household function. These examples therefore indicate small-scale production taking place at home.71

67 Cevizoğlu and Ersoy 2016, 122–23 and figs. 12–14. For further discussions of this complex as well as the associated finds, see Doğer 1986, 469–71 and figs. 17–18. For the involvement of various centres to the production of mushroom-rimmed amphorae in a wider Aegean sphere, see Lawall 2011, 51–52. 68 Cevizoğlu and Ersoy 2016, 123–25, figs. 15–17. 69 See above p. 108 and n. 50. 70 Erkanal and Aykurt 2016, 1–2, 16. 71 Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 26–30.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

121

Fig. 16. Pottery kiln from the Early Iron Age found next to the bastion of the Early Bronze Age II Lower Town and close to the defensive wall of the Archaic Settlement (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

The new kiln structure, excavated close to the Late Archaic gateway, as well as the bastion of the Early Bronze Age settlement, which was part of the defence system of the lower town, is extremely interesting in terms of its chronology as well as its design (Fig. 16). This kiln, dating to the Early Iron Age provides fresh insight particularly for the period, which unfortunately we have little archaeological evidence related to the pottery production technology and especially the physical remains of the pottery kilns themselves.72 As discussed above, the area where the fortification wall protecting the city during the Archaic period, also marks the south-west limit of the Early Bronze Age settlement, with its fortified lower town. In this area, a horseshoe-shaped bastion designed in the same fashion as the one once protecting the citadel at Liman Tepe was exposed partly under the Archaic wall and the gateway providing an access to the settlement during the late 6th century BC.

72 For pottery kilns dating to the Early Iron Age in the Aegean basin, see Papadopoulos 1989; 2003, 201–09; 2013; Day et al. 1989; Hasaki 2002, 326–28.

122

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

In the excavation campaign of 2009, immediately next to the south face of the bastion wall, a large pottery kiln of rectangular shape with a curved short end was revealed.73 The choice of location of the kiln – next to the south side of the Early Bronze Age bastion – appears to be quite deliberate and must have been due to a desire to eliminate the effect of the northerly winds. It is placed in an east–west direction and has a curved ending on the east side. It is of an updraft type, the most common variety both in the Aegean and in the eastern Mediterranean from the Early Bronze Age onwards. This large freestanding example of rectangular shape with rounded edges recalls the Minoan and the Mycenaean kilns of the Late Bronze Age in terms of its overall design. The structure itself measures 3.4 m east–west and 2.2 m north–south and its fuelling entrance is located on its south side. Because of its sheer size, in order to create an additional support for its superstructure, a simple stone wall was constructed on its outer face at the base, following its contour. This kiln, which reached us in such a good state, has a perforated firing floor that is around 15 cm in thickness with 32 round holes on its surface. This floor was evidently used for stacking vessels as well as for facilitating the circulation of hot air, which would have passed upward from the fire shaft and eventually escaped through the opening at the top of the kiln dome. Since the floor was not removed in order to see the design of the firing chamber, no solid evidence is available of how the weight of the floor was originally supported by the chamber below. Because of its large size, it is rather unlikely that the floor rested upon the ledge running through the contour of the kiln, inside. Instead, on its short end, running east–west, it is probable that there were channels created by narrow dividers, built for supporting the burden of the heavy perforated floor. These dividers must have attached to the east short end of the kiln, simply because in the west there was an opening to the firing chamber, used for depositing fuel inside, which must also mark the location of the firing pit.74 There are rather few examples of Iron Age pottery kilns in the Aegean and these, quite small in dimensions and mostly dating to the 8th century BC, have a circular plan.75 The Clazomenae kiln, however, by its overall design, which is similar to the Late Bronze Age examples in the Aegean including Minoan Crete and Miletus that involved with the production of Mycenaean-style pottery at the site, suggests that there was a well-rooted tradition of pottery manufacturing techniques in 73 Ersoy et al. 2010, 189–91, figs. 8, 10, 12–15; Ersoy, Güngör and Cevizoğlu 2011, 171–72, figs. 3–4; Cevizoğlu and Ersoy 2016, 109–14, figs. 3–4. 74 The placement of the opening under the perforated floor, close to the west end of the kiln rather than to the middle, also argues for the fact that channels were built for supporting the perforated floor. 75 See n. 72 above.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

123

the Aegean, which were retained down into the 10th century BC, as exemplified by the new example found at Clazomenae.76 Quite likely after the abandonment of the kiln, the area began to be used as a burial ground, and these internments therefore provide a terminus ante quem for the pottery installation. Immediately to the south and south-west were three individual graves, two pot burials of young infants as well as a cist grave belonging to a child, placed directly above the bedrock (Fig. 17).77 These burials suggest that part of the region next to the kiln structure was disturbed and therefore no firm evidence in relation to its dating can be gathered. These disturbances are also visible in the area of the kiln itself. For instance, at least five different burials are identified next to the kiln on its east short end, as well

Fig. 17. Small cist grave and pot burials (T. 18 and T. 19) placed around the pottery kiln (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition). 76 For further discussion of the pottery production in Bronze Age Miletus and the Aegean, see Zurbach 2011, 60–61; Gros and Zurbach 2012, 110–13. 77 For further discussion of the pot burials above and around the pottery kiln of the Early Iron Age, see Bakır et al. 2008, 318–23; Ersoy et al. 2009, 237–41, 249–51, figs. 5–9; 2013, 192–93, 195, figs. 1–2, 10; Ersoy, Güngör and Cevizoğlu 2011, 172–74, figs. 2–4, 7–8; Ulusoy 2010, 10–22, pls. 6–17.

124

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

as over its perforated floor. As these burials are rather poorly furnished with grave-goods, it is not easy to date the kiln itself. The vessels of two individual burials, an amphora decorated with semi-circles on the shoulder as well as a large hydria adorned with languettes on the shoulder, uncovered immediately to the west of the kiln, argue for the 9th-century dating after parallels from Euboea, especially Lefkandi.78 Also immediately to the south of the kiln, a narrow channel cut into bedrock and filled with charcoal and ashes produced a few sherds, which suggest a date contemporary with the curvilinear structures on the south limit of prehistoric settlement at Liman Tepe. Among this material, there are some fragments of large kraters carrying a panelled decoration between the handles, which point to a date in the middle of the 10th century. Early Iron Age Burials around the Archaic Defence Wall of Clazomenae In order to understand fully and to reconstruct social organisation and cultural changes, it is important to point out the significance of mortuary practices in their historical context. In the eastern Aegean, however, especially in Ionia the archaeological evidence related to the funerary practices is extremely scarce. If we put aside isolated cases, namely Pitane and Teos in central western Anatolia,79 it appears that communal burials are the dominant feature of Iron Age Ionia, as suggested by tumuli discovered in Colophon and in Samos.80 The same case can be repeated especially for Caria during the early 1st millennium BC.81 Apart from Central Greece, in the other regions, for instance in 78

Ersoy et al. 2009, 237–39, 249, fig. 6. For the neck-handled amphora of the Late Protogeometric/Sub-Protogeometric period from necropolis of Pitane, see İren 2008a, 32 and 37, fig. 2.3, no. 6. For the Teian amphora said to be used as a tomb for a young infant, decorated solely with bands, see Öğün 1964, 117, 121, fig. 9. 80 For the re-evaluation of the Iron Age tumuli from Colophon, excavated in the 1920s by Hetty Goldman, and also the presentation of the newly discovered ones in the surveys, labelled as the north-east necropolis of the site, see Mariaud 2011, 687–95; Bammer et al. 2014; Mac Sweeney 2013, 133–35. For discussion of the Iron Age burials in communal graves uncovered in the town of Samos, close to the Hellenistic gymnasium, see Viglaki-Sofianou 2004. For the overall discussion of the Early Iron Age remains in Samos, see Tsakos 2007, 190–92. These Iron Age burials, close to the town of Samos, do not go beyond the 9th century BC, at the earliest, see Tsakos and Viglaki-Sofianou 2012, 209–15. 81 For Caria in particular, see Carstens 2008, 70–94; 2011; Diler 2009; 2016, 455–67; Mariaud 2012, 357–62. One must note that, unfortunately, many tombs dating to the post-Bronze Age in the region were investigated more or less after complete looting. Since the Late Bronze Age until almost the end of the Archaic period, communal graves, either made in chambers or in tumuli – as exemplified by many graves found in Asarlık, Dirmil, Çömlekçi, Pedasa, Beçin and Milas – appear to be the major burial custom in the region. Exceptions are, however, not completely omitted as suggested by the cist graves of the Geometric period uncovered under the Roman Agora at Iasos (Berti 2007). 79

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

125

Crete, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia as well as Phocis and Locris, a similar pattern is attested and communal graves in the same fashion of the Mycenaean past seem to be characteristic during the Early Iron Age.82 In this context, the cemetery of the individuals dotted around a large area on the outskirts of the Iron Age settlement at Clazomenae reveals a somewhat different picture than many sites in the Aegean. Particularly at sites such as in Ionia, which are quite close to one another, and where different burial customs attested, we therefore may claim that there was indeed a high degree of variability in the mortuary practices during the Early Iron Age in the eastern Aegean.83 At Clazomenae, the archaeological evidence related with the funerary practices of the Bronze Age society is almost virtually absent. Few burials of young infants made in pots classified as ‘Handmade Burnished Ware’ by the excavators were uncovered during the excavations at Liman Tepe. Only a single burial of a young individual made in a handmade pot came from the North Sector.84 In the South Sector, over the bastion of the Early Bronze Age II settlement, among the five burials belonging to the young children, three are cist graves, and two are pot burials made in handmade vessels.85 As we discussed above, there was a custom of placing burials of young infants over the remains of abandoned Early Iron Age houses, as suggested by at least six different graves. Four of them are pot burials belonging to young infants; one is a pithos grave of a young child, accompanied with three vases, and finally the sixth one is a cist grave also belonging to a child that produced a high-footed skyphos datable to the end of the 10th century BC.86 In addition to these few graves 82 Especially in Central Greece, including the Euboean Gulf region, Thessaly and Boeotia, communal burials in chamber tombs exactly as in old Mycenaean fashion are more widespread during the Iron Age. According to Crielaard and Luce, series of destructions at the end of Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC, which did not affect the Euboean Gulf region, may be the reason of retaining older burial customs (see Crielaard 2006, 274–85; Luce 2011, 306–12; 2014, 40–46). 83 For further discussion on the burial practices of the Early Iron Age societies in the Aegean, see Lemos 2002, 184–90. 84 Erkanal 1999, 327, 335, figs. 3–4; Mangaloğlu-Votruba 2012, 44 and 98–99, pl. 95b. This grave was found in the layer related with the latest occupational phase (Liman Tepe II-1). A similar pattern, namely placing pots as burials of young infants over earlier domestic structures of the 12th century BC was also attested at Panaztepe (see Erkanal-Öktü and Çınardalı Karaaslan 2007, 193, 194, 202–03, figs. 5–7; 2009, 477, 496, fig. 5). 85 For the brief discussion of child graves in the area, see Erkanal 1999, 327. The handmade pots are classified as ‘Handmade Burnished Ware’. The cist graves, on the other hand, may be later in date and contemporary with the Early Iron Age burials in the area, which were made over the remains of the curvilinear buildings dated to the 11th and 10th centuries following their abandonments. Also, for further discussion of intramural burials of young infants of the Early Iron Age in the Aegean, see Mazarakis-Ainian 2008, 366–83; 2010, 72–77. 86 Bakır et al. 2001, 32, 37–38, figs. 6–7 (pithos grave); 2004, 103–04, 108 fig. 3 (cist grave). Two more pot burials of young infants placed over the abandoned remains of the Early Iron Age structures were uncovered in the 2015 campaign.

126

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

exclusively belonging to infants, the excavations at the site also produced a formal burial ground, which was evidently concentrated in an area to the south and south-west of the living quarters. There are at least 50 burials in this cemetery, all dating to the Early Iron Age and uncovered in the area of the Archaic defence wall, which was evidently built in the early 7th century BC.87 When the major communal initiative was taken of constructing a defence wall for the Archaic city, the practice of making burials in the area was evidently terminated. After the first quarter of the 7th century, formal burial places, used extensively in the 7th and the 6th centuries BC, were established surrounding the entire settlement. These Early Iron Age graves in the cemetery are not solely confined to a particular quarter next to the bastion of the Lower Town of the Early Bronze Age site and the west gateway of the Late Archaic city, added to the 7th-century fortification wall. In this part of the settlement, additional burials of the Iron Age were discovered scattered around a vast area. There were also tumuli built on the hilltops, which quite likely served for defining the asty of the ancient site. None of these tumuli, however, unlike the examples in Caria and the ones in Samos and Colophon in Ionia, belong to a period earlier than the middle of the 7th century BC; therefore no close comparison is possible between them. The existence of numerous individual burials dating to the Early Iron Age at Clazomenae strongly suggests that this was a more exclusive funerary practice than communal graves in tumuli or in chamber tombs attested in the other sites in the Aegean. Around the fortification wall of the Archaic period, exposed in the western limit of Clazomenae, all the burials so far uncovered, can be dated to the Early Iron Age. The majority of them are inhumation burials belonging to young infants placed in clay vessels (enchytrismoi). This type of burial was evidently reserved for the newly born infants, according to a few bone fragments that were found inside the pots. The vessels used for the purpose are usually simple handmade pots; sometimes vases decorated with bands and concentric circles or languettes were also used. In addition to small pots, plain pithoi of different sizes were used, particularly for adolescents. No particular orientation has been noticed for the deposition of the funerary vases. These pots used as a burial were occasionally sealed with a flat stone slab. Often, some stones were placed around the vessel, or as attested in one of the child burial in a large amphora, thin stone slabs were placed vertically around the vessel served to keep the burial in place (Fig. 18). Additional stone supports 87 For the preliminary reports of the excavations in the cemetery, see Bakır et al. 2008, 318–23; Ersoy et al. 2009, 237–41, 249–51 figs. 5–9; 2013, 192–93, 195, figs. 1–2, 10; Ersoy, Güngör and Cevizoğlu 2011, 172–74, figs. 2–4, 7–8.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

127

Fig. 18. Child burial inside a neck-handled amphora (T. 46), early 8th century BC (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

around some pot burials, to some extent looking like a cist itself, were made to keep the burial in its place. Furthermore, the deliberate choice of the location for the large pithos burial next to the east face of the Early Bronze Age bastion, which was then partly covered by the flat stone slabs above repeats the same practice (Fig. 3). Stone circles built around some individual graves fulfil the same purpose and evidently protect and define the limits of the burial. The second tomb type after pot burials is the cist grave for children, although their number does not exceed single digits. The practice for the few adults in this cemetery is evidently but not exclusively cremation and the funeral pyres were built over the rectangular shafts, of which their dimensions are not that large, as close as the human body. Two such pyres were attested; the effect of burning is visible on the bedrock, in addition to the substantial amount of charcoal and the few calcified bone remains collected in the area, this strongly argues for cremating the body at this spot.88 In this Iron Age cemetery at Clazomenae, no example of a secondary cremation, which was the most common practice in various burial grounds in mainland Greece, including Athens and Lefkandi, has been attested so far. 88

For one of the primary cremation in the cemetery, see Cevizoğlu 2014, 9–10 and fig. 9.

128

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Apart from the cremation, there are also individual inhumation burials belonging to an adult, placed directly into the earth. Inhumation in cist tombs was also used for adults. A rather large cist grave, which was destroyed during the construction of the gateway for the Archaic city, is an example of this tomb type. Only very few human remains were found in it, and it appears that following its construction it reached a height well over a metre, as one of the vertical slabs indicates, and was covered by earth, somewhat recalling a tumulus (Fig. 19). Unfortunately, later disturbances as well as the proximity of the modern plough zone, made the secure identification of such a tumulus impossible during the excavation; however, just beyond the large vertical stone slab, a clear earth of whitish colour rising up to the top of the tomb suggests its presence.89 One also finds circular enclosures built for protecting individual burials. Such an example, highly likely constructed for a pithos grave, was identified immediately to the north of the Archaic gateway. Because of the later disturbances in the area, nothing other than a few scraps of bone fragments mixed with some pithos sherds was found (Fig. 20). Grave-goods are usually adopted as means for identifying the sex of the deceased. However, if we exclude a few obvious cases such as some Early Iron Age burials in Attica or the Iron Age as well as Archaic graves in Macedonia, this is evidently not an easy task, and identifying patterns of sexual differentiation in the Aegean on the basis of such goods is hardly possible.90 In the civic world of Archaic Greek society, when the interest of elevating the status of the individual and the competition among different social classes was shifted to the sanctuaries by making various dedications, what became obvious is the clear standardisation among the goods deposited inside tombs. This is actually one of the most typical features of the 6th-century burials at Clazomenae as well as the Kerameikos necropolis in Athens, where we see mostly simple vessels or terracotta figurines deposited inside the graves.91 Therefore, if there is no solid evidence of sex based upon osteological study or on physical and anthropological characteristics, making an assumption for ‘male’ or ‘female’ graves on the basis of the goods is hardly possible. In the Early Iron Age burials at Clazomenae, grave-goods are randomly attested and they are extremely poor 89 Creation of a large cist grave covered by a tumulus echoes the elite burials of mainland Greece, which were identified as the outward expression of the new ideology of power at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. For the evaluation of such burials including the examples from Mitrou as well as Aegina, see Van de Moortel 2016, 93–98 and fig. 1. 90 For further discussions on this issue, see Shepherd 2013, 546–49; Delamar and Mariaud 2007. For the evaluation of burials rich in metal goods and providing a clear evidence for gendered identities in Macedonia, see Chemsseddoha 2014, 64–77. 91 Hürmüzlü 2004, 85–88; 2005, 45–50. For further discussions of this issue, in particular related to child graves, see Kallintzi and Papaikonomou 2006; Kübler 1976, 91–110.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

129

Fig. 19. Early Iron Age cist grave made for an adult next to the gateway of the Archaic settlement (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

Fig. 20. Circular enclosure built for defining the area of the pithos burial (T. 48) of the Early Iron Age, disturbed during the Archaic period (courtesy of the Clazomenae Expedition).

130

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

in nature. For that reason, providing a firm chronology for the majority of the individual burials is not an easy task. Both in the Early Iron Age as well as during the Archaic period, burials of adults cannot be distinguished by specific grave-goods or bodily treatments. Likewise, metal artefacts are quite rare and other personal items are hardly attested in these graves. The so-called female swimmer in the shape of a naked woman, which was made of ivory and presumably used as a cosmetic spoon, and in addition to that, a few bronze artefacts including a fibula and some bronze rings are apparently among the limited personal items found in these tombs.92 The ivory figure, found in the loose context but in the cluster of some Early Iron Age burials, was identified as one of the earliest imports from the eastern Mediterranean at Clazomenae and dated to the middle of the 9th century BC.93 Some of the burials in the area were destroyed during the construction of the defence wall of the Archaic city, especially the ones which were in the place of the deep corridor of the gateway that was designed in the late phase of the fortification wall, roughly corresponding to the late 6th century. Apart from these later disturbances of some Iron Age graves in the area, certain tombs seemed to have been intentionally protected, as exemplified by the two pithos burials, partly covered by the west face of the fortification wall behind the glacis. In order to eliminate the disturbance to these earlier graves, in spite of structurally weakening the wall, the lower courses that would have destroyed them were omitted. CONCLUSIONS Clazomenae, as a multi-period site, provides fresh insights and enormous data, particularly for the early history and archaeology of the settlements in the eastern Aegean. The long history of occupation going back to the 4th millennium BC, without any gap until the late 6th century BC, offers a significant contribution to the study of various aspects of material culture thanks to prolonged occupation as well as wide-ranging links established throughout its long history. The significance of Clazomenae particularly for understanding the cultural character of the region during the 2nd and the early 1st millennium BC is indispensable. 92 For further discussion of the ivory artefact in the shape of a naked female figure and identified as a cosmetic spoon from the Iron Age cemetery at the site, see Cevizoğlu 2014. For the bronze items, including spirals and rings found in pithos grave T-20 in this cemetery, see Cevizoğlu 2014, 11 and figs. 10–13. Also for the fragment of an arched fibula made of bronze found in Grave 24 in the Early Iron Age cemetery, and discussion of the comparable examples in the Aegean, see Ulusoy 2010, 13 and 86, pls. 10b and 11a. 93 Cevizoğlu 2014. For further discussion of Oriental imports at the site dating to different periods, pp. 13–14.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

131

It is generally assumed that the eastern Aegean and western Anatolian interface, in terms of the overall development and the tranformation of the culture, was a minor region in the Aegean. This somewhat biased judgment began to be changed thanks to recent excavations as well as by the studies on the various find groups from different sites. However, it is quite obvious that we have a long way to move ahead in order to understand fully the overall character as well as the contributions of the region during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The long history of occupation at Clazomenae is parallel to that of Troy, and the material evidence from the site allows comparisons to be drawn from various sites and regions in the Aegean basin. Substantial stratified deposits, domestic in nature, that belong to the Early Iron Age and were exposed at the core of the settlement, which was occupied since the mid-4th millennium BC, form indeed a remarkable contribution by Clazomenae to the early history and archaeology of the region. Pottery finds from these complexes, in particular, produced sufficient evidence to suggest the continuation of a long-distance trade network encompassing not only central and northern Greece, north-western Anatolia and the northern Aegean islands but also including Clazomenae located in the central part of the western Anatolian littoral. The discovery of the pottery kiln as well as the primary Iron Age burial ground with numerous graves, perhaps serving the entire settlement, is a welcome addition to the archaeology of the period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akar Tanrıver, D.S. 2009: Apollon Klarios Kültü, Kehanet, Pratikler ve Adaklar (Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir). Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H. and Niemeier, W.-D. (eds.), 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 3) (Vienna). Archibald, Z.H. 2013: ‘An Overview of Recent Research in Mainland Greece’. In Archibald, Z.H. (ed.), ‘Archaeology in Greece 2012–2013’. Archaeological Reports for 2012–2013, 12–22. Aslan, C. 2011: ‘A place of burning: hero or ancestor cult at Troy’. Hesperia 80, 381– 429. Aslan, C. and Hnila, P. 2015: ‘Migration and Integration at Troy from the end of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age’. In Stampolidis et al. 2015, 185–209. Aslan, C., Kealhofer, L. and Grave, P. 2014: ‘The Early Iron Age at Troy Reconsidered’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33, 275–312. Aslan, C.C. and Rose, C.B. 2013: ‘City and Citadel at Troy from the Later Bronze Age through the Roman Period’. In Redford, S. and Ergin, N. (eds.), Cities and Citadels

132

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Suppl. 40) (Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT), 7–38. Atıcı, M. and Beyazçam, E.G. 2016: ‘Kyme Güneydoğu Nekropolü (İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Bozköy, Ilıca Mevkii, 214 ve 215 Parsel). In 24. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu ve I. Uluslararası Müzecilik Çalıştayı (Ankara), 373–84. Atıcı, M. and Karakaş, G. 2014: ‘Kyme Doğu Nekropolü (İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Samurlu Köyü, 877 ve 879 Parsel)’. In 22. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 229–42. Aykurt, A. 2010: ‘İzmir Bölgesi Orta Tunç Çağı Seramiği’. Belleten 74, 1–69. —. 2013: ‘An Updated Assessment on Western Anatolian Middle Bronze Age Chronology in Light of Excavations of the Izmir Region’. Colloquium Anatolicum 12, 37–77. Aykurt, A. and Erkanal, H. 2016: ‘Archaeological Evidence for an early Second Millennium BC Potter’s Kiln at Liman Tepe’. Belleten 287, 1–22. Aytaçlar, N. 2004: ‘The Early Iron Age at Klazomenai’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 17–41. Bakır, G., Ersoy, Y., Cevizoğlu, H., Güngör, Ü. and Hasdağlı, İ. 2008: ‘2006 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 29.3, 313–32. Bakır, G., Ersoy, Y., Fazlıoğlu, İ., Aytaçlar, N., Cevizoğlu, H., Hurmuzlu, B. and Sezgin, Y. 2001: ‘1999 Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 22.2, 27–38. Bakır, G., Ersoy, Y., Fazlıoğlu, İ., Aytaçlar, N., Hürmüzlü, B., Özbay, F., Sezgin, Y. and Özbilen, G. 2002: ‘2000 Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 23.1, 41–54. Bakır, G., Ersoy, Y., Fazlıoğlu, İ., Özbay, F., Özer, B. and Zeren, M. 2003: ‘2001 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 24.1, 205–18. Bakır, G., Ersoy, Y., Zeren, M., Özbay, F. and Hürmüzlü, B. 2004: ‘2002 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 25.2, 101–10. Bammer, A. 1999: ‘Zur Bronzezeit in Artemision’. In Friesinger, H. and Krinzinger, F. (eds.), 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos (Akten des Symposions, Wien, 1995) (Denkschriften, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 260; Archäologische Forschungen 1), 3 vols. (Vienna), 399–404. Bammer, A., Draganits, E., Gassner, V., Grammer B., Gretscher, M., Mariaud, O. and Muss, U. 2014: ‘Colophon 2013’. In Forum Archaeologiae, Zeitschrift für Klassische Archaeologie 71/VI/2014 (Consulted 6.1.2017). Basedow, M. 2009: ‘The Iron Age transition at Troy’. In Bachhuber, C. and Roberts, R.G. (eds.), Forces of Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean (Proceedings of an International Symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford, 25–26th March, 2006) (British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology Publication 1) (Oxford/Oakvillle, CT), 131–42. Berti, F. 2007: ‘La necropoli “geometrica” dell’agora di Iasos’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 437–46. Carstens, A.M. 2008: ‘Tombs of the Halikarnassos Peninsula – the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age’. In Pedersen, P. (ed.), Halicarnassian Studies 5 (Odense), 52–118. —. 2011: ‘Early Tombs in the Halikarnassos Region: Reflections on Cultural Mixture’. Anatolia Antiqua 19, 483–93. Catling, R. 1998: ‘The Typology of the Protogeometric and Subprotogeometric Pottery from Troia and its Aegean Context’. Studia Troica 8, 151–87.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

133

Cevizoğlu, H. 2014, ‘Bemerkungen zu einem Elfenbeingriff in Form eines schwimmenden Mädchens aus Klazomenai’. AA 2, 1–18. Cevizoğlu, H. and Ersoy, Y. 2016: ‘Zur Rolle der handwerklichen Betriebe in Bezug auf die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung von Klazomenai’. In Piesker, K. (ed.), Wirtschaft als Machtbasis: Beiträge zur Rekonstruktion vormoderner Wirtschaftssysteme in Anatolien (Drittes wissenschaftliches Netzwerk der Abteilung Istanbul des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts) (Byzas 22) (Istanbul), 105–31. Chemsseddoha, A.-Z. 2014: ‘Quelques observations sur les thématiques funéraires en Macédoine à l’âge du Fer: le cas de la nécropole de Vergina’. Pallas 94, 63– 86. Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. 2008, ‘Recent Investigations at Panaztepe Harbour Town’. In Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2008, 53–68. —. 2012: ‘The East Mediterranean Late Bronze Age glass trade within the context of the Panaztepe finds’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 31, 121–41. Çırak, N. and Kaya, S. 2011: ‘2009 İDÇ Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazısı’. In 19. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 217–32. Cobet, J. 2007: ‘Des alte Ionien in der Geschichtschreibung’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 729– 44. Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.) 2007: Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Panionion-Symposion, Güzelçamlı, 26. September– 1. Oktober 1999) (Milesische Forschungen 5) (Mainz). Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery (London). Crielaard, J.-P. 2006: ‘Basileis at Sea: Elites and External Contacts in the Euboean Gulf Region from the End of the Bronze Age to the Beginning of the Iron Age’. In Deger-Jalkotzy, E. and Lemos, I.S. (eds.), Ancient Greece: from the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer (Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3) (Edinburgh), 271–97. —. 2009: ‘The Ionians in the Archaic period: shifting identities in a changing world’. In Derks, A.M.J. and Roymans, N.G.A.M. (eds.), Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 13) (Amsterdam), 37–84. Danile, L. 2011: La ceramica grigia di Efestia: Dagli inizi dell’Ferro all’Alto-Arcaismo (Monografie della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 20; Lemno 2; cavi ad Efestia 1) (Athens). —. 2012: ‘Local Productions and Imports at Hephaestia (Lemnos) from the Early Iron Age to the Archaic Period’. In Tiverios, M., Misailidou-Despotidou, V., Manakidou, E. and Arvanitaki, A. (eds.), Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and Its Periphery (700–480 BC) (Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting, Thessaloniki, 19–22 May 2011) (Dēmosieumata Archaiologikou Institoutou Makedonikōn kai Thrakikōn Spoudōn 11) (Thessaloniki), 79–90. Dakaronia, F. and Kounouklas, P. 2015: ‘Fishing Technology: The Kynos Contribution’. In Panagiotopoulos, D., Kaiser, I. and Kouka, O. (eds.), Ein Minoer im Exil. Festschrift für Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 270) (Bonn), 35–50. Day, P.L., Coulson, W.D.E. and Gesell, G.C. 1989: ‘A New Early Iron Age kiln at Kavousi, Crete’. Rivista di Archeologia 13, 103–06. Delamar, J. and Mariaud, O. 2007: ‘Le silence des tombes?: Masculin et féminin en Grèce géométrique et archaïque d’après la documentation archéologique funéraire’.

134

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

In Cuchet, V.S. and Ernoult, N. (eds.), Problèmes du genre en Grèce ancienne (Histoire ancienne et médiévale 90) (Paris), 65–81. Desborough, V.R.d’A. 1964: The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors (Oxford). Diler, A. 2009: ‘Tombs and Burials in Damlıboğaz (Hydai) and Pedasa’. In Rumscheid, F. (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen (Internationales Kolloquium an der freien Universität Berlin, 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005) (Bonn), 359–76. Diler, A. 2016: ‘Stone Tumuli in Pedasa on the Lelegian Peninsula. Problems of Terminology and Origin’. In Henry, O. and Kelp, U. (eds.), Tumulus as Sema: Space, Politics, Culture and Religion in the First Millennium BC (Topoi 27) (Berlin), 455–73. Doğer, E. 1986: ‘Premières remarques sur les amphores de Clazomènes’. In Empereur, J.-Y. and Garlan, Y. (eds.), Recherches sur les amphores grecques (Actes du Colloque International organisé par le Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, l’Université de Rennes II et l’École Française d’Athènes, Athènes, 10–12 septembre 1984) (BCH Suppl. 13) (Paris), 461–71. Dupont, P. 1983: ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d’Istros, Rapport préliminaire’. Dacia 27, 19–43. Efe, T. 2005: ‘Küllüoba 2003 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları’. KST 26.1, 29–44. Erkanal, H. 1999: ‘1997 Liman Tepe Kazıları’. KST 20.1, 325–36. —. 2008a: Die neuen Forschungen in Bakla Tepe bei İzmir’. In Erkanal et al. 2008, 165–77. —. 2008b: ‘Liman Tepe: New Light on Prehistoric Aegean Cultures’. In Erkanal et al. 2008, 179–90. —. 2008c: ‘Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Liman Tepe’. In Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2008, 91–100. —. 2011: ‘Early Bronze Age settlement models and domestic architecture in the coastal region of western Anatolia’. In Şahoğlu and Sotirakopoulou 2011, 130– 35. Erkanal, H., Artzy, M. and Kouka, O. 2003: ‘2001 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları’. KST 24.1, 423–36. —. 2004: ‘2002 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları’. KST 25.2, 165–78. Erkanal, H., Aykurt, A., Büyükulusoy, K., Tuğcu, İ., Tuncel, R. and Şahoğlu, V. 2016: ‘Liman Tepe 2014 Yılı Kara ve Sualtı Kazıları’. KST 37.1, 323–40. Erkanal, H. and Günel, S. 1997: ‘1995 Yılı Liman Tepe Kazıları’. KST 18.1, 231–60. Erkanal, H., Hauptmann, H., Şahoğlu, V. and Tuncel, R. (eds.) 2008: The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Proceedings of the International Symposium, Urla-Izmir, October 13–19, 1997) (Ankara). Erkanal, H. and Şahoğlu, V. 2016: ‘Liman Tepe, an Early Bronze Age Trade Center in Western Anatolia: Recent Investigations’. In Pernicka, E., Ünlüsoy, S. and Blum, S. (eds.), Early Bronze Age Troy: Chronology, Cultural Developments and Interregional Contacts (Proceedings of an International Conference held at the University of Tübingen, May 8–10, 2009) (Studia Troica Monograph 8) (Bonn), 157–66. Erkanal-Öktü, A. 2000: ‘1998 Panaztepe Kazı Sonuçları’. KST 21.1, 245–52. —. 2004: ‘Panaztepe 2002 Yılı Kazıları’. KST 25.2, 245–52. —. 2008: ‘The Late Bronze Age Cemeteries of Panaztepe’. In Erkanal-Öktü et al. 2008, 69–90. Erkanal-Öktü, A. and Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. 2005: ‘Panaztepe 2003 Yılı Kazıları’. KST 26.2, 25–36. —. 2006: ‘Panaztepe 2004 Yılı Kazıları’. KST 27.1, 191–204.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

135

—. 2007: ‘Panaztepe 2005 Yılı Kazıları’. KST 28.1, 391–412. —. 2008: ‘Panaztepe Kazıları 2006 Yılı Çalışmaları’. KST 29.2, 19–38. —. 2009: ‘Panaztepe 2007 Yılı Çalışmaları’. KST 30.1, 471–96. —. 2010: ‘Panaztepe 2008 Yılı Çalışmaları’. KST 31.2, 101–16. —. 2011: ‘Panaztepe 2009 Yılı Çalışmaları’. KST 32.2, 14–27. —. 2012: ‘Panaztepe 2010 Yılı Kazı Çalışmaları’. KST 33.1, 419–39. —. 2018: Panaztepe 1: Die Friedhöfe von Panaztepe (Ankara). Erkanal-Öktü, A., Çınardalı Karaaslan, N. and Kolankaya-Bostancı, N. 2015: ‘Panaztepe 2013 Yılı Çalışmaları’. KST 36.1, 601–14. Erkanal-Öktü, A., Günel, S. and Deniz, U. (eds.) 2008: Batı Anadolu ve Doğu Akdeniz Geç Tunç Çağı Kültürleri Üzerine Yeni Araştırmalar (Ankara). Ersoy, Y.E. 2003: ‘Pottery Production and mechanism of workshops in Archaic Clazomenae’. In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003, 254–57. —. 2004: ‘Klazomenai 900–500 BC. History and Settlement Evidence’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 43–76. —. 2007: ‘Notes on the history and archaeology of early Clazomenae’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 149–78. Ersoy, Y.E., Cevizoğlu, H., Güngör, Ü., Hasdağlı, İ. and Ulusoy, P. 2009: ‘2007 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 30.3, 233–54. Ersoy, Y.E., Cevizoğlu, H., Güngör, Ü., Koparal, E. and Ulusoy, P. 2013: ‘Urla-Klazomenai Kazıları’. KST 34.2, 191–210. Ersoy, Y.E., Cevizoğlu, H., Güngör, Ü., Ulusoy, P., Özbay, F. and Ercan, H. 2010: ‘2008 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 31.1, 185–204. Ersoy, Y.E., Güngör, Ü. and Cevizoğlu, H. 2011: ‘2009 Yılı Klazomenai Kazısı’. KST 32.4, 169–82. Esposito, A. and Sanidas, G.M. (eds.) 2012: «Quartiers» artisanaux en Grèce ancienne: Une perspective méditerranéenne (Lille). Felsch, R.C.S. 2001: ‘Opferhandlungen des Alltagslebens im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos von Hyampolis in den Phasen SHIIIC-Spätgeometrisch’. In Laffineur, R. and Hägg, R. (eds.), POTNIA: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, 12–15 April 2000) (Aegaeum 22) (Liège/Austin, TX), 193–200. Felten, F., Gaus, W. and Smetana, R. (eds.) 2007: Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms (Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, October 31st–November 2nd, 2004) (Agina-Kolonna 1; Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean 14; Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 42) (Vienna). Forstenpointner, G. 2001: ‘Demeter im Artemision?’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Der Kosmos der Artemis von Ephesos (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 37) (Vienna), 49–71. Forstenpointner, G., Kerschner, M. and Muss, U. 2008: ‘Das Artemision in der späten Bronzezeit und der frühen Eisenzeit’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Die archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heilgitums (Vienna), 33–46. Forstenpointner, G., Weißengruber, G.E. and Galik, A. 2005: ‘Tierreste aus früheisenzeitlichen Schichten des Artemisions von Ephesos’. In Brandt, B., Gassner, V. and Ladstätter, S. (eds.), Synergia: Festschrift für Friedrich Krinzinger. 1: Ephesos, metropolis Asiae (Vienna), 85–91. Frasca, M. 1998: ‘Ceramiche greche d’importazione a Kyme eolica nell’VIII secolo a.C.’. In D’Agostino, B. and Bats, M. (eds.), Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza

136

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente (Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 16; Annali, Istituto universitario orientale, Sezione di archeologia e storia antica, Quaderno 12) (Naples), 273–79. —. 2001: ‘Ceramiche Tardo Geometriche a Kyme Eolica’. In Krinzinger, F. (ed.), Die Ägäis und das westliche Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen 8. bis 5. Jhdt. v. Chr. (Akten des Symposions, Wien, 24. bis 27. März 1999) (Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 288; Archäologische Forchungen 4) (Vienna), 393–98. Gros, J.-S. and Zurbach, J. 2012: ‘Espaces de la production céramique et spécialisation artisanale entre Bronze et Fer en Égée’. In Esposito and Sanidas 2012, 107–24. Günel, S. 1999: ‘Vorbericht über die mittel- und spätbronzezeitliche Keramik vom Liman Tepe’. IstMitt 49, 41–82. —. 2004: ‘Orta Hellas Dönemi Mat Boyalı Seramiği ve Liman Tepe’de Ele Geçen Mat Boyalı Seramiğin Ege Arkeolojisi Kültürel Gelişimindeki Önemi’. TÜBA-AR 7, 197–214. Hall, J.M. 2000: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge). —. 2002: Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (Chicago). Hasaki, E. 2002: Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece: Technology and Organization of Ceramic Workshops (Dissertation, University of Cincinnati). Hertel, D. 2007: ‘Der Aiolische Siedlungsraum (Aiolis) am übergang von der Bronzezur Eisenzeit’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 97–122. —. 2008a. Das Frühe Ilion: Die Besiedlung Trojas durch die Griechen (1020−650/625 v. Chr.) (Zeternata 130) (Munich). Horejs, B. and Mehofer, M. (eds.) 2014: Western Anatolia before Troy: ProtoUrbanisation in the 4th Millennium BC? (Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Vienna, Austria, 21–24 November, 2012) (Oriental and European Archaeology 1) (Vienna). Horejs, B. and Schwall, C. 2015: ‘New Light on a Nebulous Period – Western Anatolia in the 4th Millennium BC: Architecture and Settlement Structures as Cultural Patterns?’. In Hansen, S., Raczky, P., Anders, A. and Reingruber, A. (eds.), Neolithic and Copper Age between the Carpathians and the Aegean Sea: Chronologies and Technologies from the 6th to the 4th Millennium BCE (International Workshop, Budapest 2012) (Archäologie in Eurasien 31) (Bonn), 457–74. Hürmüzlü, B. 2004: ‘Burial Grounds at Klazomenai. Geometric through Hellenistic Periods’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 77–95. —. 2005: ‘The Organization and Utilization of the Burial Grounds in Klazomenai’. Olba 12, 39–67. İren, K. 2008a: ‘Dark Age Pottery from Southern Aeolis’. In Brandherm, D. and Trachsel, M. (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age?: Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology/ L’âge obscur se fait-il jour de nouveau?: Les paradigmes changeants de la chronologie de l’âge du fer en Méditerranée (BAR International Series 1871) (Oxford), 29–43. —. 2008b: ‘The Necropolis of Kyme Unveiled: Some Observations on the New Finds’. In Delemen, İ., Özdizbay, A., Çokay Kepçe, S. and Turak, Ö. (eds.), Euergetes: Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Haluk Abbasoğlu zum 65. Geburtstag (Istanbul), 613–37. Ivanova, M. 2013: ‘Domestic architecture in the Early Bronze Age of western Anatolia: the row-houses of Troy I’. Anatolian Studies 63, 17–33.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

137

Jones, R.E. 1986: Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies (Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1) (Athens). Kaiser, I. and Raymond, A. 2015: ‘Miletus IIIb: Ramping up to a Minoanized Locale’. In Panagiotopoulos, D., Kaiser, I. and Kouka, O. (eds.), Ein Minoer im Exil. Festschrift für Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier (Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 270) (Bonn), 147–61. Kallintzi, K. and Papaikonomou, I.-D. 2006: ‘A Methodical Approach to Funeral Goods Offered to Children in Ancient Abdera’. In Mattusch, C., Donohue, A. and Brauer, A. (eds.), Common Ground: Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities (Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23–26, 2003) (Oxford), 480–84. Kerschner, M. 2003: ‘Zum Kult in früheisenzeitlichen Ephesos. Interpretation eines protogeometrischen Fundkomplexes aus dem Artemisheiligtum’. In Schmaltz and Söldner 2003, 246–50. —. 2006: ‘Die Ionische Wanderung im Lichte neuer archäologischer Forschungen in Ephesos’. In Olshausen, E. and Sonnabend, H. (eds.), ‘Troianer sind wir gewesen’ – Migrationen in der antiken Welt (Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 8, 2002) (Geographica Historica 21) (Stuttgart), 364–82. —. 2011: ‘Approaching Aspects of Cult Practice and Ethnicity in Early Iron Age Ephesos using Quantitative Analysis of a PG Deposit from the Artemision’. In Verdan, S., Theurillat, T. and Kenzelmann Pfyffer, A. (eds.), Early Iron Age Pottery: A Quantitative Approach (Proceedings of the International Round Table organized by the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, Athens, November 28–30, 2008) (BAR International Series 2254) (Oxford), 19–27. Klebinder-Gauss, G. 2003: ‘Zwei bronzene Doppeläxte aus dem Artemision von Ephesos’. Österreichische Jahreshefte 72, 137–40. Konak Tarakcı, S. and Selçuk, T. 2013: ‘Batı Liman 1205 Parsel Kurtarma Kazısı 2011’. In 21. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 185–98. Korkmaz, E. and Gürman, B. 2012: ‘İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Bozköy Biçerova Mevkii Kyme Antik Kenti Doğusu Sur Dışı Yapıları ve Doğu Nekropolü Kurtarma Kazıları’. In 20. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 71–93. Korkmaz, E. and Küçükgüney, Z. 2016: ‘İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Bozköy Kyme Antik Kenti Doğusu, Biçerova Tümülüsü Kurtarma Kazısı’. In 24. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu ve I. Uluslararası Müzecilik Çalıştayı (Ankara), 329–46. Kouka, O. 2009: ‘Third Millennium BC Aegean Chronology: Old and New Data under the Perspectives of the Third Millennium AD’. In Manning, S.W. and Bruce, M.J. (eds.), Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm (Oxford/Oakville, CT), 133–49. —. 2011: ‘Symbolism, ritual feasting and ethnicity in Early Bronze Age Cyprus and Anatolia’. In Karageorghis, V. and Kouka, O. (eds.), On Cooking Pots, Drinking Cups, Loomweights and Ethnicity in Bronze Age Cyprus and Neighbouring Regions (An International Archaeological Symposium held in Nicosia, November 6th–7th 2010) (Nicosia), 43–56. —. 2013: ‘“Minding the Gap” Against the Gaps: The Early Bronze Age and the Transition to the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern and Eastern Aegean/Western Anatolia’. American Journal of Archaeology 117, 569–80.

138

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

—. 2014: ‘Past Stories – Modern Narratives: Cultural Dialogues between East Aegean Islands and the West Anatolian Mainland in the 4th Millennium BC’. In Horejs and Mehofer 2014, 43–63. —. 2016: ‘The Built Environment and Cultural Connectivity in the Aegean Early Bronze Age’. In Molloy, B.P.C. (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities. Scales and Modes of Interactions between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and their Neighbours (Oxford/Philadelphia), 203–24. Kübler, K. 1976: Die Nekropole der Mitte des 6. bis Ende des 5. Jahrhunderts (Kerameikos 7.2) (Berlin). Küçükgüney, Z. and Tunç Altun, P. 2009: ‘İDÇ Liman Kurtarma Kazısı (İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Çakmaklı Köyü, Kendiri Mevkii, 613 ve 68 Parsellere ait)’. In 17. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 53–74. Kull, B. 1988: Demicihüyük: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1975–1978. 5: Die Mittelbronzezeitliche Siedlung (Mainz). Laffineur, R. and Greco, E. 2005: EMPORIA. Aegeans in Central and Eastern Mediterranean (Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14–18 April 2004) (Aegaeum 25) (Liège/Austin, TX). Lawall, M. 2010: ‘Imitative Amphoras in the Greek World’. Marburger Beiträge zur antiken Handels-, Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 28, 45–88. Lemos, I. 2002: The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford). —. 2007: ‘The migrations to the west coast of Asia Minor: tradition and archaeology’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 713–27. —. 2012a: ‘A Northern Aegean Amphora from Zeropolis, Lefkandi’. In AdamVeleni, P. and Tzanavari, K. (eds.), Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου (Thessaloniki), 177–83. —. 2012b: ‘Euboea and Central Greece in the Post-Palatial and Early Greek Periods’. In Archibald, Z.H. (ed.), ‘Archaeology in Greece 2011–2012’. Archaeological Reports for 2011–2012, 19–27. Lenz, D., Ruppenstein, F., Baumann, M. and Catling, R. 1998: ‘Protogeometric Pottery at Troia’. Studia Troica 8, 189–222. Luce, J.-M. 2011: ‘La Phocide à l’âge du fer’. In Mazarakis Ainian 2011, 305–21. —. 2014: ‘Les modes funéraires et la parole dans la Grèce de l’âge du fer ancien’. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne Suppl. 10, 37–51. Macdonald, C., Hallager, E. and Niemeier, W.-D. 2009: The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean: New Evidence (Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22–23 January 2005, Athens) (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 8) (Aarhus). Mac Sweeney, N. 2013: Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge). Mangaloğlu-Votruba, S. 2011: ‘Liman Tepe’de Geç Hellas IIIC Dönemi’. Anadolu 37, 43–73. —. 2012: Geç Tunç Çağı’nda Liman Tepe ve Çevre Kültür Bölgeleri ile Olan Bağlantısı (Dissertation, Ankara University). —. 2015: ‘Liman Tepe during the Late Bronze Age’. In Stampolidis et al. 2015, 647–68. Mariaud, O. 2011: ‘The Geometric Graves of Colophon and the Burial Customs of Early Iron Age Ionia’. In Mazarakis Ainian 2011, 687–703. —. 2012: ‘Postérité mycénienne et influences égéennes dans les pratiques funéraires de la région d’Halicarnasse à l’époque géométrique’. In Konuk, K. (ed.), Stephanè-

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

139

phoros: De l’économie antique à l’Asie Mineure. Hommages à Raymond Descat (Mémoires 28) (Bordeaux), 355–68. Mazarakis Ainian, A. 2008: ‘Buried among the living in Early Iron Age Greece: some thoughts’. In Bartoloni, G. and Benedettini, M.G. (eds.), Sepolti Tra i Vivi/ Buried among the Living: Evidenza ed Interpretazione di Contesti Funerari in Abitato (Atti Del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 26–29 aprile 2006) (Scienze dell’antichità 14) (Rome), 365–98. —. 2010: ‘Tombes d’enfants à l’intérieur d’habitats au début de l’Âge du Fer dans le Monde Grec’. In Guimier-Sorbets, A.-M. and Morizot, Y. (eds.), L’Enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité 1: Nouvelles recherches dans les nécropoles grecques. Le signalement des tombes d’enfants (Actes de la table ronde internationale organisée à Athènes, École française d’Athènes, 29–30 mai 2008) (Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 12) (Paris), 67–95. —. (ed.) 2011: The ‘Dark Ages’ Revisited (Proceedings of the International Symposium in Memory of William D.E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14–17 June 2007), 2 vols. (Volos). —. 2012: ‘Des quartiers spécialisés d’artisans à l’époque géométrique?’. In Esposito and Sanidas 2012, 125–54. Momigliano, N. 2007: ‘Kamares or not Kamares? This is [not] the Question. Southeast Aegean Light-on-Dark (LOD) and Dark-on-Light (DOL) Pottery. Synchronisms, Production Centres and Distribution’. In Felten et al. 2007, 257–72. —. 2009: ‘Minoans at Iasos?’. In Macdonald et al. 2009, 121–40. —. 2012: Bronze Age Carian Iasos: Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c. 3000–1500 BC) (Archaeologica 166; Missione archeologica italiana di Iasos 4) (Rome). Monakhov, S.Y. 2003: Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e: Tipologiya amfor vedushchikh centrov-eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoi tare. Katalog-opredelitel’ (Moscow). Moustaka, A., Skarlatidou, E., Tzannes, M.-C. and Ersoy, Y.E. (eds.) 2004: Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropoleis and Colony (Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001) (Thessaloniki). Niemeier, W.-D. 2007: ‘Westkleinasien und Ägäis von den Anfängen bis zur Ionischen Wanderung: Topographie, Geschichte und Beziehungen nach dem archäologischen Befund und den hethitischen Quellen’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 37–96. Öğün, B. 1964: ‘Teos Kazıları 1963’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 13.1, 115–21. Papadopoulos, J.K. 1989: ‘An Early Iron Age potter’s kiln at Torone’. Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 9–44. —. 2003: Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters’ Field in the Area of the Classical Athenian Agora (Hesperia Suppl. 31) (Princeton). —. 2005: The Early Iron Age Cemetery of Torone: Excavations Conducted by the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens in Collaboration with the Athens Archaeological Society (Monumenta Archaeologica 24) (Los Angeles). —. 2013: ‘Some Further Thoughts on the Early Iron Age Potter’s Kiln at Torone’. In Adam-Beleni, P., Kephalidou, E. and Tsiafakis, D. (eds.), Pottery Workshops in Northeastern Aegean (8th–Early 5th c. BC) (Scientific Meeting AMTh 2010) (Ekdosē Archaiologiku Museiu Thessalonikēs 21) (Thessaloniki), 39–50. Pavúk, P. 2005: ‘Aegeans and Anatolians. A Trojan Perspective’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, 269–77.

140

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

—. 2007: ‘What can Troia Tell us about the Middle Helladic Period in the Southern Aegean?’. In Felten et al. 2007, 295–308. —. 2010: ‘Minoan or Not. The Second Millennium Grey Ware in Western Anatolia and its Relation to Mainland Greece’. In Philippa-Touchais, A., Touchais, G., Voutsaki, S. and Wright, J. (eds.), Mesohelladika: La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen (Actes du colloque internationale, Athenes, 8–12 mars 2006) (BCH Suppl. 52) (Paris), 931–43. —. 2012: ‘Of Spools and Discoid Loom-Weights: Aegean-Type Weaving at Troy Revisited’. In Nosch, M.-L. and Laffieneur, R. (eds.), Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age (Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/ 13e Rencontre égéenne internationale) (Aegaeum 33) (Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA), 121–30. —. 2014: Troia VI Früh und Mitte: Keramik, Stratigraphie, Chronologie (Studia Troica Monograph 3) (Bonn). Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, P.G. 1980: Lefkandi 1: The Iron Age (British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 11) (London). Rahmstorf, L. 2003: ‘Clay Spools from Tiryns and other Contemporary Sites. An Indication of Foreign Influence in LH IIIC?’. In Kyparissi-Apostolika, N. and Papakonstantinou, M. (eds.), The Periphery of the Mycenaean World/ Hē periphereia tou Mykēnaikou kosmou (Proceedings of the 2nd International Interdisciplinary Colloquium, 26–30 September 1999, Lamia) (Hypourgeio Politismou 14) (Athens), 397–415. Raymond, A. 2005: ‘Importing Culture at Miletus. Minoans and Anatolians at Middle Bronze Age Miletus’. In Laffineur and Greco 2005, 185–91. —. 2009: ‘Miletus in the Middle Bronze Age, an Overview of the Features and Ceramics’. In Macdonald et al. 2009, 143–56. Roosevelt, C.H. and Luke, C. 2017: ‘The Story of a Forgotten Kingdom? Survey Archaeology and the Historical Geography of Central Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC’. European Journal of Archaeology 20, 120–47. Rose, C.B. 2008: ‘Separating Fact from the Fiction in the Aiolian Migration’. Hesperia 77, 399–430. Şahin, N. 2007: ‘Notion-Klaros-Kolophon Üçgeninde Myken Sorunu’. In Öztepe, E. and Kadıoğlu, M. (eds.), Patronvs. Coşkun Özgünel’e 65. Yaş Armağanı (Istanbul), 343–52. Şahin, N., Tanrıver, C., Şahin, I., Ersoy, A., Akar, D.S., Sezgin, Y., Akat, S., Yolaçan, B., Koçak Yıldırım, A., Doğan, E., Ürkmez, Ö. and Ünlüoğlu, B. 2005: ‘Klaros 2003’. KST 26.1, 291–304. Şahoğlu, V. 2005a: ‘Interregional Contacts around the Aegean during the Early Bronze Age’. Anadolu 27, 97–120. —. 2005b: ‘The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir Region during the Early Bronze Age’. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24, 339–61. —. 2007: ‘Çeşme-Bağlararası: A New Excavation in Western Anatolia’. In Felten et al. 2007, 309–22. —. 2011a: ‘Early Bronze Age Pottery in Coastal Western Anatolia’. In Şahoğlu and Sotirakopoulou 2011, 136–43. —. 2011b: ‘Trade and Interconnections between Anatolia and the Cyclades during the 3rd Millennium BC’. In Şahoğlu and Sotirakopoulou 2011, 172–77.

THE CASE OF CLAZOMENAE

141

—. 2015: ‘Çeşme-Bağlararası: A Western Anatolian Harbour Settlement at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age’. In Stampolidis et al. 2015, 593–608. Şahoğlu, V. and Sotirakopoulou, P. 2011: Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia during the 3rd Millennium BC (Exhibition Catalogue) (Istanbul). Şahoğlu, V. and Tuncel, R. 2014: ‘New Insights into the Late Chalcolithic of Coastal Western Anatolia: A View from Bakla Tepe, Izmir’. In Horejs and Mehofer 2014, 65–82. Schmaltz, B. and Söldner, M. 2003: Griechische Keramik im Kulturellen Kontext (Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel von 24.–28.9.2001) (Münster). Sezgin, Y. 2012: Arkaik Dönem Ionia Üretimi Ticari Amphoralar (Istanbul). Shepherd, G. 2013: ‘Ancient Identities: Age, Gender, and Ethnicity in Ancient Greek Burials’. In Tarlow, S. and Nilsson Stutz, L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial (Oxford), 543–57. Stampolidis, N., Maner, Ç. and Kopanias, K. 2015: Nostoi: Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age (Istanbul). Tsakos, K. 2007: ‘Die Stadt Samos in der geometrischen und archaischen Epoche’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 189–200. Tsakos, K. and Viglaki-Sofianou, M. 2012: Samos: The Archaeological Museums (Athens). Tuğcu, İ. 2012: İzmir İli Orta Tunç Çağı Mimarisi (Dissertation, Ankara University). Tuncel, R. and Şahoğlu, V. 2018: ‘The Chalcolithic of Western Anatolia: A View from Liman Tepe, İzmir’. In Dietz, S., Mavridis, F., Tankosić, Z. and Takaoğlu, T. (eds.), Communities in Transition: The Circum-Aegean Area During the 5th and 4th Millennia BC (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 20) (Oxford/Philadelphia), 513–29. Ulusoy, P. 2010: Burial Customs of Clazomenae in the Iron Age (Dissertation, Bilkent University, Ankara). Ünlü, A. and Özsaygı, M. 2007: ‘İzmir İli, Aliağa İlçesi, Gümrük Binası Sondaj Kazısı’. In 15. Müze Çalışmaları ve Kurtarma Kazıları Sempozyumu (Ankara), 13–24. Vaessen, R. 2014: ‘Ceramic developments in coastal Western Anatolia at the dawn of the Early Iron Age’. In Galanakis, Y., Wilkinson, T. and Bennet, J. (eds.), ΑΘΥΡΜΑΤΑ: Critical Essays on the Archaeology of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honour of E. Susan Sherratt (Oxford), 223–32. —. 2016: ‘Cosmopolitanism, communality and the appropriation of Mycenaean pottery in western Anatolia’. Anatolian Studies 66, 43–65. Van de Moortel, A. 2016: ‘Politics of Death at Mitrou: Two Prepalatial Elite Tombs in a Landscape of Power’. In Dakouri-Hild, A. and Boyd, M.J. (eds.), Staging Death: Funerary Performance, Architecture and Landscape in the Aegean (Berlin/ Boston), 89–113. Verger, S. 2003: ‘Notes sur quelques objets en bronze du sanctuaire de Claros: secteur 1, fouilles 1990–1993’. In de La Genière, J. and Jolivet, V. (eds.), Cahiers de Claros 2: L’aire des sacrifices (Paris), 173–77. Viglaki-Sophianou, M. 2004: ‘Γεωμετρική νεκρόπολη αρχαίας Σάμου’. In Stampolidis, C.N. and Giannikouri, A. (eds.), Το Αιγαίο στην πρώιμη Εποχή του Σιδήρου (Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, 1–4 Νοεμβρίου 2002, Ρόδος) (Athens), 189–96.

142

YAŞAR ERKAN ERSOY

Walter-Karydi, E. 1973: Samos 6.1: Samische Gefässe des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Bonn). Zunal, O. 2014a: Klaros Protogeometrik ve Geometrik Dönem Seramikleri (Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir). —. 2014b: ‘Preliminary Report on Protogeometric Pottery from Recent Excavations at Claros: Contributions to Early Ionian Pottery’. In Moretti, J.-C. and Rabatel, L. (eds.), Le sanctuaire de Claros et son oracle (Actes du colloque international de Lyon, 13–14 janvier 2012) (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 65) (Lyons), 109–15. —. 2016: ‘A Group of Submycenaean-Protogeometric Cups from Klaros’. Olba 24, 171–89. Zurbach, J. 2011: ‘Production et consommation de la vaisselle céramique à Milet au Bronze récent III’. In Garcia, D. (ed.), L’âge du Bronze en Méditerranée: Recherches récentes (Séminaire d’Antiquités nationales et de Protohistoire européenne d’Aix-enProvence) (Paris), 43–65.

WHERE THE BULL GROANED: MELIA AND THE TEMPLE OF POSEIDON HELIKONIOS ON MT MYCALE (DILEK DAĞLARI/AYDIN)* Hans LOHMANN

Abstract During a systematic survey of the Mycale mountain ridge, the present Dilek Dağları, a formerly completely unknown hilltop site of the second half of the 7th century BC was discovered at Çatallar Tepe, at 780 m above sea level. The strongly fortified site, consisting of an intramural as well as an extramural part, had been destroyed ca. 600/590 BC and subsequently abandoned. Shortly before the middle of the 6th century BC a temple of the Ionic order was erected within the ruins of that settlement, but soon got burned down again. This discovery unexpectedly reopens the age-old question, where the Carian settlement of Melia and the Panionion, the central sanctuary of the League, dedicated to Poseidon Helikonios, may be localised.

North of the vast plain of the Büyük Menderes, the former Latmian Gulf, Mt Mycale, the present-day Dilek Dağları in the province of Aydın, rises up to 1200 m above sea level, thereby forming a natural boundary between the northern and southern territories of Ionia. It extends for more than 30 km from east to west between the modern town of Söke and Cape Dip Burun, ancient Trogilion. While its northern slopes are densely wooded, those in the south are often extremely precipitous. Apart from some level ground in Mycale’s most western region, which once formed the Samian peraia, there is hardly any room for human settlements within the mountain range. During all periods, therefore, habitation concentrated on the well-watered lower slopes and in the foothills.1 The large plain north of the Mycale, called Karaova during the 19th century, offered by far the most fertile land. It therefore became the * This paper was designated to be presented at the conference ‘Ionians in the West and East’ at Barcelona when, for unpredictable reasons, I was unable to participate in the meeting. Therefore I wish to thank Gocha Tsetskhladze for including it nevertheless in the proceedings of the conference. I am also most grateful for the opportunity to offer here the most recent results of the project, thereby also correcting some errors and mistakes, which had slipped into former preliminary reports and publications. My thanks go to Theresa Stewart for improving my English text. 1 For a map of sites discovered during the survey, see Lohmann et al. 2017, map 1.

144

HANS LOHMANN

subject of quarrels between Samos and Priene for centuries, but is now buried under the rapidly growing summer villages. Originally, at the southern foot of the Mycale mountain ridge, the Latmian Gulf extended far inland, but since prehistoric times became rapidly silted up by the alluvium of the Büyük Menderes, the ancient Maeander,2 thereby creating the constantly growing plain of the Menderes valley. Though densely inhabited and intensively cultivated down to the Byzantine era, this plain is now thickly covered by recent alluvium of the Menderes and forms the largest coherent area for the cultivation of cotton within Turkey. Under these environmental conditions, the extensive survey of ancient Mycale, which in 2001 started in the western half of the mountain range in the surroundings of ancient Thebai had to be primarily restricted to the Mycale mountain ridge itself.3 It is, therefore, self-evident, that only limited insights with regard to the settlement history and the settlement structures of the region can be gained. Nevertheless, inscriptional as well as literary evidence allows for new insights in the field of the historical topography of Mt Mycale.4 West of the former Greek village of Güzelçamlı, which is already attested in 1606 as Τζαγκλή,5 a well-preserved fortification of the first quarter of the 7th century BC surrounds the top of Kale Tepe (Fig. 1). Its date is established by Subgeometric pottery found in a trial trench near the gate.6 Close parallels for this type of fortification with regard to building technique and plan are known in Caria, for instance on Zeytin Dağ on the southern shore of Lake Bafa opposite to the Carian town of Latmos,7 but also at Damlıboğaz (ancient Hydai)8 near Milas, at Yaz Tepe above Karakuyu9 and several other places, including the Halicarnassus Peninsula. The circuit wall on Kale Tepe is therefore beyond any doubt Carian and not Greek.10

2

Müllenhoff 2005. For preliminary reports, see Lohmann 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006; Lohmann et al. 2007. For the final publication of the survey, see Lohmann et al. 2017. 4 For the historical topography of southern Ionia in general, see Lohmann 2002. 5 Miklosich and Müller 1890, 290 (Τζαγκλή); Poulakes 1888, 228 (Τσανγγλί). I owe this information to the kindness of F. Hulek. The village appears in the extant literature also as Giaur Tschangli, Changlee, etc. 6 Kleiner et al. 1967, 133–60; for the date, cf. also Cook 1969, 717. 7 Peschlow-Bindokat 1981–83; 1996a, 22–23, figs. 19, 21; 1996b, 212, fig. 2; Lohmann 2019, 162–71, figs. 1–3. 8 Rumscheid 1998, 389. 9 Lohmann 2019, 187–92, figs. 25–30. 10 For an overview of Carian fortifications in the Latmos and its surroundings, see Lohmann 2019, 156–284. 3

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

145

Fig. 1. Güzelçamlı with Kale Tepe and Otomatik Tepe 1959/60 (after Kleiner et al. 1967, map; CAD-processing by G. Kalaitzoglou).

One of the first visitors of the site, of whom we know, was Charles Texier.11 He believed the circuit wall to be the temenos of ‘Neptunus’, that is, Poseidon, as main god of the Panionion. But already in 1906 Ulrich von WilamowitzMoellendorff12 correctly identified this fortification on Kale Tepe with the Karion phrourion mentioned no less than 18 times in the inscription no. 37 from Priene. It has to be stated here, in opposition to divergent opinions, that the Karion phrourion and Melia are by no means identical and clearly distinguished in that inscription, which forms the most important document for the historical topography of Mt Mycale.13 From the ancient written sources we learn, that during the Meliakos polemos, which so far was held to have happened before the middle of the 7th century BC, the allied forces of the Ionians destroyed an ancient settlement called 11

Texier 1862, 328–29. For more detail, see Hulek in Lohmann et al. 2017, 38–39. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1906, 43. 13 Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 37–43, no. 37, ll. 9, 23, 53, 66, 73, 75, 81, 98, 99, 101, 103–105, 108, 109, 123, 129, 133; Magnetto 2008, index, ‘Karion’; Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 310–31, nos. 132–133. Mac Sweeney (2013, 180) erroneously states that in IvPriene 37 ll. 9–10, 23, 26, 66, 73, etc. the Karion phrourion ‘was another name’ for Melie. To the contrary, from IvPriene 37 it becomes obviously clear, that Melia and the Karion phrourion are two different items (see Lohmann et al. 2017, 105). Unfortunately, the most reliable preliminary report (Lohmann et al. 2007) is omitted from her bibliography. 12

146

HANS LOHMANN

Melia.14 Exploratory trenches within the ring wall of Kale Tepe dug by Kleiner and Hommel in the late 1950s produced no evidence of a settlement. Only a single apsidal house was found and excavated.15 Another one is only mentioned in the excavation diaries, but did not make its way into the final publication.16 A Greek inscription at the main gate dating to the second half of the 6th century BC testifies to the fact that the former Karion phrourion had become a Greek fortification at that time.17 This is neither surprising nor does it lend any support to the identification of the site as Melia. Nonetheless, Kleiner and Hommel abandoned the identification of von WilamowitzMoellendorff and identified the site as ‘Melie’.18 After the Meliakos polemos, the victorious parties of Samos, Miletus, Priene and Ephesus divided the chora of Melia among them. Evidently these four poleis formed the original Ionian League, and other poleis entered it later. From the details of this division it becomes evident, that the vast territory of Melia extended from the westernmost tip of Mycale as far as Marathesion, south of modern Kuşadası. The well preserved ring wall on Kale Tepe, which does not display any signs of violent destruction, could not therefore, in any way, be taken to represent the important site of ancient Melia. Even in Hellenistic times the island of Samos and the city of Priene were still debating the division of the hinterland of Melia, as we learn from the inscription Priene no. 37 already mentioned.19 It was set up at the beginning of the 2nd century BC and was intended to put an end to the age-old conflict between Samos and Priene about the division of the chora of Melia after the Meliakos polemos by marking a clear borderline between the two territories. This border reached from the Şarapdamı Dere at Eski Domatça, east of ancient Thebai in the south over the ridge of Mt Mycale through the Bal Dere down to Cape Horoz on the northern shore 2.7 km west–south-west of Güzelçamlı. Three out of formerly perhaps more than 14 horoi marking that borderline have been rediscovered during the survey.20 14

Cf. Magnetto 2008, index, ‘guerra meliaca’. Kleiner et al. 1967, 166, fig. 62. 16 Lohmann 2014, 42–43, n. 114, fig. 14. 17 Hommel in Kleiner et al. 1967, 127–32, figs. 68–70 (first half of 6th century BC); Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 535, no. 401, pl. 171. 18 Our oldest testimony, Hecataeus FGrH vol. 1, 9 frg. no. 11, has Melia instead (see Lohmann 2005, 76, n. 112). 19 See n. 8. 20 MYK 101: Wiegand and Schrader 1904, 29, pl. II (‘Horos’ in red); Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 43, 128, no. 151; Lohmann et al. 2007, 77, fig. 2; Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 344, no. 137, pl. 116; Hartung 2014, 107, n. 85, 178, 180, 187, pl. 3, 20.1, 2, insert 3. MYK 175: Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 128, no. 152; Lohmann et al. 2007, 77, fig. 3; Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 344, no. 138, pl. 116; Hartung 2014, 107, n. 85, 178, 180, 188, pl. 3, 5.2, 21.1, 2/ 15

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

147

The coast north of Mt Mycale was divided between Samos and Priene. Samos held the western part between Cape Dip Burnu (ancient Trogilion21) to the west and Cape Horoz to the east, but also the northernmost part around Anaia-Kadıkalesi, the so-called Anaeitis chora.22 A large piece of best arable land held by Priene stretched north between these two parts of the Samian peraia, a circumstance which might well explain the endless quarrels between the two cities. The importance of the Ionian League for the formation of the Ionian tribe and the cultural identity of the Ionians was already noted by Herodotus (1. 143) and was stressed by von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and other scholars in the early 20th century. The cult centre of the Ionian League was the Panionion, a sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios (Herodotus 1. 148).23 Already Homer (Iliad 20. 403–405) alluded to the cult of Poseidon Helikonios, comparing the groaning of a hero killed by Achilles with the groaning of the bull, killed as an offering to Poseidon Helikonios. But he mentioned neither the Ionians nor the Panionion. In later times this has given support to the theory that the Ionian League was not founded prior to the 7th century BC, much less one year after the Trojan War, as asserted in the marble chronicle from the island of Paros, the famous Marmor Parium.24 We have to be aware that ‘the Parian Marble uses chronological specificity as a guarantee of truth’ as Green puts it.25 Differing from the typical Greek sacrifice, in which much care was taken in the animal willingly walking to the altar bending its head to signal its submission, in the cult of Poseidon Helikonios young men forcibly dragged the bull to the altar; the more the animal groaned and roared the better the omen.26 This sacrifice to Poseidon: where did it take place? Where did the bull groan? As early as 1673 an inscription concerning the Panionion was found in the middle Byzantine church of Panagia (MYK 81) at Güzelçamlı (Fig. 1).27 MYK 180: Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 47 (with fig.), 128, no. 153; Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 345, no. 139; Lohmann et al. 2017, 90–92, 646–48, figs. 28–31. 21 Lohmann 2002, 249–50 s.v. Trogilion, fig. 26. 22 Lohmann 2002, 174–76 (see ‘Anaeitis Chora’), 176–78 (see ‘Anaia’); Lohmann et al. 2017, 100–02, 583–87 (MYK 124) with bibliography. 23 Cf. Lohmann 2002, 234 s.v. Panionion; Lohmann 2005, 57, n. 2, 65–66 (with bibliography). 24 IG XII, 5, 444; Jacoby 1904; Meister 1999, 938; Lohmann 2005, 69. 25 Green 2007, 30. 26 Scholia ad Homer Iliad 20, 403–405. 27 For the inscription, see Wheler 1682, 268; Leake 1824, 260; Wiegand and Schrader 1904, 24; Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 122, no. 139; Kleiner et al. 1967, 45; Blümel and Merkelbach 2014, 530–32, no. 398. For the identification of this church with the Koimesis Theotokou mentioned by Poulakes 1888, 229, see Hulek in Lohmann et al. 2017, 49–51. For the church in general, see Lohmann et al. 2017, 315, 534–37, figs. 210–212 (MYK 81B).

148

HANS LOHMANN

It was Theodor Wiegand, the first excavator of Priene and Miletus, who in 1898 localised the Panionion to the east of that village on a low hill called Prophitis Elias in those days, but with a big question mark.28 Remains of an altar are preserved on top of that hill and a semi-circular theatre cavea was visible in its western flank. Excavations were first carried out in the late 1950s when Kleiner and Hommel took a fresh interest in the site, which then had changed its name into Otomatik Tepe. Irrespective of the fact that they found no Archaic material on the spot,29 they had no hesitation in identifying it as the original Panionion, that is, the central cult place of the Ionian League.30 Cook, in his review of their publication expressed disappointment about such meagre results,31 and in 1986 Simon stated: ‘There is no firm archaeological evidence for earlier cult activity on the site’.32 But strangely enough, in the course of more than fifty years, since the final publication by Kleiner, Hommel and Müller-Wiener, nobody realised that the sanctuary at Güzelçamlı was still under construction and never finished. This has already been debated at length in former preliminary reports33 and is further corroborated by data from their excavation diaries.34 The arguments might be summarized here as follows. First, for the altar on top of the Otomatik Tepe an Archaic date can be excluded since no architectural fragments of the Archaic period were found and – what counts more – dowels with diagonally cut sprues for the lead are not attested to before the end of the 4th century BC.35 Second, semi-circle caveae like that in the west slope of Otomatik Tepe were first conceived for the theatre of Dionysos at Athens, built under the archonship of Lycourgos, and from there spread all over the Greek world.36 The theatre at Güzelçamlı cannot be supposed to have been constructed earlier. 28

Wiegand in Wiegand and Schrader 1904, 24–26. Find lists in the diaries have no entries of any pottery fragments found on Otomatik Tepe. The final publication instead mentions three fragments of undecorated pottery found within the temenos wall on that hill: Kleiner et al. 1967, 75, cf. Lohmann 2005, 72; 2014, 70, n. 181. The fragments in question are not published in any detail like drawing or photograph. It is hardly possible to assume an Archaic sanctuary on the evidence of three unpublished fragments of reputed Archaic age. 30 Kleiner et al. 1967, 18–37. 31 Cook 1969, 717. 32 Simon 1986, 151. 33 Lohmann 2005, 70–76; Lohmann et al. 2007, 102–03. The criticism by Herda (2006, 46–67, 101–02) rests on highly speculative argument and seems unsustainable from a methodological point of view. 34 Lohmann 2014, especially 71–75. 35 Lohmann 2013, 111, figs. 3–4; 2014, 74, n. 203, figs. 20–21. 36 Junker 2004, especially 11 (with bibliography). 29

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

149

Its measurements resemble closely the theatre at Priene which has been dated around 300 BC.37 The two inscriptions from Güzelçamlı mentioning a Panionion could, according to W. Günther, be downdated to that time also.38 Looking more closely at the so-called bouleuterion it can quickly be discerned that the cutting of the rock within the koilon or cavea was never finished. In many places the underlying rocks are even today protruding into the rows of seating. Furthermore large gaps, clefts and fissures interrupt the rows and wait to be covered with nicely worked marble seats which, however, never arrived. It seems highly improbable that the ambassadors of the 12 Ionian cities were forced to sit on natural rock without any properly fashioned seats. The argument that the presumptive marble seats have been later taken away for instance by lime-burners does not withstand the archaeological evidence: An unpublished photograph from the excavation of Kleiner and Hommel clearly shows a completely undisturbed profile.39 Furthermore there is no limekiln in the neighbourhood of Otomatik Tepe. No theatre marble seats or fragments of them have ever shown up at Güzelçamlı or in its vicinity. Third, more importantly, no Archaic pottery was found on Otomatik Tepe, while elsewhere excavations of Archaic Greek sanctuaries have consistently yielded vast quantities of such pottery. Moreover, there is also no Late Classical to Hellenistic pottery which might testify to a flourishing cult. Above all, a second inscription of the second half of the 4th century BC found by Kleiner and Hommel opposite the former mosque of Güzelçamlı clearly speaks of a ‘refoundation’ of the Panionion and regulates the financial contributions of the members of the Ionian League.40 When in 301 BC a certain Hieron erected a tyranny at Priene, some Prienean aristocrats took refuge in the Karion phrourion on Kale Tepe. But it remains uncertain, if this event ended the attempt to revive the cult of Poseidon Helikonios at Güzelçamlı. In 285 BC, Lysimachus rejected the claim of the Prieneans on the Samian Batinetis in the north-western part of the Mycale, but affirmed them in the posession of the Karion phrourion and the Dryoussa.41 This judgment, although in favour of the Prieneans, evidently made them not resume the work at Otomatik Tepe. Be that as it may: with the attempt to renew the cult of Poseidon 37 von Gerkan 1921, 61–63 (62: ca. 300 BC at the latest); Rumscheid and Koenigs 1998, 161–77, especially 173–74. 38 Personal communication. 39 Lohmann 2014, 73, fig. 19. 40 Hommel in Kleiner et al. 1967, 45–63, figs. 20–23; Sokolowski 1970; Mac Sweeney 2013, 182, n. 48; Lohmann 2014, 3, 5, 24 with nn. 6–8, 61–62. 41 Hiller von Gaertringen 1906, 209, no. 500; Welles 1934, 46–51, no. 7; Ager 1996, 89–92, no. 26; Rose and DeVries 2011, 53.

150

HANS LOHMANN

Helikonios on the coast north of Mt Mycale, Priene evidently tried to assert its claims on the vast territory north of Mt Mycale being the best arable land available in the whole region. Diodorus (15. 49) provides important testimony to the re-founding of the Panionion: ‘Formerly the Panionion was in a lonesome place, later they re-founded it in the neighbourhood of Ephesus.’ His mention of Ephesus clearly serves as a point of reference for his Roman audience, which was not acquainted in detail with the topography of the western coast of Asia Minor, but has sometime been misunderstood as referring to Ephesus itself. This misunderstanding should not distract from the fact that he explicitly speaks of two Panionia, an older and a younger one. A couple of Hellenistic honorific decrees granting free meal to the honorand ‘in the Prytaneion and the Panionion’ were found exclusively in Priene itself.42 Evidently the cult had already been transferred back to Priene itself during that time. It was, therefore, by no means surprising when in 2008 a round altar of Poseidon Helikonios of the Early Imperial age was discovered at Priene.43 Based on the survey mentioned, as well as on the re-evaluation of the excavation diaries of Kleiner and Hommel,44 it can now be stated that they were clearly mistaken in localising the Archaic Panionion there and in identifying Melia with a typical Carian refuge site on Kale Tepe, west of Güzelçamlı. The remains on Otomatik Tepe, east of Güzelçamlı, belong to a younger Panionion of the second half of the 4th century BC, which remained unfinished and never underwent any cult activities. This allows for fresh ideas about the localisation of Melia and the Archaic Panionion. During the survey campaign of 2004 in the heart of Mt Mycale a site was found, which, despite its enormous size and its marvellous state of preservation, had been completely unknown to archaeologists (Figs. 2–4). This site does not only fulfil all the requirements of a Carian site called Melia, but also exactly fits the wording of Herodotus (1. 148) for the Archaic Panionion.45 On the south-western slope of Çatallar Tepe, at 780 m above sea level, some walls of up to 3 m wide form a huge triangle, orientated with its tip to the north and its base to the south, in total covering a space of more than 5 ha.46 There were neither towers nor bastions. Both gates – the one in the south-east as well 42

Schneider 2004. Raeck and Rumscheid 2010, 36, fig. 13. 44 Lohmann 2014, 1–80, especially 71–75. 45 For preliminary reports, see Lohmann 2004; 2005; 2013; Lohmann et al. 2007. For final publication, see Lohmann et al. 2013; 2014; Lohmann et al. 2017. 46 Lohmann 2013, 112–13, figs. 5–6. 43

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

151

Fig. 2. Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları) (aerial photograph and digital processing by D. Gansera 2006).

Fig. 3. Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overview from the south-west (photograph by H. Lohmann).

152

HANS LOHMANN

as the one in the north – are of the overlapping type (Fig. 4),47 characteristic of fortifications of the 7th and 6th centuries BC.48 The southern wall connects two separately walled enclosures on higher elevations to the south-west and the north-east. The walls were built in the usual manner with two outer faces which contained a fill of rubble and mud in between, but the stones are unworked, as is the underlying rock; the stones are more thoroughly worked only in special places, like the small gate in the north-east circuit.49 The entire manner of construction suggests Carian rather than Greek workmanship. We are obviously dealing with another Carian fortification which, however, with the exception of its north-eastern acropolis remained unfinished. The discovery of this Carian site nicely fits with the lines in Homer (Iliad 2. 867–869), where, in enumerating the allies of the Trojans, he mentions the Carians holding the Phthiron Oros (Mt Grium), the Maiandros, Miletus and ‘Mycale’s airy summit’. In 2005, an intensive survey of the area within the fortification produced numerous traces of poorly preserved houses as well as thousands of fragments of Early Archaic pottery of the second half of 7th century BC. This clearly indicates that the area was densely occupied during that period – a result, which in 2009 was further corroborated by excavation (Fig. 5).50 The situation, therefore, differs strongly from that on Kale Tepe where no traces of a nucleated settlement were ever observed. Within this fortification the remains of a temple of the Middle Archaic period were discovered, which had already been seriously damaged by illicit digging and was therefore fully excavated during three campaigns of rescue excavation between 2005 and 2007.51 Meanwhile, the temple has been fully published by Hulek.52 The orientation of the temple is due east (Figs. 6–7). Its length – measured on the northern wall between the north-west corner and the antae in the north-east – was 28.8 m which is close to 100 ft. We may, therefore, call the temple a hekatompedos. It has three sections: the pronaos of 8.65 m with eight columns 47 Lohmann et al. 2010, 124, fig. 1; Lohmann 2017, 158–63, 601–11, insert 4 (MYK 138). For full detail, see the dissertation of Ö. Özgül (in preparation). For gates of the overlapping type, see the following note. 48 Nicholls 1958–59, 116; Lohmann 2019. 49 Lohmann 2005, pl. 5.1; Lohmann et al. 2010, 129–30, figs. 4, 5. 50 Lohmann et al. 2010, 131–33, figs. 8–9. 51 For preliminary reports, see Lohmann 2005, 57–91, pls. 3–8; 2006, 241–52, figs. 1–10; Lohmann et al. 2007, 129–41, figs. 26–31; Kalaitzoglou in Lohmann et al. 2007, 141–57, figs. 32–37; Büsing in Lohmann et al. 2007, 157–67, figs. 38–49; Lohmann 2012, 32–50, figs. 4.1–12. For the roof of the temple, see Lohmann et al. 2013. 52 Hulek 2018.

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

Fig. 4. Melia and the Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overall plan with trial trenches of 2009 (CAD-processing by G. Kalaitzoglou).

153

154

HANS LOHMANN

Fig. 5. Melia. Building MH 3 as seen from the west during the excavation in 2009.

Fig. 6. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Overall plan with different phases (light blue = 7th century BC, red = mid-6th century BC, dark blue 2nd half of 6th century BC) (CAD-processing by G. Kalaitzoglou).

in two rows of four, an almost square naos of 8.05 m to 7.57 m with two columns in the transverse axis of the room and a West Room measuring 10.4 m in length with three columns in the longitudinal axis. In this way, the temple had 13 interior columns, but neither a prostyle front nor a peristasis, nor even a continuous step in front of the pronaos. All parts of the marble architectural

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

155

Fig. 7. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Aerial photograph taken in 2006 after the excavation had been completed (D. Gansera).

elements, of which more than 600 fragments have been catalogued, were heavily affected by fire. The temple walls were made of pounded clay, rather than of adobe, over stone foundations. In relation to the height of the entire building of ca. 5 to 6 m they seem rather weak, since their width measured no more than 0.59 m. The mud walls of the pronaos ended with huge marble slabs as antae (Fig. 8).53 A fragment of the anta capital has meanwhile also been identified (Fig. 9).54 The few fragments of the columns which were preserved were all unfinished.55 The fragments of the columns display three different stages of treatment starting from completely smoothed drums, to a rather rough prepared surface, to those which are still bossed. Fragments of the latter were usually found in the western part of the temple. Obviously the process of completion of the architectural elements started in the east and proceeded toward the west, but was not completed before the temple was destroyed by fire. The lower edges of the drums were smoothed not fluted. This indicates that no fluting was intended. The lower diameter of the drums is approximately 0.54 m, and the upper diameter 0.48 m. It seems, therefore, that the columns became slightly narrower with increasing height. The height of the entire columns may have reached up to 5 or 6 m. There were no dowels to fix the 53 54 55

Hulek 2018, 105–13, figs. 27–28, pls. 26, 27, 76–80. Lohmann 2013, 114, fig. 8. Hulek 2018, 107–11, fig. 28, pls. 26, 76, 77.

156

HANS LOHMANN

Fig. 8. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Anta.

Fig. 9. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Capital of the anta.

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

157

column drums to each other or to the marble slabs of the stylobates, which all differ in size and shape.56 Fragments of Ionic capitals were exclusively found in the eastern sector of the excavation.57 Due to their bad state of preservation they could only be reconstructed graphically. Thereby it became evident, that the capitals were of the so-called torus type, well known from two Archaic capitals found at Didyma.58 However, the Ionic capitals of the temple at Mt Çatallar differed from them in one major respect: the volutes had not been carved, but were simply incised.59 The columns were erected directly over the stylobates without any bases. Fragments of tori were also found.60 Their base measures 0.48 m across. Since the lower diameter of the columns is 0.54 m, while their upper diameter was also 0.48 m, evidently the tori served as capitals in the cella and the West Room, while the use of Ionic capitals was limited to the eight columns of the pronaos. Architectural parts which formerly had been interpreted as round bases were recently identified by F. Hulek as the uppermost drums of the columns below the Ionic capitals of the pronaos.61 The top layer of the walls was formed by marble slabs, which protruded 0.3 m from the wall.62 Almost identical elements were found on the site of the Archaic temple of Dionysos of Yria at Naxos.63 These slabs are forerunners of the later geison and were fitted to each other by iron clamps, embedded in lead. Pairs of cylindrical holes every 0.6 m served to fix the spars. No remains of architraves have been identified amongst the debris. As Hulek holds, it is unlikely that they were made of wood like the architraves of the third Heraion at Samos,64 and therefore, may have become victims of the plundering of the temple like the marble door frames. Generally speaking, the overall appearance of the temple was extremely similar to that of Temple IV of Dionysos at Yria on Naxos dating to almost the same period (Fig. 10). Like the temple at Yria the temple on Çatallar Tepe also had a wooden roof-truss, forming a ridged roof covered with roof tiles 56

Hulek 2018, 53, 59–64, pls. 1–8, 48–58. Hulek 2018, 81–103, pls. 17–26. 58 Tuchelt 1991, fig. 58.1–2; Büsing in Lohmann et al. 2007, 162–63, fig. 46. These capitals were not votive columns, but part of an architectural monument, since they were similarly not dowelled to the column drums. 59 Hulek 2018, 85–87, pls. 21–23, 71–73. 60 Hulek 2018, 94–97, pls. 25, 26, 74, 75. 61 Lohmann 2013, 115, fig. 9. 62 Hulek 2018, 142–50, pls. 35–37, 101–106. 63 Gruben 2001, 375–80, fig. 283; Ohnesorg 2005a, with bibliography in n. 1. 64 Gruben 2001, 357. Furtwängler (1984, 97–103) made convincingly clear that Rhoikos was the architect of the fourth Heraion, built by the tyrant Polycrates. 57

158

HANS LOHMANN

Fig. 10. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları) (provisional reconstruction by A. Fuchs).

of the Corinthian type C2 according to the typology established by Wikander.65 The stroteres were 0.6 m wide, which fits nicely with the distance of the spars. The length of the stroteres is unknown, since no complete specimen was found, but it seems unlikely that it differed from the length of the kalypteres which is also 0.6 m. The eaves were decorated with interlace and the kalypteres at the edge of the roof with lion’s head antefixes (Fig. 11).66 Due to the looting of the temple, some artefacts have already found their way into the antiquities market. Since 1992 three lion’s head antefixes from the Panionion are on display in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.67 The mounting of the antefixes to the eaves is identical with an Archaic roof at Miletus (Fig. 12).68 Ground mussel shells of the cerastoderma edule species which live in the Menderes Delta were added to the clay of the rooftiles. This points

65

Wikander 1988, 210–11, fig. 4, ‘C2’. Lohmann 2013, 115, fig. 10. 67 For full detail, see Lohmann 2012, 43, fig. 4.5. 68 von Gerkan 1925, 23, fig. 16. For the Panionion, see Özgül 2013, 142–43, pls. 80–81; Lohmann 2013, 116, fig. 11. 66

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

Fig. 11. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Lion’s head antefix (mid-6th century BC) with traces of original colours (photograph by H. Lohmann).

Fig. 12. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları) (graphic reconstruction of the eaves by Ö. Özgül).

159

160

HANS LOHMANN

Fig. 13. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Kylix by the Tleson Painter of about 550 BC, found in situ on the floor of the West Room. It dates the destruction level of the Archaic Panionion.

strongly to the making of the roof in the Archaic town of Priene, which is today inaccessible under metres of alluvium in the Menderes.69 When turning to the West Room (Figs. 6–7), it can be stated that the type of building with an eccentric door and a row of columns in the longitudinal axis of the room is well known as a lesche. The combination of a temple and a lesche in the same building is rare but not unique.70 The West Room was entered from the south. The door consisted of two elements: a lavishly marble doorframe integrated into the south wall of the West Room and an inner threshold made from two marble blocks joined by two visible iron 69

See also Hauptmann and Al-Shorman 2013. The closest parallel is offered by the Late Geometric temple of Apollo at Halieis in the Peloponnese: Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 162–64, figs. 243–245. 70

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

161

cramps.71 The components of this doorframe are the most nicely worked architectural elements of the temple. The outer threshold was reassembled from six fragments, lying scattered around on the surface. With a length of 1.94 m, a width of 0.6 m and a height of 0.34 m, it was the largest monolithic block discovered. Only the (not completely preserved) door lintel, which shows traces of intensive burning, equals it in size. Many symposion artefacts such as a wine sieve, drinking cups and ivory appliqués for beds, demonstrate the intended use of the West Room as a lesche. Its walls were decorated with weapons. We found no fewer than seven spearheads, a sauroter and part of a bronze cuirass with little holes to fix it to a leather coat.72 The whole finding gives a lively illustration to the description of the gathering hall of an aristocratic heteiria by Alkaios.73 No doubt: the West Room also served as such a gathering hall. It is also the largest room of the whole building and is combined with the temple in a very rare, if not unique way. It seems, therefore, that it had a special meaning, moreover a constitutive significance for the cult, which led to this unusual design. The best explanation I can offer, is that we are here in front of the Archaic Panionion mentioned by Herodotus (1. 148), and the West Room served as the assembly hall of the Ionian League.74 This is further corroborated by the fact that the temple was erected one generation after the destruction of a vast fortified Carian settlement within its ruins. Within the West Room the excavation produced clear evidence of the destruction of the building through fire. The entire roof was laid out on the earthen floor, covered by the collapsed mud of the temple walls, partly burnt red by the fire.75 At an unknown interval after the fire, a severe earthquake shook the temple, which, by that time, was a mere heap of rubble. None of the columns were found lying on the temple floor which seems to indicate (combined with their damaged state) that they were exposed to the fire while still standing. This points to the fact that the earthquake was not the cause of the fire. The latest item found on the floor of the West Room was a kylix, a drinking cup made by the Attic vase-painter Tleson by the middle of the 6th century BC (Fig. 14).76 This item dates the destruction of the temple. The West Room had 71 Hulek 2018, 115–28, fig. 31, pls. 28–30, 43.2, 82–90. Visible cramps are but rarely used in Archaic architecture, cf. Ohnesorg 2005b, 49, n. 250. 72 It strongly resembles the cuirass worn by the contemporary statue of a warrior from Samos (with a later date of 520 BC): Boardman 1981, fig. 176. For the finds from the West Room in general, see Kalaitzoglou in Lohmann et al. 2007, 141–57, figs. 32–37. 73 Alkaios frg. 54D (apud Athen. 14. 627a–c); Lohmann 2012. 74 Cf. Lohmann 2012, 100–08. 75 Lohmann et al. 2007, 133, fig. 28 (the legends of fig. 28 and fig. 29 are inverted). 76 For Tleson, see Beazley 1956, 178–83, 688; Mommsen 2000, 777.

162

HANS LOHMANN

evidently already been in use as a dining room and assembly hall. However, the final finish of the columns, as well as perhaps a floor made of stone slabs, was still missing. Since the construction of the temple was started in approximately 560 BC, the temple was in use for no more than 20 years at most. If the temple on Çatallar Tepe is indeed the Archaic Panionion, we should be able to find traces of an older cult, which became later the cult of the main god of the Ionian League and the Panionion. This is because the Greeks, after having defeated the Carians of Melia in the Meliakos polemos, continued the cult of Poseidon Helikonios in the Panionion, the central sanctuary of the 12 Ionian cities united in the Ionian League.77 It was, therefore, not completely unexpected that we found the wellpreserved remains of an older naiskos of the 7th century BC underneath the cella of the Archaic temple, which – obviously for reasons of piety – was nicely preserved when the younger temple was built in 560 BC (Fig. 14).78 A fill below the floor of its naos contained many precious objects belonging to the older phase of the sanctuary. Some beautiful silver earrings are of a type which is also present in other contexts of the late 7th century BC.79 The Early Archaic statuette of a lion, carved from limestone (Fig. 15),80 was found buried beneath the threshold of the naos. It resembles a lion from Salamis on Cyprus,81 but was not necessarily made there. It should, however, be pointed out that neither the offerings found in the naiskos nor in the younger hekatompedos show any evidence that the cult celebrated here was devoted to Poseidon, not to speak of any epigraphical evidence. However, votives found in Archaic sanctuaries rarely show any connection with the deities venerated in that particular sanctuary. Only a group of two Siamese terracotta warriors, which also belongs to the older phase, might represent the Siamese twins Aktorione-Molione, sons of Poseidon.82 It might also be noted here, that the close examination of the debris of the offerings showed up an unusual high percentage of cattle among the bones.83 77

For ample details, see Lohmann et al. 2007. Lohmann et al. 2007, 137, fig. 29 (the legends of fig. 28 and fig. 29 are inverted); Lohmann 2013, 117, fig. 12. 79 See Boehlau 1898, 46, pl. XV no. 13 (grave no. 45); Boehlau et al. 1996, 62, no. 45.8–12; Boardman 1967, 221–22, no. 350, fig. 144 (from period IV of the harbour sanctuary, ca. 630– 600 BC). 80 Kalaitzoglou in Lohmann et al. 2007, 144, fig. 33 (PA4c5–46). 81 Fourrier 2001, 43, pl. 3, no. 2 (inv. no. Sal. 1788). 82 Kalaitzoglou in Lohmann et al. 2007, 145–46, fig. 32. The interpretation as AktorioneMolione is supported by a bronze plate from Samos dating to the second half of the 7th century BC (Pflug 1988, 37, fig. 12), which displays Heracles fighting Geryoneus. 83 Obermaier 2012. 78

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

163

Fig. 14. Archaic Panionion at Çatallar Tepe in the Mycale (Dilek Dağları). Naiskos of the 7th century BC below the naos of the Archaic temple as seen from north. To the left entrance. The foundations of the two interior columns of the naos of the younger temple partially overlay the foundations of the naiskos. The round object in the middle is an altar for burnt offerings, to the right the partially dismantled bathron for offerings (photograph by H. Lohmann).

Fig. 15. Statuette of a lion, limestone, Early Archaic period (7th century BC), found beneath the threshold of the door leading into the naos of the Panionion.

164

HANS LOHMANN

To sum up the rich finds of precious metal objects, as well as the pottery from the fill of the younger temple, allows a precise dating of the older naiskos to the period 650–600 BC. This fits exactly with the results of the intensive survey of 2005 and of the excavation within the settlement in 2009, which points to exactly the same time. The hekatompedos therefore, was erected within an older settlement which at the time was already lying in ruins. Although the temple has been seriously damaged by looting, there is no other temple of this period in the whole of Anatolia in a comparable state of preservation. In the undisturbed strata a number of objects were found, giving us a precise date for the construction both of the naiskos and of the later hekatompedos and for the destruction of the latter. This is of equally great relevance to the history of early Ionian architecture. The exact date of the temple provides an important point of reference within the development of this architectural form. The site at Çatallar Tepe is the first Archaic sanctuary of an amphictyonia which has ever been excavated. The importance of the discovery of Melia and the Archaic Panionion as the central sanctuary of the Ionian League on Çatallar Tepe for our understanding of the history of early Ionia and the Ionian League can, therefore, hardly be overestimated. To hold the Meliakos polemos responsible for the destruction of the Carian settlement at Çatallar Tepe in 600/590 BC, undeniably raises some chronological difficulties, since traditionally this war is dated before the Cimmerians invaded the West coast of Asia Minor around the middle or the third quarter of the 7th century BC. In order to save the traditional order of the events it might be assumed, that the Meliakos polemos as a conflict between Greek colonist and the indigenous Carian population, holding a vast territory, led to the erection of the Karion phrourion on Kale Tepe in the first quarter of the 7th century BC, while around the middle of that century the Cimmerian raids made the Carian population of the coastal area withdraw further to Çatallar Tepe. For the destruction of Melia and the final expulsion of the Carians from the Mycale mountain ridge at 600/590 BC the expansion of the Lydian kingdom under Alyattes should be taken into consideration, who might have used his Greek allies. This consequently ended up with the division of the vast chora of Melia under the victorious parties, that is, Ephesus, Miletus, Priene and Samos, which, therefore, were evidently the first members of the Ionian League, while other poleis entered later. In spite of the somewhat vague ancient traditions about the Meliakos polemos it now seems clear that Melia and the Panionion occupied the same topographical location as had been argued by von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff already in 1906. And the Austrian historian Tausend was right when he convincingly

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

165

suggested that the Meliakos polemos ought to be seen as a conflict between Greek colonists and the indigenous Carian population.84 The Carians – who, according to the already-quoted passage in Homer (Iliad 2. 867–869), were in the possession of Mt Mycale by the 2nd millennium BC – were expelled together with the destruction of the settlement. This might also explain why so far only few Carian oval buildings have been found during the survey,85 since these structures mostly belong to the 6th century BC when the Carian presence in the region had already come to an end. While Ionians and Carians clearly differed in terms of their material culture, we might safely conclude that the fortified settlement at Çatallar Tepe was Carian, not Greek, while the temple erected one generation later within the ruins of Melia does not only represent an early stage of the Ionian architectural order, but should also be considered as a victory monument over the Carians and as such an important element of Ionic ethnocentrism towards them. The foundation of the Ionian League and the war which led to the destruction of the only but largest Carian settlement within the Mycale mountain range evidently played a major role for the ethnogenesis and the ethnic identity of the Ionians.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ager, S.L. 1996: Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 BC (Berkeley/ London). Beazley, J.D. 1956: Attic Black-Figure Vase-Painters (Oxford). Blümel, W. and Merkelbach, R. 2014: Die Inschriften von Priene (Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 69) (Bonn). Boardman, J. 1967: Excavations in Chios 1952–1955: Greek Emporion (British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 6) (Oxford). —. 1981: Griechische Plastik: Die archaische Zeit. Ein Handbuch (Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 5) (Mainz). Boehlau, J. 1898: Aus ionischen und italischen Nekropolen: Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der nachmykenischen griechischen Kunst (Leipzig). Boehlau, J., Fabricius, J. and Gercke, P. 1996: Samos: die Kasseler Grabung 1894 in der Nekropole der archaischen Stadt von Johannes Boehlau und Edward Habich (Kataloge der Staatlichen Museen Kassel 23) (Kassel). Chandler, R. 1775: Travels in Asia Minor: Or an Account of a Tour Made at the Expense of the Society of Dilettanti (Oxford). —. 1776: Reisen in Klein Asien (Leipzig). Cook, J.M. 1969: Review of Kleiner et al. 1967. Gnomon 41, 716–18. 84 85

Tausend 1992, 73. MYK 158, MYK 196, MYK 205 (see Lohmann et al. 2017).

166

HANS LOHMANN

Furtwängler, A. 1984: ‘Wer entwarf den grössten Tempel Griechenlands?’. MDAI 99, 97–103. von Gerkan, A. 1921: Das Theater von Priene als Einzelanlage und in seiner Bedeutung für das hellenistische Bühnenwesen (Munich/Berlin/Leipzig). —. 1925: Milet 1.8: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen seit dem Jahre 1899 begründet von Theodor Wiegand. Kalabaktepe, Athenatempel und Umgebung (Berlin). Green, P. 2007: The Argonautika of Apollonios Rhodios (Hellenistic Culture and Society 25) (Berkeley). Gruben, G. 2001: Griechische Tempel und Heiligtümer (Munich). Hartung, J.-H. 2014: ‘Das antike Thebai in der Mykale’. In Lohmann et al. 2014, 83–175. Hauptmann, A. and Al-Shorman, A. 2013: ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen eines Dachziegelfragments’. In Lohmann et al. 2013, 193–96. Herda, A. 2006: ‘Panionion – Melia, Mykalessos – Mykale, Perseus und Medusa’. IstMitt 56, 43–102. Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1906: Inschriften von Priene (Berlin). Hulek, F. 2018: Der hocharchaische Tempel am Çatallar Tepe. Architektur und Rekonstruktion (Asia Minor Studien 89) (Bonn). Jacoby, F. 1904: Das Marmor Parium (Berlin). Junker, K. 2004: ‘Vom Theatron zum Theater. Zur Genese eines griechischen Bautypus’. Antike Kunst 47, 10–32. Kleiner, G., Hommel, P. and Müller-Wiener, W. 1967: Panionion und Melie (Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft 23) (Berlin). Leake, W.M. 1824: Journal of a Tour in Asia Minor, With Comparative Remarks on the Ancient and Modern Geography of that Country (London). Lohmann, H. 2002: ‘Zur historischen Topographie des südlichen Ionien’. Orbis Terrarum 8, 163–272. —. 2003: ‘Survey in Theben an der Mykale, 1. Kampagne 2001’. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 20.2, 247–60. —. 2004: ‘Mélia, le Panionion et le culte de Poséidon Héliconios’. In Labarre, G. and Moret, J.-M. (eds.), Les cultes locaux dans les mondes grec et romain (Actes du colloque de Lyon, 7–8 juin 2001) (Collection de l’Institut d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’antiquité 7) (Paris), 31–49. —. 2005: ‘Melia, das Panionion und der Kult des Poseidon Helikonios’. In Schwertheim, E. and Winter, E. (eds.), Neue Forschungen zu Ionien. Fahri Işık zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet (Asia Minor Studien 54) (Bonn), 57–91. —. 2006: ‘Survey in the Mycale, 3rd Campaign: The Discovery of the Archaic Panionion’. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 23.1, 241–52. —. 2012: ‘… und es blitzet von Erz der große Saal: zum Bankettsaal des archaischen Panionion’. In Günther, L.-M. (ed.), Tryphe und Kultritual im archaischen Kleinasien – ex oriente luxuria? (Akten des Bochumer Internationalen Kollegs für Geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung (IKGF) ‘Dynamiken der Religionsgeschichte zwischen Asien und Europa’, Bochum Dez. 2009) (Wiesbaden), 96–125. —. 2013: ‘Melia und das archaische Panionion am Çatallar Tepe in der Mykale’. In Yalçın, Ü. (ed.), Anatolian Metal 6 (Der Anschnitt Beih. 25; Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 195) (Bochum/Bonn), 109–22.

WHERE THE BULL GROANED

167

—. 2014: ‘Panionion und Melia: Die Archivalien der Ausgrabungen von KleinerHommel und Müller-Wiener in Güzelçamlı in den Jahren 1957, 1958 und 1960’. In Lohmann et al. 2014, 1–80. —. 2019: ‘Frühe karische Befestigungen im Latmos und verwandte Anlagen’. In Lohmann, H. (ed.), Feldforschungen im Latmos 2: Forschungen im Umland von Herakleia am Latmos (Asia Minor Studien 92) (Bonn), 156–284. Lohmann, H., Büsing, H., Hulek, F., Kalaitzoglou, G., Lüdorf, G., Müllenhoff, M., and Niewöhner, P. 2007: ‘Forschungen und Ausgrabungen in der Mykale 2001–2006’. IstMitt 57, 59–178. Lohmann, H., Kalaitzoglou, G. and Lüdorf, G. 2010: ‘Sondagen in der befestigten karischen Höhensiedlung von Melia in der Mykale (Dilek Dağları/Aydın)’. AA, 123–37. —. (eds.) 2013: Forschungen in der Mykale 3.2: Das Dach des archaischen Panionion (Asia Minor Studien 70) (Bonn). —. (eds.) 2014: Forschungen in der Mykale 1.2: Survey in der Mykale. Ergänzende Studien (Asia Minor Studien 75) (Bonn). —. (eds.) 2017: Forschungen in der Mykale 1.1: Survey in der Mykale (Dilek Daglan/ Aydin 2001–2009) (Asia Minor Studien 77) (Bonn). Mac Sweeney, N. 2013: Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge). Magnetto, A. 2008: L’arbitrato di Rodi fra Samo e Priene (Testi e commenti 8) (Pisa). Mazarakis-Ainian, A. 1997: From Rulers’ Dwellings to Temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100–700 BC) (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 121) (Jonsered). Meister, K. 1999: ‘Marmor Parium’. Der Neue Pauly 7, 938. Miklosich, F and Müller, J. 1890: Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana 6: Acta et diplomata monasteriorum et ecclesiarum Orientis, vol. 3 (Vienna). Mommsen, H. 2000: ‘Nearchos 1’. Der Neue Pauly 8, 777. Müllenhoff, M. 2005: Geoarchäologische, sedimentologische und morphodynamische Untersuchungen im Mündungsgebiet des Büyük Menderes (Mäander), Westtürkei (Marburg). Nicholls, R.V. 1958–59: ‘Old Smyrna: The Iron Age Fortifications and Associated Remains of the City Perimeter’. Annual of the British School at Athens 53–54, 35–137. Obermaier, H. 2012: ‘Faunenreste aus dem archaischen Tempel des Panionion und aus der Siedlung Melia im Mykale Gebirge, Westtürkei’. Documenta Archaeobiologiae 10, 207–31. Ohnesorg, A. 2005: ‘Naxian and Parian Architecture. General Features and New Discoveries’. In Yeroulanou, M. and Stamatopoulou, M. (eds.), Architecture and Archaeology in the Cyclades: Essays in Honour of J.J. Coulton (BAR International Series 1455) (Oxford), 135–52. —. 2005a: Ionische Altäre: Formen und Varianten einer Architekturgattung aus Insel- und Ostionien (Archäologische Forschungen 21) (Berlin). Özgül, Ö. 2013: ‘Das Dach des archaischen Panionion: Antefixe und Hegemone’. In Lohmann et al. 2013, 125–81. Peschlow-Bindokat, A. 1981–83: ‘Lelegische Siedlungspuren am Bafasee’. Anadolu 22, 79–83. —. 1996a: Der Latmos: eine unbekannte Gebirgslandschaft an der türkischen Westküste (Mainz).

168

HANS LOHMANN

—. 1996b: ‘Die Arbeiten des Jahres 1994 im Territorium von Herakleia am Latmos’. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 13, 211–24. Poulakes, Α.G. 1888: ‘Statistike tes Krenes kai ton Aneon’. Ho en Konstantinoupolei Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos 25, 1861–1886. Parartema tou 17. tomou, 188– 233. Raeck, W. and Rumscheid, F. 2010: ‘Die Arbeiten in Priene im Jahre 2008’. KST 31, 27–38. Rose, C.B. and DeVries, K.R. (eds.) 2011: The New Chronology of Iron Age Gordion (Gordion Special Studies 6; University Museum Monograph 133) (Philadelphia). Rumscheid, F. and Koenigs, W. 1998: Priene: Führer durch das „Pompeji Kleinasiens“ (Istanbul). Schneider, C. 2004: ‘Poseidon und sein Volk’. Antike Welt 35, 17–24. Simon, C.G. 1986: The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of Ionia (Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley). Sokolowski, F. 1970: ‘Règlement relatif à la célébration des Panionia’. BCH 94, 109–12. Tausend, K. 1992: Amphiktyonie und Symmachie. Formen zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen im archaischen Griechenland (Historia Einzelschriften 73) (Stuttgart). Texier, C. 1862: Asie Mineure: description géographique, historique et archéologique des provinces et des villes de la Chersonnèse d’Asie (Paris). Welles, C.B. 1934: Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (New Haven/London). Wheler, G. 1682: A Journey into Greece (London). Wiegand, T. and Schrader, H. 1904: Priene: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1895–1898 (Berlin). Wikander, Ö. 1998: ‘Ancient roof-tiles. Use and function’. Opuscula Athenensia 17, 203–16. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. 1906: ‘Panionion’. Sitzungsberichte der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Klasse für Sprache, Literatur und Kunst, 38–57 (= Kleine Schriften 5.1: Geschichte, Epigraphik, Archäologie [Berlin 1971], 128–51).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD: A MAJOR PRODUCTION CENTRE OF POTTERY IN NORTH IONIA* Michael KERSCHNER and Hans MOMMSEN

Abstract Recent archaeological and archaeometric research at Teos has shown that this polis was one of the most prolific production centres of painted pottery in Ionia from the late 8th to the mid-6th century BC. The neutron activation analysis (NAA) of kiln wasters established the chemical fingerprint of Teian pottery. Local production of painted pottery can be traced back until the Protogeometric period. In the Late Geometric period, Teian workshops produced the bird kotylae and, in the 7th century BC, their even more widespread successors, the bird bowls, the first standardised decorated fine ware in the eastern Aegean produced for large-scale export. In addition, the Teian potters had a major share in the production of the North Ionian Wild Goat style as well as in simply decorated dishes, bowls and other shapes. Another important result of this NAA was the localisation of a frequent and widespread type of Late Archaic trade amphorae, previously called ‘Zeest’s Samian and Protothasian’, ‘Ionian I’ or ‘İonia β’ amphorae, at Teos.

Teos was one of the major poleis in Ionia as is testified by ancient literary and epigraphic sources.1 Despite its importance in antiquity, the site was investigated only sporadically in three periods of excavation during the 20th century (Yves Béquignon and Alfred Laumonier in 1924–25; Baki Öǧun and Yusuf Boysal in 1962–67; Duran Mustafa Uz in 1980–92).2 Finally, since 2010, continuous and systematic excavations, surveying, geophysical surveys, conservation and restoration works, as well as a site presentation programme, have * We thank Musa Kadıoǧlu (Ankara) for his invitation to work at Teos and Sabine Ladstätter (Vienna) for her support of this co-operation. Furthermore, we want to thank Gocha Tsetskhladze for the smooth organisation of the conference and Marta Santos Retolaza for being such a cordial and attentive host at Empúries. This paper was submitted in the autumn of 2016. Publications of a later date could not be considered. 1 On the history of Teos on the basis of the written sources: Rubinstein 2004, 1101–02; Strang 2007, 33–42, 52–58; Kadıoǧlu 2013, 5–6; Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 347–49. On the epigraphic sources: Loukopoulou and Parissaki 2004 (with bibliography). 2 On the history of excavations and research of the site: Strang 2007, 9–14; Kadıoǧlu 2012; 2013, 3–4; Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 347; and the home-page of the excavation: http://www.teosarkeoloji.com/arastirma-tarihi (with full bibliography).

170

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

been carried out by Musa Kadıoǧlu (Ankara University) and his team.3 Contemporaneously, the Archaeological Museum of Izmir has carried out rescue excavations in the vicinity of the ancient city. 1. TEOS IN THE EARLY IRON AGE The topographical situation of Teos (Fig. 1) is unique among the Ionian poleis.4 The city was built on the isthmus rather than on the peninsula itself. In this way, Teos possessed two well-protected harbours, one to the south and another to the north; the latter was invisible from the open sea. The isthmus must have been much narrower in Geometric and Archaic times, and presumably the passage was further narrowed by marshes.5 The acropolis hill is lower than the mountainous peninsula to the west, but has steep slopes on its north, east and south sides. As far as we know, the western peninsula was used as necropolis from the Late Geometric period onwards, but it was not inhabited or fortified.6 The literary tradition of the foundation and the early history of Teos is patchy and largely legendary.7 There is, however, archaeological evidence attesting continuous settlement from the Protogeometric period onwards. In 1962–65, Yusuf Boysal and Baki Öǧün discovered Early Iron Age pottery in deep layers in the central area of the Hellenistic-Roman city (Fig. 1).8 The excavators reported a large number of bird kotylae and bird bowls of the second half of the 8th and of the 7th century BC.9 The earliest finds reach back to the 10th century BC. A Protogeometric neck-amphora reused for the burial of a child was found in a deep trench (‘E çukuru’) ca. 150 m south of the HellenisticRoman theatre.10 Further finds of Protogeometric pottery are reported from layers beneath the Hellenistic city wall west of the temple of Dionysos.11 3 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2013; 2015; 2016; Kadıoǧlu 2013; and the home-page of the excavation: http://www.teosarkeoloji.com/ (with full bibliography). 4 Kerschner 2017a. For a site map: Kadıoǧlu 2013, 2; Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 346, plan 1. 5 Systematic palaeogeographical research has not yet been carried out at Teos. The coastline given in fig. 1 is therefore conjectural, geared to the contour lines – cf. Hoepfner 2011, 133, fig. 76 (the schematic course of the Hellenistic fortification wall on fig. 76 is not correct, cf. Kadıoğlu et al. 2015, 346, map 1) – and including information from rescue excavations in the area of the modern town of Sığacık. 6 İren and Ünlü 2012, 309–10, fig. 1; Kadıoğlu 2013, 1. 7 Strang 2007, 44–49 (with bibliography). For recent overviews on the extensive discussion on the literary tradition of the Ionian Migration: Cobet 2007; Lemos 2007; Herda 2009; Mac Sweeney 2016 (all with bibliography). 8 Öǧün 1964, 116–17, figs. 3–4, 9 (‘E çukuru’). 9 Boysal 1962, 7; 1965, 231. 10 Öǧün 1964, 117, fig. 9; cf. Coldstream 2008, 264, n. 4. 11 Öǧün 1964, 117; cf. Lemos 2007, 718.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

Fig. 1. Teos in the Late Geometric period (ca. 750–680/70 BC) (map by M. Kerschner and I. Benda-Weber, after Hoepfner 2011, İren and Ünlü 2012, Kadıoǧlu 2013).

171

172

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

In the recent excavations by Musa Kadıoǧlu since 2010, Late Geometric pottery has been found at several places (Fig. 1): on the acropolis, under the propylon of the temenos of Dionysos, in the area west of the Hellenistic city wall and in the western necropolis (Fig. 2). A rich cremation burial of the Late Geometric period was unearthed by Turan Özkan in a rescue excavation north-west of the acropolis and close to the modern marina of Sıǧacık in 1996 (Fig. 1).12 During the funeral ceremony one large krater (Fig. 3) and 23 kotylae (Fig. 4) were used for common feasting and afterwards smashed and thrown into the fire of the pyre, as was meticulously reconstructed by Kaan İren and Ayla Ünlü. All 24 vases are stylistically closely related and can be attributed to the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’.13 A significant number of Late Geometric sherds was found in rescue excavations at a deep level underneath a habitation quarter of the 6th–5th century BC south-west of the marina of Sıǧacık in 2013–15.14 This site is close to the place of the above-mentioned cremation burial (see Fig. 1). Since no contemporaneous structures have been found, it seems conceivable that the Late Geometric fragments originate from destroyed graves which had been levelled when the houses had been built in the 6th century BC. If this is true, the cremation burial excavated in 1996 was part of a necropolis north-west of the city centre.15 Stylistically the earliest piece discovered in this area is a rim fragment of a kotyle with hatched meander hooks (Fig. 5). This type is closely related with the bird kotylae and occurs in Middle Geometric II contexts at Clazomenae and at Eretria on Euboea, while the above-mention cremation burial at Teos and a grave of the third quarter of the 8th century BC at Ialysos on Rhodes show that this type continued into the Late Geometric period.16 12

Özkan 2009; a more detailed discussion in: İren and Ünlü 2012. On the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’: Coldstream 1968, 277–79, pl. 61a–d; Boardman 1998, 51, fig. 137; Coldstream 2008, 277–79, 479. 14 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2013, 213; 2015, 349–53. The earliest pottery fragments excavated so far on the acropolis date to the Late Geometric period (trench AK3, cf. Kadıoǧlu et al. 2016, 459–60); among them are several fragments of bird kotylae. 15 Cf. Özkan 2009, 65. İren and Ünlü (2012, 316), on the contrary, assume that the cremation burial was isolated, since no further grave had been found in the six other test trenches. They did not take into account, however, that later levelling measurements might have destroyed the fragile evidence of cremation burials and also graves so that only pottery fragments survived in the archaeological record. At least from the 6th century onwards, this area was used as necropolis shown by fragments of fragmentary sarcophagi of Clazomenian type. There is no reason to assume that these fragments ‘seemed to have been transported from elsewhere’, as İren and Ünlü did (2012, 310). Archaeometric analyses of the terracotta sarcophagi found at Teos are still a desideratum. 16 Clazomenae: Ersoy 2004, 46–49, figs. 3f–g, 5c. Eretria: Andreiomenou 1981, 203–04, fig. 38 (middle). Teos: İren and Ünlü 2012, 312–15, figs. 18, 20 (‘Group B’). Ialysos: Papapostolou 13

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

173

Fig. 2. Bird oinochoe from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012; inv. T12-NA-M1.3b) (photograph by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 3. Krater of the Teian ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the north-west necropolis (excavation 1996) (after İren and Ünlü 2012, 330, fig. 29).

174

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 4. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the north-west necropolis (excavation 1996) (after İren and Ünlü 2012, 324, fig. 11).

Fig. 5. Middle Geometric II/Late Geometric kotyle with meander hooks from the excavation 2013 west to the northern harbour (photograph by S. Gülgönül; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

2. TEOS

IN THE

175

ARCHAIC PERIOD

The literary sources for the Archaic period are more numerous and more reliable, so that the history of Teos becomes tangible for us from the 6th century BC onwards.17 Around 575 BC, the famous poet Anakreon was born here, who, however, spent much of his later life abroad. The involvement of the city in long-distance trade is evident from its participation at Naukratis, an emporion in Egypt, run mainly by East Greeks.18 Its economic interests reached also far to the north, where the Teians founded two colonies shortly after the middle of the 6th century BC, Abdera on the Thracian coast of the Aegean,19 and Phanagoria on the Taman Peninsula.20 At home, a spacious and largely fertile chora formed a solid basis for the economy of Teos.21 Archaic finds and deposits occur more frequently and at more places inside and around the area of the Hellenistic-Roman city than Geometric ones. Already the excavations of the 1960s discovered layers of the 7th and 6th centuries BC on the acropolis hill and in the plain south of it.22 Since 2010, further Archaic deposits were unearthed on the acropolis, in deep layers south-west of the theatre and in the sacred precinct of Dionysos.23 In the area west of the Hellenistic city wall remains of buildings of the 6th and 5th century were excavated in 2011–12 (Fig. 6).24 Among the ceramic finds were a number of kiln wasters, mainly of transport amphorae (Fig. 7), suggesting that pottery workshops were located in this area at the western fringes of the city.25

1968, 80, pl. 37. Cf. Walter 1968, 40 (Samos); Özgünel 2003, 77, pl. 17.3 (Smyrna); Coldstream 2008, 278, and Kerschner et al. 2008, 27–28, pls. 10, 23 (Ephesus). 17 Strang 2007, 48–58 (with ancient sources and bibliography); Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 349–59. 18 Herodotus 2. 178. 2. Cf. Möller 2000, 81–82. On current research at Naukratis, see Villing and Schlotzhauer 2006; Schlotzhauer et al. 2012; Villing et al. 2013–20; and the contribution of Johnston and Villing, below in this volume. 19 Abdera was a re-foundation at the site of an earlier apoikia founded by the Clazomenians: Herodotus 1. 168–169; Strabo 14. 1. 30; Ps.-Scymnus 670–671; cf. Isaac 1986, 81–85; Loukopoulou 2004, 873; Strang 2007, 63–74. On Archaic Abdera and its pottery finds: KoukouliChrysanthaki 2004; Skarlatidou 2004a; 2004b; 2012 (with bibliography); Dupont and Skarlatidou 2012. 20 Ps.-Scymnus 886; Arrian fr. 71 (= FGrHist 156); cf. Avram, Hind and Tsetskhladze 2004, 950–51. On recent archaeological research at Phanagoria: Kuznetsov 2008; 2010; Povalahev and Kuznetsov 2011; Kuznetsov 2013; 2016 (with bibliography). Overview of the Archaic pottery finds: Dupont 2011. 21 Rubinstein 2004, 1001; Strang 2007, 18–42; Koparal 2013. 22 Preliminary reports: Boysal 1962; 1965; Öǧün 1964. 23 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 361 (acropolis); 2016, 457–58, 474, fig. 4 (acropolis). 24 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2013, 213 (area west of the Hellenistic city wall). 25 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 349–50, fig. 2.

176

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 6. Buildings of the 6th (left) and 5th centuries BC (top right) in the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2012). In the front left corner a smashed Archaic pithos (photograph by M. Kerschner; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 7. Kiln wasters of Teian amphorae from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB. On the left: sample Teos 21 (inv. T11-88/21-18.008.45a) (photograph by M. Kerschner; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

177

Further west, on the peninsula, rescue excavations in the western necropolis of Teos uncovered several grave precincts in 2013–15.26 The burials date from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period. Many of them were inhumations in terracotta sarcophagi of Clazomenian type.27 In 2013–15 another rescue excavation unearthed parts of a habitation quarter south-west of the modern marina of Sıǧacık, where presumably already in antiquity a harbour was situated.28 The prosperity of the polis in the 6th century BC is mirrored in a monumental marble temple of Ionic order and a related altar. Both were recently reconstructed from scattered and reused architectural fragments by Musa Kadıoǧlu and dated according to their style to ca. 550–525 BC.29 This is shortly after the Persian conquest of the city ca. 550–539 BC,30 when, according to Herodotus (1. 168), all inhabitants allegedly fled to the northern Aegean coast: The Teians did the same things as the Phocaeans: when Harpagus had taken their walled city by building an earthwork, they all embarked aboard ship and sailed away for Thrace. There they founded a city, Abdera, which before this had been founded by Timesius of Clazomenae.31

Obviously, this statement is an exaggeration,32 given that the above mentioned remains dating to the second half of the 6th and to the 5th century BC were discovered at three different sites west and north-west of the Hellenistic 26

Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 363; 2016, 466, 476–78, figs. 8–9, 11. Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 363; 2016, 466, 478, fig. 11. Previous discoveries of terracotta sarcopagi in the north-west necropolis are mentioned by İren and Ünlü 2012, 310. 28 A northern harbour is mentioned by Strabo (14. 1. 30) and called Gerrhaiidai. Livy (37. 27. 9) calls the northern harbour of Teos ‘Geraesticus’. Cf. Strang 2007, 85–86; Hoepfner 2011, 132; İren and Ünlü 2012, 309; Kadıoǧlu 2013, 19. Its identification is, however, uncertain, since Strabo specifies its distance from the Hellenistic-Roman city as 30 stades (= ca. 5.3 km), whereas the marina of Sıǧacık is closer to the Hellenistic fortification wall. 29 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 353–62, figs. 9–19. 30 The date of the Persian capture of the Lydian capital Sardis and the ensuing conquest of the Ionian poleis including Teos has been much debated, since the crucial passage in the Nabonid Chronicle (II.16), which is the only surviving written source for the date of Cyrus’ campaign against Lydia, is damaged: Cahill and Kroll 2005, 605–08; Cahill 2010, 341–44 (with bibliography). Recently, van den Spek (2014, 256 with n. 184) argued – against the widely accepted view of Cargill 1977 – in favour of the previous reading and dated the conquest of Sardis to the ninth year of Nabonid, i.e. 547/6 BC. 31 Translation A.D. Godley. Cf. Strabo (14. 1. 30): ‘Anacreon the melic poet was from Teos; in whose time the Teians abandoned their city and migrated to Abdera, a Thracian city, being unable to bear the insolence of the Persians; and hence the verse in reference to Abdera. “Abdera, beautiful colony of the Teians.”’ (translation H.L. Jones, here and elsewhere). 32 Herodotus (6. 22) evidently exaggerated in a similar way and with the same political intention, when he alleged that Miletus had been completely abandoned after its fatal defeat at the end of the Ionian Revolt in 494 BC. Contradictory to it, he stated (9. 99) that, only a few years later, a military unit of Milesian men fought in the battle at Mt Mycale in 479 BC; cf. Kerschner 1995, 218; Ehrhardt 2003, 5–11, 19. Archaeologically, habitation during the first half of the 5th century BC is attested on the eastern terrace of Kalabaktepe: Kerschner 1995, 214–18; cf. Ehrhardt 2003, 15–17. 27

178

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

city wall. They show a continuous settlement of Teos after the annexation by the Achaemenid empire in the mid-6th century BC. Like Herodotus, Strabo (14. 1. 30) also relates ‘the Teians abandoned their city and migrated to Abdera’, but he adds ‘some of them returned again in later times’. Repatriates could explain the houses and graves of the second half of the 6th century BC, if their absence did not last long. Another objection, however, argues against a complete abandonment of the city, even for a short time. The polis must have been well organised and wealthy in the third quarter of the 6th century BC, since it had both the means and the infrastructure to build a large, prestigious marble temple shortly after the Persian conquest. This was feasible only when the administration of the polis continued to work and when a large number of citizens kept the economy running. Evidently, the Achaemenids as new sovereigns of Anatolia had no objections against imposing buildings representing the civic identity and the religion of their new Ionian subjects. In this respect, Teos was not an isolated case as is shown by the initiation and continuation of prestigious building projects of temples at Ephesus, Miletus and Didyma.33 This tolerant attitude changed only after the suppression of the Ionian Revolt in 494 BC.34 While recently conquered regions were generally treated in a liberal way by the Achaemenid administration, rebellions were punished with rigour and consistency. Miletus, the initiator of the Ionian Revolt, was extensively destroyed, its civic and religious monuments were radically demolished.35 The first phase of the Achaemenid rule over western Asia Minor in the second half of the 6th century BC, however, was a prosperous period: the Persian presence in the Levant and Europe redirected, rather than depressed, the Ionian economy. The Persians replaced, rather than destroyed, the Ionians’ Lydian and Egyptian markets for luxuries and mercenaries, and offered new opportunities to the Ionians by integrating them into their empire as the naval arm of their advance into Europe and the Aegean archipelago.36

These conclusions by Pericles Georges, based mostly on numismatic evidence, are supported by the increase of imported Attic fine ware in western Anatolia during the second half of the 6th century BC observed by Yasemin TunaNörling and Kutalmış Görkay.37 33 Ephesus: Muss 1994, 77–78, 111; Ohnesorg 2007, 129, 132. Miletus and Didyma: Niemeier 1999, 290–91; Dirschedl 2012, 64 (both with bibliography). For further examples, see Görkay 1999, 22, n. 61. In general: Briant 1996, 564–66; Klinkott 2015, 151–67. 34 Georges 2000. 35 Kerschner 1999, 8–10, fig. 2; Ehrhardt 2003, 2; Graeve 2013, 9. 36 Georges 2000, 10. Cf. Balcer 1991, 57–58. On Teos: Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 363. 37 Tuna-Nörling 1995, 107–12, 116–17, 143, figs. 26–27; Görkay 1999, 16–19.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

179

3. ARCHAEOMETRIC RESEARCH ON THE CERAMIC PRODUCTION OF TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIODS For a long time, Teos was beyond the horizon of research on East Greek ceramics.38 Despite being renowned from the ancient sources as an important and wealthy polis of Ionia, it was not taken into consideration as potential production centre of Geometric and Archaic pottery. It seems that this was due to the fact that so little was known of the pre-Hellenistic phases of the city from the excavations of the 20th century. Understandably, there is a tendency in research to focus on the well published excavations, whereas barely investigated sites are largely overlooked. Kiln Wasters from Teos as a NewBasis for Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) At Teos, the situation has changed since 2012, when Musa Kadıoǧlu included the Archaic period of the city as one of the focuses into his research programme in co-operation with the Austrian Archaeological Institute.39 Stratigraphic excavations form a sound basis for the chronology of the pottery, while contextual studies take account of the whole range of ceramic classes extant at the site. Together with the Helmholtz-Institut für Strahlen-Kernphysik at Bonn University, we have started an archaeometric programme to investigate systematically the ceramic production of Geometric and Archaic Teos. The results of the first series of neutron activation analyses (NAA) are presented in the following. Seven kiln wasters (Figs. 7–9) found in layers of the 6th and 5th centuries in the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (Fig. 6) formed an excellent basis for the identification of the chemical fingerprint of Teian pottery. Overheated in the kiln, these pots had been deformed and could never be used. They were discarded immediately after firing. Kiln wasters are of undisputed local origin and allow one to determine the chemical fingerprint of a certain production site. All seven analysed kiln wasters show the same element pattern TeosB (Fig. 10). It was first detected in the NAA of bird bowls excavated at Miletus in 1993, yet its precise origin remained unknown for nearly 20 years for lack of unambiguous reference material.40 Though it was evident from archaeological arguments that it must have been situated somewhere on the North Ionian mainland, it was only thanks to the discovery of the above-mentioned kiln 38 On the research of East Greek and Western Anatolian pottery studies: R. Cook 1997, 295– 300; Akurgal et al. 2002, 28–36; Kerschner 2017b. 39 Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015. 40 Kerschner et al. 1993, 205–09, tab. 1–4, figs. 3–5 – labelled simply ‘B’ in previous publications as the origin was unknown at that time.

180

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 8. Kiln waster of a Teian amphora from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 21, inv. T11-88/21-18.008.45a) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 9. Kiln wasters of Teian amphorae from the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-NA-M1-0.1–0.2) (photograph by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

W 2 ( 2.13 %)

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

181

70

Klazomenai (KlazE) Chios(ChiB)

60

Smyrna (F)

Chios(ChiA) Teos(TeosB)

50

Phokaia(PhoT) 150

175

DA Teos

200

225

250

W 1 (96.56 %)

Fig. 10. The result of analysis of 280 samples of North Ionian pottery, corrected for dilution, assuming six provenance groups of homogenous chemical composition which can be assuredly or most likely located. The element patterns of these groups are well separated. The ellipses are the 2 sigma (root mean square deviations) boundaries of the groups. Seven kiln wasters excavated at Teos – rendered as full circles in red – fit in well with provenance group TeosB. Therefore its localisation at Teos is now assured. The provenance group PhoT can be assigned to workshops at Phocaea (Japp 2009, 204; Mommsen and Japp 2009, 276; 2014, 39, fig. 6). The indicated locations of the provenance groups ChiA and ChiB (on the island of Chios?), KlazE (at Clazomenae) and F (at Smyrna?) have not yet been proven by irrefutable reference pieces (kiln wasters or local clay samples), but it is likely by reasons of the distribution of the ceramic wares and stylistic classes comprised in these provenance groups (Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, 134–39) (diagram by H. Mommsen).

wasters in 2012 and the subsequent NAA that it can be located with certainty at Teos now.41 This chemical fingerprint is well-defined and clearly separable from the other chemical fingerprints known from eastern Aegean potters’ centres. It denotes one of the major provenance groups in the Bonn database comprising at the moment 218 members from numerous sites in the Aegean and western Anatolia, on the Black Sea, in Cilicia, in the Levant, in Egypt as well as on Sicily (Fig. 11).42 Therefore it has been obvious for some time that the element pattern TeosB represents one of the most important production centres of painted pottery in the Eastern Aegean throughout the Late Geometric and 41 42

Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 349–51, figs. 2–3. See below for a bibliography of the individual find-spots.

182

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 11. Distribution map of sites with finds of Geometric and Archaic pottery produced at Teos as proven by NAA (state of research 2015) (map by M. Kerschner and I. Benda-Weber; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

Archaic periods. Given the large quantity and wide distribution of their products, the workshop(s) of this centre focussed on the overseas export of painted pottery in addition to the supply of the local and regional markets. The Earliest Teian Production The earliest example assignable to the ceramic production of Teos is a fragment of a strainer jug, decorated in Mycenaean ‘Pictorial Style’ and dating presumably to Late Helladic IIIB.43It was found at Tarsus in Cilicia, but NAA showed that it was an import of provenance group TeosB (old B).44 So far, no remains of the Late Bronze Age have been found at Teos, but it has to be taken into account that the systematic research on the pre-Hellenistic periods of the site started only recently. It is also possible that the Late Bronze Age

43 44

Mountjoy 2005, 92–94, fig. 3. Mommsen et al. 2011, 905, 911 (sample 6, cat. 43).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

183

Fig. 12. Protogeometric oinochoe, found in the Artemision of Ephesus, provenance group TeosB (sample Ephe 136, inv. ART 892907.11) (drawing by S. Karl and I. Benda-Weber; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

settlement was not situated beneath the later Hellenistic-Roman city, but somewhere in its vicinity and that the prehistoric potters used the same clay bed as their successors in the Geometric and Archaic periods. The earliest among the sampled pieces belonging to provenance group B dates to the Protogeometric period (Fig. 12). It is a black-glazed mouth fragment of a trefoil oinochoe with a vertical strap handle decorated with horizontal bars.45 It was found in a Protogeometric deposit in the Artemision of Ephesus.46 This oinochoe may show that Teian potters exported their products at a regional level already in the 10th century BC, but it is also possible that it was brought to Ephesus by a worshipper coming from Teos and dedicated to Artemis there.

45 Cf. Popham et al. 1980, 316–21, fig. 15, pls. 126.1–2, 140.22.6–7, 148.44.7; Lemos 2002, 67–72, pls. 7.6 (EPG), 21.3 (MPG); 34.4, 35.1–3, 37.2–3, 40.6, 50.1, 55.4 (LPG); 93.1. 46 On the context: Kerschner 2003; 2006a, 369–71; 2011; Forstenpointner et al. 2008.

184

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Teian Bird Kotylae, Bird Bowls and Related Vessels Whereas pottery of the 10th to mid-8th century BC is still scarce among the finds at Teos, the recent excavations have provided a good overview on the range of local pottery of the Late Geometric period. Decorated fine wares of the late 8th and early 7th centuries BC are markedly dominated by the products of the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ which was defined by Nicolas Coldstream:47 the index fossil is the deep kotyle with high, inset rim and a frieze of three to five metopes (Figs. 4, 13–14). The central field frequently displays the eponymous stylised water bird. Closely related both in fabric and in decoration are round-mouthed oinochoai (so-called bird oinochoai; Fig. 2) and large kraters (Figs. 4, 15–16). Examples of all three shapes preferred by the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ were analysed and showed the element pattern TeosB. In 1968, Coldstream assumed the location of the prolific ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ was in the north-west of the island of Rhodes, either at Ialysos or at Camiros, based on the distribution of the bird kotylae as then known.48 This assessment was adopted by most scholars, although some of them allowed for further production sites.49 The introduction of archaeometric analyses in Greek pottery studies in the 1970s raised doubts on this attribution. In his pioneering article in ‘Dacia’ 1983, Pierre Dupont stated ‘la fin du mythe Rhodien’ on the basis of his XRF-analyses of various classes of eastern Aegean pottery and he demonstrated that the bird bowls, the successors of the bird kotylae, were rather of North Ionian than of Rhodian origin.50 He declared that ‘die meisten der “kanonischen” Vogel- und Rosettenschalen’ originated in North Ionia,51 namely at Clazomenae and in another production centre which he could not pinpoint for lack of reference material.52 Since the range of stylistic classes comprised by the

47 Coldstream 1968, 277–79, pl. 61a–d; repeated in Coldstream 2008, 277–79 with an addendum on the North Ionian provenance on p. 479. Cf. Walter 1968, 40–41, pls. 42–44; Boardman 1998, 51, fig. 137; R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 18–19, 26, fig. 5.4; İren and Ünlü 2012, 311–13, figs. 3–24, 29–31. 48 Coldstream 1968, 279. 49 For example Boardman 1967, 134; Walter 1968, 40–41: ‘Der Vogelskyphos mag die Erfindung einer Landschaft sein, aber er ist doch zu einer gemeinionischen Gattung geworden und als solcher in der Ägäis weit verbreitet’; R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 26: ‘The Bird bowl, like the Bird kotyle, is generally thought to have been a Rhodian invention, but there was evidently manufacture in other parts of the East Greek region, and until more is known about them it is well to be cautious.’ İren and Ünlü (2012, 314) assumed Teos or Clazomenae as production places. For a detailed overview of the research history, see Akurgal et al. 2002, 63–66. 50 Dupont 1983, 31, 33, 40–41; cf. Dupont 1986, 61, n. 3. 51 Dupont 1986, 61, n. 3. The ‘canonical bird and rosette bowls’ presumably correspond with the ‘standard fabric’ defined in Akurgal et al. 2002, 66. 52 Dupont 1983, 31, 33.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

185

Fig. 13. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-88/21-NA-M1.1) (photograph by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 14. Bird kotyle from a Late Geometric cremation burial in the western necropolis (excavation 2012, inv. T12-88/21-NA-M1.1) (drawing by A. von Miller and I. Benda-Weber; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 15. Fragment of a Late Geometric krater of the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011) provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 05; inv. T11-88/21-10.007.4) (photograph by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 16. Late Geometric krater of the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop’ from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 05; inv. T11-88/21-10.007.4) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

186

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 17. Bird bowl of the Teian ‘standard fabric’, second to third quarter of the 7th century BC, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (inv. ART 88 K 833.1) (photograph by N. Gail; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

latter was similar to that of Clazomenae, Dupont assumed that this unlocated chemical group was North Ionian and labelled it ‘Ionie du Nord 2’.53 The North Ionian origin of the bird bowls was corroborated by our first series of NAA in 1993.54 Back then, however, no finds from North Ionian sites were available for scientific analyses, and therefore the exact place of manufacture remained uncertain. Only in 2012, nearly 20 years after our first series of NAA, the discovery of kiln wasters in Teos (Figs. 7–10) provided unequivocal reference material for the localisation of provenance group TeosB in this North Ionian polis. According to the NAA carried out at Bonn, the large majority of the bird kotylae and the bird bowls were produced at Teos.55 The Teian production comprises two main fabrics – the ‘standard fabric’ (Fig. 17) and the ‘orange series’ – both revealing the same element pattern TeosB.56 Macroscopically, they can be easily distinguished from each other by colour and hardness. The ‘orange series’ is more reddish and distinctly softer than the beige-coloured ‘standard fabric’, presumably due to a lower firing temperature.57 53

Dupont 1983, 31, 33. Kerschner et al. 1993. Both Boardman (1998, 51, fig. 137) and Coldstream (2008, 479) subscribed to the results of our NAA and adopted the location in North Ionia. Coldstream, however, assumed Clazomenae as the likeliest place of production, possibly as no Late Geometric finds from Teos had been published at that time. 55 Kerschner et al. 1993; Akurgal et al. 2002, 66–71; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 184–85, figs. 1.1–3; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86; Posamentir et al. 2009, 41, 45, fig. 4.1 (The photo has to be rotated 90 degrees to the left). 56 Kerschner et al. 1993, 199–201, 208–09; Akurgal et al. 2002, 66–67, figs. 18–23, 63–72, pl. 2. Our ‘standard fabric’ is the one described by Coldstream 1968, 279 as ‘Rhodian’. 57 Akurgal et al. 2002, 67. 54

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

187

Bird kotylae were occasionally emulated, for example on Samos, at Ephesus and in Caria.58 None of these local varieties were standardised and produced on a large scale for export, as were the bird kotylae from Teos. The Samian, the Ephesian and the Carian offshoots show peculiarities not only in fabric, but also in style and motives which are unparalleled in the Teian ‘standard fabric’. The outside of an Ephesian bird kotyle (provenance group H) is covered with a yellowish slip, a feature that never occurs on Teian examples.59 Three of such uncanonical examples from the Heraion on Samos were analysed by us and proved to be made of a local Samian clay paste defined by the element pattern SamJ.60 Stylistically, these Samian emulations are characterised by a very low frieze of three metopes, some of them with a meander tree in the central position unlike the Teian products of the ‘standard fabric’, where the central field is always dedicated to the water bird, if there are only three metopes. The lateral lozenges of the Samian pieces are vestigial, the baseband is omitted.61 In the second quarter of the 7th century BC Teian potters modernised their most successful product in a temperate way. They replaced the thick-walled, deep shape of the kotyle with the more elegant and lighter form of a shallow bowl. But they retained the traditional Geometric decoration with a stylised bird between two lozenges for seven more decades. Although this pattern was outdated by the second half of the 7th century BC, when the Orientalising style was predominant in eastern Aegean vase-painting, the bird bowls (Fig. 17) kept to it, presumably because it had already achieved the quality of a trademark by that time.62 Only in the last quarter of the 7th century, the old-fashioned Geometric metopal frieze was replaced by rosettes (Fig. 18), meander hooks, pendant lotus flowers, pairs of eyes, or simple bands (Fig. 19).63 At that time, 58 Walter 1968, 40–41, pl. 44 (Samos); Akurgal et al. 2002, 48, 99, cat. 25, fig. 17; Kerschner 2007, 223–24, pl. 31.1 (Ephesus); Özgünel 1979, 86–87, 95, 113, 116, pls. 25, 29; R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 19–20, fig. 5.6 (Caria). 59 Kerschner 2007, 223–24, pl. 31.1. On provenance group H, see Akurgal et al. 2002, 47–50; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86, fig. 1. 60 NAA samples Samo 23–26 (two of them belonging to the same vessel) = Walter 1968, 106 nos. 262, 263, 267, pl. 44. On the Samian provenance group SamJ: Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 84–85, figs. 1, 3. On NAA of Samian finds from Naukratis: Schlotzhauer 2006, 308–10, 314, figs. 12–14; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 59–60, figs. 14–17; Mommsen et al. 2012, 439, fig. 13. See also the contribution by L.R. Geißler, H. Mommsen, R. Posamentir and K. Riehle, below in this volume. 61 Walter 1968, 40–41, 106, nos. 262, 263, 265, 267, pl. 44. 62 In the Bonn database, all analysed bird bowls of the ‘standard fabric’ and the ‘orange series’ belong to the Teian provenance group TeosB (altogether 12 out of 15 NAA of bird bowls). 63 Akurgal et al. 2002, 71–72, 81; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 185, fig. 1.4; Kerschner 2006c, 145–46, fig. 16; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86. In the Bonn database, the provenance group TeosB comprises four rosette bowls – samples Teos 16 (Fig. 18), Teos 29, Smyr 33 (Akurgal et al. 2002, 104, cat. 50, pl. 3) and Bere 219: Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 185, fig. 1.4 – and four banded bowls: samples Teos 10, Teos 19 (Fig. 19), Ephe 17 and Ephe 251.

188

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 18. Rosette bowl from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), last quarter of the 7th/first quarter of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 16; inv. T11-88/21-10.8.1) (photograph by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 19. Late Archaic banded bowl with grooved inside from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), second half of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 19; inv. T11-88/21-117–133) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

however, the competition increased and workshops at Clazomenae (provenance group KlazE, previously labelled E)64 as well as in other North Ionian (F = 64 The former provenance group E – cf. Akurgal et al. 2002, 75–80, 141; Kerschner 2006c, 140–41, 144–47, figs. 10–13, 15, 18; Posamentir and Solvoyov 2006, 117–19, figs. 19, 23–24; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 57–58, figs. 6–10; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 189–90, fig. 2; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 87–88, fig. 1 – can now securely located at Clazomenae. In the

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

189

Smyrna?)65 and Aeolian production centres (AiolG = Cyme/Larisa?) manufactured their own rosette-, meander- and eye bowls.66 Headed by the ‘Bird-kotyle Workshop(s)’ which later turned into the ‘Birdbowl Workshop(s)’,67 the pottery production of Teos increased considerably during the second half of the 8th century BC. It evolved from a mere supplier of the local needs into an export-oriented production on a large-scale. This rise was achieved by focussing on a few standardised shapes and decoration types.68 The decoration was carefully executed, but not sophisticated. It could be carried out by experienced craftsmen within a relatively short time. Reducing the required working time lowered the costs and obviously made the bird kotylae and bird oinochoai competitive on regional as well as on overseas markets. What was the cause of their success? It might have been a combination of the high quality of potting, especially the smooth finish of the surface and the hard-fired, durable fabric, with a reasonable price. The ‘Bird-bowl Workshop(s)’ at Teos were the first in the eastern Aegean introducing a standardised ceramic production on a large scale, and they were one of the first within the Greek culture area. In the late 8th and 7th century BC, Teian potters were surpassed in success only by their Corinthian competitors. Teian Wild Goat-Style and Related Pottery Along with the Subgeometric bird bowls, Teian potters produced also Wild Goat-style pottery in the 7th century BC. This demonstrates that conservative and progressive tendencies might have been pursued contemporaneously at the same production centre, especially if it was a large one.69 Such a diversity of styles is well known from extensively investigated cities like Athens or Bonn database, there are three rosette bowls in the provenance group KlazE (former E): Akurgal et al. 2002, 104, cat. 52, pl. 3; Kerschner 2006c, 145–46, fig. 15. 65 On provenance group F, see Akurgal et al. 2002, 80–84, 141; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 88, fig. 1; and also the contribution by L.R. Geißler, H. Mommsen, R. Posamentir and K. Riehle, below in this volume. In the Bonn database, there are two bird bowls of the late types V–VI (Akurgal et al. 2002, 101–02, cat. 36–37, pl. 2). 66 On provenance group AiolG, see Akurgal et al. 2002, 84–92, 142; Kerschner 2006b; 2006c, 141–44; fig. 11; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 107–10, figs. 2–6; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 58; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 181–82, 190–91, fig. 3; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 90; 2009b, 139–42; Mommsen et al. 2012, 440; and also the contribution by L.R. Geißler, H. Mommsen, R. Posamentir and K. Riehle, below in this volume. In the Bonn database, there is one rosette bowl and one eye bowl of provenance group AiolG: Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 191, fig. 3.1–2. 67 We do not know how the production was organised. Given the abundant output, it seems likely that it was rather a group of related workshops than a single big one. 68 On the phenomenon of standardisation in the field of Greek pottery, cf. Kotsonas 2014a; Stissi 2014. 69 Kerschner 2006b, 113–15.

190

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Corinth. The polychrome Chigi Group was made at the same time as Subgeometric aryballoi and kotylae in mid-7th century Corinth.70 Early red-figured masterpieces and mediocre lekythoi in the lingering black-figure style were both made in Late Archaic Athens.71 Now archaeometric analyses attest that this was also the case in some of the big production centres in the eastern Aegean like at Miletus, Teos and the Cyme/Larisa(?).72 Our knowledge of the Orientalising phase of Teian vase-painting is still scanty, since the excavations at Teos have yielded only few deposits of the 7th century BC so far. There are, however, three fragments of Orientalising oinochoai found at Ephesus and at Clazomenae (Figs. 20–22) which belong to provenance group TeosB and can therefore be identified as Teian imports. Two of them were excavated in a stratified sacrificial deposit of the last third of the 7th century BC in the Ephesian Artemision.73 The emphasis of the decoration is on the shoulder. There is a field with ornaments (Fig. 20) or an animal frieze (Fig. 21), underlaid with a group of bands. The older fragment (Fig. 20) is dated by its stratigraphic context prior to ca. 625/20 BC.74 Some petals of a pendant lotus flower are preserved on it. This blossom was presumably part of a chain of lotus buds and flowers, as it

Fig. 20. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with pendant lotus flower, North Ionian Archaic I, third quarter of the 7th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 95; inv. ART 94 K 184.1) (drawing by M. Kerschner; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

70 On the Chigi Group: Amyx 1988, 31–40, pls. 11–12. On Subgeometric and related pottery of the same period: Neeft 1987, 127–272; Pemberton 1989, 79–81, pl. 4 (Group 1, deposit of the mid-7th century BC); Stillwell and Benson 1984, 54–69, pls. 12–15. 71 On early Athenian red-figure: Boardman 1975, 29–36, 91–95, figs. 33–53, 129–161. On late Athenian black-figure: Boardman 1974, 125–27, 146–50, figs. 233–261; Haspels 1936, 41–191, pls. 14–50. Cf. also the observations of Smith (2014, 143–45) on small pelikai by the Pan Painter. 72 Kerschner 2006b, 113–15; 2017b. 73 Kerschner 1997; on the date: 175–82. 74 Kerschner 1997, 120, 198–200, cat. 26, fig. 49, pl. 4; Akurgal et al. 2002, 74, fig. 71 (sample 99/26 = Ephe 95). On the date of the context: Kerschner 1997, 181 (layer F, ca. 625/20 BC).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

191

Fig. 21. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with the forepart of a running wild goat, North Ionian Archaic I, last quarter of the 7th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 96; inv. ART 94 K 242.1) (drawing by M. Kerschner; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

Fig. 22. Shoulder fragment of an oinochoe with a chain of pendant lotus flowers and buds, North Ionian Archaic I, second half of the 7th BC, provenance group TeosB, found at Clazomenae (sample Klaz 39; inv. AKM 2332) (photograph by J. Schubert; © Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn).

192

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

is shown on a fragmentary oinochoe at Bonn (Fig. 22).75 That piece was found at Clazomenae and proven by NAA to be a member of provenance group TeosB and therefore an import from neighbouring Teos. A completely preserved example of the same class of oinochoe was excavated in cremation no. 32 at the Akpınar necropolis of Clazomenae.76 This burial can by dated to ca. 650–640 BC on the basis of three Protocorinthian aryballoi among the funerary goods.77 The oinochoe shows the decoration system as a whole: above the shoulder field is a broad neck decorated with an open cable and a trefoil mouth; the lower part of the body is covered by large void rays between groups of bands.78 Future archaeometric research will show if this piece is also a Teian import or rather a product of Clazomenian potters. Both cites were close neighbours and obviously exchanged artistic concepts and presumably also artisans. This is the most likely way to explain why we find similar types of vessels and decorations both at Teos and at Clazomenae. In this case intensified archaeometric pottery analysis will offer an excellent possibility to explore cultural and economic interrelations of two neighbouring poleis. The younger fragment from the Artemision deposit (Fig. 21) attests animal friezes on Teian oinochoai in the last quarter of the 7th century.79 Its find context provides a terminus ante quem of ca. 600 BC.80 The forepart of a wild goat running to the right is preserved, surrounded by very large filling ornaments: meander crosses in front of the animal and beneath its body a double spiral which will become canonical in the next stage, the so-called ‘Late Wild Goat style’ of the early 6th century BC. These oinochoai of the last quarter of the 7th century kept the shape and the overall arrangement of the decoration of their forerunners in the third quarter. This is shown by a stylistically closely related vessel excavated in nearly undamaged state in the Scythian barrow of Filatovka in the eastern part of the Crimea.81 In the animal frieze on the shoulder, the running wild goat is chased by a big dog. The decoration of the neck and that of the lower body is the same as on the earlier oinochoe from cremation no. 32 at the Akpınar necropolis. Unlike the vase-painters at Teos, contemporaneous artisans in South Ionia usually extended the animal friezes to the belly of the oinochoai, and they 75 Sample Klaz 39; inv. AKM 2332. Cf. Greifenhagen 1936, 378, no. 26, fig. 28; Kerschner 1997, 215–16, fig. 56. 76 Hürmüzlü 2004, 84–85, fig. 15. 77 Hürmüzlü 2004, 84, fig. 14. 78 The lower part of a similar oinochoe decorated with large void rays was excavated in grave 109 of the same cemetery: Hürmüzlü 2010, 118–22, fig. 44a–b. 79 Kerschner 1997, 172, 199–200, cat. 131, fig. 51, pl. 17; Akurgal et al. 2002, 74, fig. 72 (sample 99/27 = Ephe 96). 80 Kerschner 1997, 182 (‘Aufschüttung A’, filled in shortly before 600 BC). 81 Korpusova 1980, 98–104.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

193

preferred a chain of lotus flowers and buds in the lowest frieze around the foot.82 Differences can also be seen in the range of filling ornaments and in the style of the cable pattern on the neck. The oinochoe from Filatovka presumably originates from Teos (or possibly Clazomenae). It indicates that North Ionian Wild Goat-style vases were already exported in the late 7th century BC. A big boost in the overseas sale of this elaborate class of painted pottery was attained in the first third of the 6th century BC, when Teian artisans adopted the black-figure technique of Corinthian type for their animal friezes.83 They modified the Early Corinthian prototypes slightly and combined them with traditional friezes in reserve technique. This is the latest phase of North Ionian Archaic I, baptised by Robert Cook ‘Late Wild Goat-style’, and datable to the first third of the 6th century BC.84 A classic example of this standardised production is a fragmentary krater found at the Artemision of Ephesus (Fig. 23). The NAA of this piece demonstrated its Teian origin (provenance group TeosB).85 Another numerous and widespread class are the so-called Borysthenes amphorae (Fig. 24).86 These neck-handled amphorae all show the same standardised decoration: a large running wild goat with its head turned back on the shoulder, a thick cable pattern on the cylindrical neck, broad bands enhanced with white – red – white lines on the belly, and rays around the foot. Even more standardised, more numerous and more widespread on the overseas markets were small dishes decorated with simple Orientalising ornaments like meander hooks on the everted rim and leave rosettes in the centre (Fig. 25).87 Some varieties were only banded. Teian workshops had a large share in these classes of the latest phase of North Ionian Archaic I in the first third of the 6th century BC, but there were other producers in the region, too, among which Clazomenae (provenance group KlazE) and a great Aeolian potters’ centre (presumably Cyme/Larisa) were the most important.88 82

Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005, 25–45. Walter-Karydi 1973, 77–87, pls. 107–112, 114–116, 124–125; R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 51–6, figs. 8.17, 8.19, 8.20; Schlotzhauer et al. 2012, 40–41. 84 R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 51–52. 85 Sample 99/31 = Ephe 100; inv. ART 73 K 10.8. Akurgal et al. 2002, 74–75, fig. 76; Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 352–53, fig. 6. 86 Kerschner 2006c, 136–39, figs. 5–7. 87 For example, Akurgal et al. 2002, fig. 77; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, figs. 22–23, 28–29; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, pls. 7, 9; Mommsen et al. 2012, Taf. 6e–j. Cf. WalterKarydi 1973, pls. 122–123. 88 Teos (provenance group TeosB): for example, Akurgal et al. 2002, 74–75, figs. 71–76; Kerschner 2006c, 136–38, figs. 5–6; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 119–23, figs. 19–21, 25–27, 30; 2007, 184–89, figs. 1.5–31; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, pl. 6. Clazomenae (provenance group KlazE): Kerschner 2006c, 140–41, fig. 10; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 189–90, fig. 2. 83

194

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 23. Shoulder fragment of a krater of the late phase of North Ionian Archaic I (so-called Late Wild Goat-style), first third of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 100; inv. ART 73 K 10.8) (photograph by N. Gail; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

In the middle and second half of the 6th century BC, Teian potters produced also black-figure pottery like the column krater with an elaborate depiction of a siren on its handle plate (Fig. 26). Analysed examples from Berezan89 show that Teian workshops had a share in the large and diverse class of East Greek black-figure pottery studied systematically and labelled ‘Clazomenian black-figure’ by Robert Cook.90 He classified the bulk of it in five groups, but admitted that ‘a number of miscellaneous pieces, although related, do not fit tidily into any of the groups … described’.91 Doubts that all Ionian blackfigure could be connected with only one place of origin were also uttered by John Cook who stated that there were ‘miscellaneous pieces’ from Smyrna which ‘should perhaps be regarded as Clazomenian’.92 Robert Cook was well Provenance group AiolG/Aiolg (Cyme/Larisa?): Kerschner 2006c, 141, figs. 11–12; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 107–09, figs. 4–5; 2007, 190–94, figs. 3.3, 3.9. 89 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 117–19, figs. 17, 20; 2007, 187–89, figs. 1.33–34. 90 R. Cook 1952; R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 95–107, fig. 12.1–8. 91 R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 105. 92 J. Cook 1965, 132.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

195

Fig. 24. Neck-handled amphora of the so-called Borysthenes class from Siana (Rhodes) in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (Antikensammlung Inv. IV 1623) (photograph © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Antikensammlung).

Fig. 25. Rim fragment of dish with meander rim, North Ionian Archaic I, first half of the 6th century BC, provenance group TeosB, found at the Artemision of Ephesus (sample Ephe 182; inv. ART 79 K 62.1) (photograph by N. Gail; © Austrian Archaeological Institute).

196

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 26. Handle plate of a black-figure column krater with a siren, surface find from the theatre area (inv. T13-Tiyatro-yüzey.1) (photograph by C. Özbil; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

aware that, in 1952, there were still other sites in northern Ionia ‘of which nothing is yet known’ and assessed that ‘what we call Clazomenian was made, if not at Clazomenae, then at some neighbouring site’.93 An important neighbouring site, virtually unexplored at that period, is Teos. Teian Black-Figure Pottery The differentiation between Teos and other production centres on the North Ionian mainland still needs further research. This applies especially to the immediate neighbour to the north, Clazomenae. Both Teos and Clazomenae were important producers of painted pottery throughout the Geometric and Archaic periods. They were situated in close vicinity, and they obviously shared several classes of decorated pottery,94 including terracotta sarcophagi of Clazomenian type, many of which were found in recent rescue excavations in the western necropolis of Teos.95 Now, as the element patterns of the major 93 94 95

R. Cook 1952, 147. Cf. İren and Ünlü 2012, 314. Kadıoǧlu et al. 2016, 466, 478, fig. 11.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

197

provenance groups of Teos (TeosB) and Clazomenae (KlazA, KlazE) have been established, the starting situation for subsequent archaeometric research is extremely promising. The chemical profile of all three element patterns is clearly distinct from each other, as is illustrated in Figs. 27–28. Teian Transport Amphorae Within the frame of this short overview, only a brief glance can be cast at transport amphorae. Most of the kiln wasters from Teos forming our reference samples for the provenance group B were amphorae (Figs. 7–9). There are some rim fragments among them (sample Teos 21; Figs. 7–9), and these show the profile of a well-known and widespread class of amphora which was described first by Ireeda Zeest in 1960, who proposed a Samian origin.96 This attribution was contested by Dupont in 1982 on the basis of his XRF analyses.97 For lack of reference material, the question of the production place was much discussed, but could not be solved. This class of amphora has been differently labelled according to the presumed production area: ‘Samos-Zeest’, ‘Zeest’s Protothasian’, ‘pseudo-Samian’ and recently ‘Ionia I’ by Iulian Bîrzescu and ‘İonia.β’ by Yusuf Sezgin.98 Russian archaeologists like Aleksandr Abramov and Sergey Monakhov preferred the descriptive name ‘amphorae with complexly articulated foot’ (Fig. 31).99 Samos, Miletus, Thasos, Abdera, Torone and even Corinth have been proposed as place of production.100 Yaşar Ersoy was the first – in 1993 – who suggested a North Ionian origin on the basis of the frequency of this amphora class in the settlement of the 6th century BC at Clazomenae.101 His view, however, was not accepted until recently. In 2006, Dupont partly revised his previous attribution, based on XRF-analysis, of ‘Zeest’s Samian and Protothasian’ amphorae to the northern Aegean coast, and cautiously suggested for some of them a North Ionian (Chian and Teian) origin, though

96 Zeest 1960, 16, 79–80, pls. I.3, 5–6, 15. For a close comparison of the rim profile, see Bîrzescu 2012, 117, 316, cat. 1021, pl. 51 (‘Ionian I, Type 2, Variant B’). 97 Dupont 1983, 42, fig. 18. 98 R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 178–86; Carlson 2003, 584; Ersoy 2004, 56, 73; Bîrzescu 2012, 113–25; Sezgin 2012, 259–81, 325. 99 Abramov 1993, 11; Monakhov 2003a, 38–42; 2003b. 100 For example, Ruban 1991, 185–90; Naso 2005, 77, n. 24 (Milesian); Lawall 1995, 137, n. 90 (Ionian); R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 182–83; Dupont 2000, 59; Monakhov 2003b, 256 (northern Aegean); Seifert 2004, 28, 74, nos. 209–214, pls. 83–84 (Corinthian). A comprehensive overview on the history of research is given by Bîrzescu 2012, 113, 122–23. 101 Ersoy 1993; 2004, 56, 65, figs. 15f, 23g–i.

198

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

distance/ave. spread

KlazA - TeosB(old B) 25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-25

As Ba Ca Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe Ga Hf K La Lu Na Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc Sm Ta Tb Th Ti U W Yb Zn Zr

-20

elements Fig. 27. Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of groups KlazA (located at Clazomenae) and TeosB (Teos). Plotted are the differences of the concentration values normalised by the average standard deviations (spreads). The concentration patterns are for many elements statistically not similar (distance/average spread > ~2) (diagram by H. Mommsen).

he was not able to prove it for lack of reference material.102 Bîrzescu and Sezgin corroborated this proposal by arguments of distribution.103 The hypothesis of a North Ionian origin can now by confirmed and specified thanks to the NAA of the kiln wasters from Teos (Figs. 7–9). This type of amphora is 102 Dupont 2006 = 2007, 43; 2009; Dupont and Skarlatidou 2012, 253, 256–57, fig. 14. For the previous localisation on the northern Aegean coast, see R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 182–83. 103 Bîrzescu 2012, 122–23; Sezgin 2012, 325.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

199

distance/ave. spread

KlazE(old E) - TeosB(old B) 10

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

-10

As Ba Ca Ce Co Cr Cs Eu Fe Ga Hf K La Lu Na Nd Ni Rb Sb Sc Sm Ta Tb Th U W Yb Zn Zr

-8

elements Fig. 28. Graphical comparison of chemical compositions of groups KlazE (Clazomenae-B = old E) and TeosB (Teos). Plotted are the differences of the concentration values normalised by the average standard deviations (spreads). The concentration patterns are for many elements statistically not similar (distance/average spread > ~2). Especially Co, Cr, Fe, and Ni are higher in KlazB (diagram by H. Mommsen).

abundant at Teos and prevails distinctly among the amphora finds in deposits of the 6th and 5th centuries BC. The analysed examples – Teos 12–14 – show the element pattern TeosB (Figs. 29–30). A long-standing academic discussion can now be ended: the so-called ‘Zeest’s Samian’ amphorae are in fact Teian. This does not mean that Teos was the only producer of ‘Zeest’s Samian and Protothasian’ amphorae. Given the variety of fabrics observed, it is quite probable that other poleis – like Clazomenae or Erythrae, as proposed by Bîrzescu,

200

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Ersoy and Sezgin – had a certain share in this group and produced specific sub-types of it.104 Yet, thanks to our NAA, we can be sure now that Teos was a major producer of ‘Zeest’s Samian and Protothasian’ amphorae. Further archaeometric research will be necessary to determine the production of the presumed other production sites of this numerous group of amphorae. The distribution of the amphora class which can now be located to a large extent at Teos shows a pattern of far-distance trade connecting the eastern Aegean with the Black Sea and its Scythian hinterland, with Cyprus, Egypt, Sicily and, to a lesser degree, with Campania, Etruria and southern France, as Bîrzescu has demonstrated (Fig. 32).105 In terms of chronology it is interesting that this series of amphorae starts in the middle of the 6th century BC.106 They are abundant both at Teos and abroad during the second half of the 6th century BC. That is exactly the period, when, according to Herodotus (1. 168) and Strabo (14. 1. 30), Teos had been depopulated, as all citizens had allegedly fled from the Persian army (see above). The abundance of Late Archaic Teian amphorae, however, manifestly shows that the contrary was true: Teos flourished in the first phase of Achaemenid rule in the second half of the 6th century BC.107 The Distribution of Teian Pottery in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea The distribution of decorated fine ware from Teos (Fig. 11) is very similar to that of Teian transport amphorae, although the latter were not exported as pots, but rather as containers for bulk commodities like oil or wine. This map shows the distribution of the 218 members of the Teian provenance group TeosB recorded in the Bonn database. Apart from Teos, these analysed pots were found at numerous sites in the eastern and northern Aegean and in western Anatolia (Arisbe, Bademgediǧi Tepesi, Didyma, Drama, Ephesus, Erythrae, Clazomenae, Cyme, Miletus, Pergamon, Phocaea, Smyrna, Sardis, Teos, Troy), along the Black Sea coast (Borysthenes/Berezan, Istros/Histria, Taganrog, Golubitskaya 2), and in indigenous settlements and burials of Scythia (Nemirov,

104 Ersoy 2004, 56; Bîrzescu 2012, 123; Sezgin 2012, 325. Dupont (2007, 43) proposed a production on the island of Chios beside one in the northern Aegean and another ‘plutôt à situer en direction de Téos’. Both Monakhov (2003b, 256) and Naso (2005, 77) discerned different fabrics and therefore assume several production centres. 105 Bîrzescu 2012, 124, 216, fig. 85. 106 R. Cook and Dupont 1998, 178, fig. 23.10–12; Dupont 2000, 59; Monakhov 2003b, 256; Ersoy 2004, 56; Bîrzescu 2012, 115, 118, 121; Sezgin 2012, 269–70, 278, 325. 107 Cf. Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 363.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

201

Fig. 29. Rim fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 14; inv. T11-88/21-10.012.9) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 30. Rim fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2012), provenance group TeosB (sample Teos 12; inv. T12-88/21-18.002.1) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

Fig. 31. Foot fragment of a Teian transport amphora, from the area west of the Hellenistic city wall (excavation 2011), chemical single (sample Teos 11; inv. T11-88/21-10.11.26) (drawing by A. von Miller; © Teos Arkeoloji Projesi).

202

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Fig. 32. Distribution of Teian transport amphorae in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (after Bîrzescu 2012, fig. 85).

Novozavedennoye), in Cilicia (Tarsus), in the Levant (Tell Dor), in Egypt (Naukratis, Thebes) and on Sicily (Gela, Katane, Naxos, Selinus, Syracuse).108 This is, of course, only a segment of the entirety of sites which imported painted pottery from Teos. There are definitely more sites where Teian pottery was found, but its existence has not yet been demonstrated by scientific analysis. The selection of mapped sites depends on our access to samples and on the funding of the NAA. Though incomplete, this distribution pattern already demonstrates the main areas of Teian exports: the Aegean, especially its eastern shores, the western and northern coast of the Black Sea and its Scythian hinterland, the Levant, Naukratis as hub for the trade with Pharaonic Egypt, and Sicily. If we include also the distribution of bird bowls of the ‘standard fabric’, we can add many of the Greek settlements on the northern Aegean coast, in southern Italy and in Cyrenaica. Within the Aegean, the 108 Mommsen et al. 1996, 134; Akurgal et al. 2002, 63–92; Kerschner 2006c, 136–42, 147; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 119–24, figs. 17–20; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 56–57, figs. 1–5; Mommsen et al. 2006, 25–26; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 185–89, fig. 1; Japp 2009, 202, 238 cat. Perga 91, fig. 12; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86–87; 2009b, 136–37, pls. 6–7, 9; Mommsen and Japp 2009, 276, tab. 2; Posamentir et al. 2009, 41, 46–47; Mommsen et al. 2011, 903, 905; Mommsen et al. 2012, 440, 442; Mommsen and Japp 2014, 39; Schlotzhauer 2014, 81, fig. 7; Kadıoǧlu et al. 2015, 351. See also the contribution by L.R. Geißler, H. Mommsen, R. Posamentir and K. Riehle, below in this volume.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

203

Cyclades and Euboea received Teian bird bowls, whereas they are noticeably infrequent on the Greek mainland. In the western Mediterranean, there was sporadic export of Teian fine wares to Etruria, the coast of southern France and to the coast of Andalusia. The most distant find-spots recorded are Huelva in the west, Nineveh in the east, Trakhtemirov in the north and Thebes in the south.109 With regard to the geographic frame, the Teian exports were still limited during the late 8th and early 7th century BC. Although the bird kotylae were a veritable economic success throughout the eastern Aegean, exports overseas were restricted mainly to the Cyclades and Euboea within the Aegean, to several Greek colonies and some indigenous sites in southern Italy and Sicily (Pithekoussai, Metauros, Gravina di Puglia; Naxos, Zancle, Megara Hyblaea, Syracuse, Gela), to Amathus on Cyprus and to Al Mina and Ashdod in the northern Levant. From the mid-7th century onwards, the export of Teian fine ware expanded considerably with the bird bowls and standardised vessels of the local variety of the Wild Goat style. It reached its peak in the late 7th and in the first decades of the 6th century BC, before it decreased rapidly.

109 Kerschner 2006d, 237–44, figs. 14–19. For a new reconstruction, classification and dating of the bird bowl from Trakhtemirov, see Bujskich 2016, 9–11, fig. 2. Contra: Tsetskhladze 2016.

204

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

APPENDIX: RESULTS OF THE NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSES OF GEOMETRIC TO CLASSICAL POTTERY FROM TEOS sample

inv. no.

vessel

chemical provenance group

Teos 05

T11-88/21-10.007.4

Late Geometric krater

TeosB

Teos 06

T11-88/21-10.007.10

transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 07

T11-88/21-10.013.28

table amphora

TeosB

Teos 08

T11-88/21-10.013.29

transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 09

T11-88/21-10.011.13

mortar

CypI assoc. (Enkomi)110

Teos 10

T11-88/21-10.011.16

banded bowl

TeosB

Teos 11

T11-88/21-10.11.26

transport amphora

Single

Teos 12

T12-88/21-18.002.1

transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 13

T12-88/21-18.009a

transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 14

T11-88/21-10.012.9

transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 15

T11-88/21-10.012.1

Late Geometric cup

TeosB

Teos 16

T11-88/21-10.008.1

rosette bowl

TeosB

Teos 17

T12-88/21-YB.2

Protogeometric circle skyphos

TeosB

Teos 18

T11-88/21-12.76-117

column krater, late in North Ionian TeosB assoc. Archaic I

Teos 19

T11-88/21-12. 117-133 banded bowl

TeosB

Teos 20

T12-88/21-18.008.45b

kiln waster of a transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 21

T11-88/21-18.008.45a

kiln waster of a transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 22

T11-88/21-10.012.30

kiln waster of a table amphora

TeosB

Teos 23

T11-88/21-10.012.31

kiln waster of a transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 24

T12-88/21-5.002

kiln waster of a transport amphora

TeosB

Teos 25

T11-88/21-10.013.13

kiln waster of a bowl

TeosB

Teos 26

T12-88/21-18.009

kiln waster of a transport amphora or hydria

TeosB

Teos 27

T12-88/21-18.018.2

banded bowl

single

Teos 28

T12-88/21-10.005.1

bird kotyle, standard fabric

TeosB assoc.

Teos 29

T12-88/21-18.010.2

rosette bowl

TeosB assoc.

110 On the provenance group CypI, located on the eastern coast of Cyprus, see Mountjoy and Mommsen 2015, 425.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

205

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abramov, A.P. 1993: ‘Antichnye amfory. Periodizatsiya i khronologiya’. Bosporskii Sbornik 3, 4–135. Akurgal, M., Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H. and Niemeier, W.-D. 2002: Töpferzentren der Ostägäis. Archäometrische und archäologische Untersuchungen zur mykenischen, geometrischen und archaischen Keramik aus Fundorten in Westkleinasien (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 3) (Vienna). Amyx, D.A. 1988: Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic Period, 3 vols. (California Studies in the History of Art 25) (Berkeley/Los Angeles). Andreiomenou, A. 1983: ‘Apsidota oikodomemeta kai keramike tou 8ou kai 7ou p. X. ai. en Eretria’. In Di Vita, A. (ed.), Grecia, Italia e Sicilia nell’ VIII e VII secolo a. C. (Atti del convegno internazionale Atene 15–20 ottobre 1979) (= Annuario della Scuola archeologica di Atene e delle missioni italiane in Oriente 59 [1981]), vol. 1 (Rome), 187–232. Avram, A., Hind, J. and Tsetskhladze, G. 2004: ‘The Black Sea Area’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 924–73. Balcer, J.M. 1991: ‘The East Greeks under Persian Rule: A Reassessment’. In SancisiWeerdenburg, H. and Kuhrt, A. (eds.), Achaemenid History 6: Asia Minor and Egypt. Old Cultures in a New Empire (Proceedings of the Groningen 1988 Achaemenid History Workshop) (Leiden), 57–65. Bîrzescu, I. 2012: Histria 15: Die archaischen und frühklassischen Transportamphoren (Bucharest). Boardman, J. 1967: Excavations in Chios 1952–1955: Greek Emporio (British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 6) (Oxford). —. 1974: Athenian Black Figure Vases: A Handbook (London). —. 1975: Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Archaic Period: A Handbook (London). —. 1998: Early Greek Vase Painting, 11th–6th Centuries BC: A Handbook (London). Boysal, Y. 1962: ‘1962 senesi Teos kazıları hakkında kısa rapor’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 12.2, 5–7. —. 1965: ‘Teos kazısı 1965 yılı kısa raporu’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 14, 231–33. Briant, P. 1996: Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre (Paris). Bujskich, A.V. 2016: ‘A Sub-Geometric Skyphos from Borysthenes. On the Question of Pre-Colonial Ties in the North Pontic Region’. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 22, 1–17. Cahill, N.D. 2010: ‘The Persian Sack of Sardis’. In Cahill, N.D. (ed.), Lidyalılar ve dünyaları/ The Lydians and their World (Istanbul), 339–61. Cahill, N.D. and Kroll, J.H. 2005: ‘New Archaic Coin Finds at Sardis’. American Journal of Archaeology 109, 589–617. Cargill, J. 1977: ‘The Nabonidus Chronicle and the Fall of Lydia’. American Journal of Ancient History 2, 97–116. Carlson, D.N. 2003: ‘The Classical Greek Shipwreck at Tektaş Burnu, Turkey’. American Journal of Archaeology 107, 581–600. Cobet, J. 2007: ‘Das alte Ionien in der Geschichtsschreibung’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 729–43.

206

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Cobet, J., von Graeve, V., Niemeier, W.-D. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.) 2007: Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestandsaufnahme (Panionion-Symposion, Güzelçamlı, 26. September – 1. Oktober 1999) (Milesische Forschungen 5) (Mainz). Coldstream, J.N. 1968: Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology (London). —. 2008: Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Ten Local Styles and Their Chronology, 2nd ed. (Exeter). Cook, J.M. 1965. ‘Old Smyrna: Ionic Black Figure and Other Sixth Century Figured Wares’. Annual of the British School at Athens 60, 114–42. Cook, R.M. 1952. ‘A List of Clazomenian Pottery’. Annual of the British School at Athens 47, 123–52. —. 1997. Greek Painted Pottery, 3rd ed. (London). Cook, R.M. and Dupont, P. 1998: East Greek Pottery (London/New York). Dirschedl, U. 2012: ‘Der archaische Apollontempel (‘Tempel II’) in Didyma. Erste Ergebnisse der Aufarbeitungskampagnen 2003–2009’. In Schulz, T. (ed.), Dipteros und Pseudodipteros. Bauhistorische und archäologische Forschungen (Internationale Tagung, 13.11.–15.11.2009 an der Hochschule Regensburg) (Byzas 12) (Istanbul), 41–68. Dupont, P. 1983: ‘Classification et détermination de provenance des céramiques grecques orientales archaïques d’Istros. Rapport préliminaire’. Dacia n.s. 27, 19–42. —. 1986. ‘Naturwissenschaftliche Bestimmung der archaischen Keramik Milets’. In Müller-Wiener, W. (ed.), Milet 1899–1980: Ergebnisse, Probleme und Perspektiven einer Ausgrabung (Kolloquium, Frankfurt am Main 1980) (IstMitt Beih. 31) (Tübingen), 57–71. —. 2000. ‘Amphores “samiennes” archaïques: sources de confusion et questionnements’. In Cabrera Bonet, P. and Santos Retolaza, M. (eds.), Ceràmiques jònies d’època arcaica: centres de producció i comercialització al Mediterrani occidental (Actes de la Taula Rodona celebrada a Empúries, els dies 26 al 28 de maig de 1999) (Monografies emporitanes 11) (Barcelona), 57–62. —. 2006. ‘Amphores “samiennes” archaïques de Mer Noire (approche archeométrique)’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.), Greki i varvary na Bospore Kimmeriiskom VII–I vv. do n.e. (Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, Taman, Rossiia, Oktiabr 2000) (St Petersburg), 64–75. —. 2007. ‘Amphores “samiennes” archaïques de Mer Noire (approche archeométrique)’. In Solovyov, S.L. (ed.), Greeks and Natives in the Cimmerian Bosporus, 7th–1st centuries BC (Proceedings of the International Conference, October 2000, Taman, Russia) (BAR International Series 1729) (Oxford), 41–50. —. 2009: ‘Les amphores “samiennes” et “protothasiennes” de Zeest: la piste nordionienne?’. In Dupont, P. and Lungu, V., Synergia Pontica & Aegea-Anatolica (Galaţi), 3–11. —. 2011: ‘Phanagoria: Un fief nord-ionien’. In Povalahev, N. and Kuznetsov, V.A. (eds.), Phanagoreia und seine historische Umwelt von den Anfängen der griechischen Kolonisation (8. Jh. v. Chr.) bis zum Chasarenreich (10. Jh. n. Chr.). (Internationale Konferenz, 25.–28. November 2009, Göttingen) (Altertümer Phanagoreias 2) (Göttingen), 137–42. Dupont, P. and Skarlatidou, E. 2012: ‘Archaic Transport Amphoras from the First Necropolis of Clazomenian Abdera’. In Tiverios, M., Misailidou-Despotidou, V.,

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

207

Manakidou, E. and Arvanitaki, A. (eds.), Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC) (Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting, Thessaloniki, 19–22 May 2011) (Dēmosieumata Archaiologikou Institoutou Makedonikōn kai Tharakikōn Spondōn 11) (Thessaloniki), 253–64. Ehrhardt, N. 2003: ‘Milet nach den Perserkriegen: ein Neubeginn?’. In Schwertheim, E. and Winter, E. (eds.), Stadt und Stadtentwicklung in Kleinasien (Asia Minor Studien 50) (Bonn), 1–19. Ersoy, Y.E. 1993: Clazomenae. The Archaic Settlement (Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College). —. 2004: ‘Klazomenai: 900–500 BC. History and Settlement Evidence’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 43–76. Forstenpointner, G., Kerschner, M. and Muss, U. 2008: ‘Das Artemision in der späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit’. In Muss, U. (ed.), Die Archäologie der ephesischen Artemis: Gestalt und Ritual eines Heiligtums (Vienna), 33–46. Georges, P.B. 2000: ‘Persian Ionia under Darius: The revolt reconsidered’. Historia 49, 1–39. Görkay, K. 1999: ‘Attic Black-Figure Pottery from Daskyleion’. In Studien zum antiken Kleinasien 4 (Asia Minor Studien 34) (Bonn), 1–100. von Graeve, V. 2013: ‘Das Aphrodite-Heiligtum von Milet und seine Weihegaben’. In Gerlach, I. and Raue, D. (eds.), Sanktuar und Ritual: Heilige Plätze im archäologischen Befund (Menschen, Kulturen, Tradition 10) (Rahden), 5–17. Greifenhagen, A. 1936: ‘Außerattische schwarzfigurige Vasen im Akademischen Kunstmuseum zu Bonn’. AA, 343–406. Hansen, M.H. and Nielsen, T.H. (eds.) 2004: An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (Oxford). Haspels, C.H.E. 1936: Attic Black-Figured Lekythoi (École francaise d’Athènes, Travaux et mémoires 4) (Paris). Herda, A. 2009: ‘Karkiša – Karien und die sogenannte Ionische Migration’. In Rumscheid, F. (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen (Internationales Kolloquium an der Freien Universität Berlin 13. bis 15. Oktober 2005) (Bonn), 27–108. Hoepfner, W. 2011: Ionien – Brücke zum Orient (Darmstadt). Hürmüzlü, B. 2004: ‘Burial Grounds at Klazomenai: Geometric through Hellenistic Periods’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 77–95. —. 2010: ‘Die früheste Gruppe klazomenischer Sarkophage aus Klazomenai’. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125, 89–153. İren, K. and Ünlü, A. 2012: ‘Burning in Geometric Teos’. In Konuk, K. (ed.), Stephanèphoros: De l’économie antique à l’Asie mineure. Hommages à Raymond Descat (Mémoires 28) (Bordeaux), 309–33. Isaac, B. 1986: The Greek Settlements in Thrace until the Macedonian Conquest (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 10) (Leiden). Japp, S. 2009: ‘Archäometrisch-archäologische Untersuchungen an Keramik aus Pergamon und Umgebung’. IstMitt 59, 193–268. Kadıoǧlu, M. 2012: ‘Teos (1962–1966, 2010–2012)’. In Bingöl, O., Öztan, A. and Taşkıran, H. (eds.), DTCF Arkeoloji Bölümü Tarihçesi ve Kazıları (1936–2011). Anadolu/Anatolia Ek Dizi III.2. Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi 75. Yıl Armağanı (Ankara), 505–22. —. 2013: Teos (Seferihisar/Sıǧacık): Rehber kitap/ Guide Book (Ankara).

208

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

Kadıoǧlu, M., Adak, M., Özbil, C., Öztaner, S.H., Polat, R.T. and Polat, Y. 2013: ‘2011 Yılı Teos Kazı Çalışmaları (2. Sezon)’. KST 34.2, 211–32. Kadıoǧlu, M., Özbil, C., Kerschner, M., Ergin, H., Gülgönül, S., Yenice, G., Polat, Y., Polat. R.T., Köşgeroǧlu, E. and Adak, M. 2016: ‘2014 yılı Teos kazı çalışmaları (5. sezon)’. KST 37.3, 451–78. Kadıoǧlu, M., Özbil, C., Kerschner, M. and Mommsen, H. 2015: ‘Teos im Licht der neuen Forschungen – Yeni Araştırmalar Işığında Teos’. In Yalçın, Ü. and Bienert, H.-D. (eds.), Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen. Aktuelle Forschungen und Perspektiven in den deutsch-türkischen Altertumswissenschaften (Tagungsband des Internationalen Symposiums ‘Anatolien – Brücke der Kulturen’ in Bonn vom 7. bis 9. Juli 2014) (Der Anschnitt Beih. 27; Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 203) (Bochum/Bonn), 345–66. Kerschner, M. 1995: ‘Die Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe’. AA, 214–20. —. 1997: ‘Ein stratifizierter Opferkomplex des 7. Jhs. v. Chr. aus dem Artemision von Ephesos’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts in Wien 66, 85–226. —. 1999: ‘Das Artemis-Heiligtum auf der Ostterrasse des Kalabaktepe. Stratigraphie und Keramikfunde der Sondagen des Jahres 1995’. AA, 7–51. —. 2003: ‘Zum Kult im früheisenzeitlichen Ephesos. Interpretation eines protogeometrischen Fundkomplexes aus dem Artemisheiligtum’. In Schmaltz, B. and Söldner, M. (eds.), Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext (Akten des Internationalen Vasen-Symposions in Kiel 24.–28.9.2001) (Münster), 246–50. —. 2006a: ‘Die Ionische Wanderung im Lichte neuer archäologischer Forschungen in Ephesos’. In Olshausen, E. and Sonnabend, H. (eds.), „Troianer sind wir gewesen“ – Migrationen in der antiken Welt (Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 8, 2002) (Geographica Historica 21) (Stuttgart), 364–82. —. 2006b: ‘On the Provenance of Aiolian pottery’. In Villing and Schlotzhauer 2006, 109–26. —. 2006c: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer ostgriechischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan im Akademischen Kunstmuseum der Universität Bonn und im Robertinum der Universität Halle-Wittenberg’. IstMitt 56, 129–56. —. 2006d: ‘Zum Beginn und zu den Phasen der griechischen Kolonisation am Schwarzen Meer. Die Evidenz der ostgriechischen Keramik’. Eurasia Antiqua 12, 227–50. —. 2007: ‘Das Keramikbild von Ephesos im 7. und 6. Jh. v. Chr.’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 221–45. —. 2011: ‘Approaching aspects of cult practice and ethnicity in Early Iron Age Ephesos using quantitative analysis of a Protogeometric deposit from the Artemision’. In Verdan, S., Theurillat, T. and Kenzelmann Pfyffer, A. (eds.), Early Iron Age Pottery: A Quantitative Approach (Proceedings of the International Round Table organized by the Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece, Athens, November 28–30, 2008) (BAR International Series 2254) (Oxford), 19–27. —. 2017a: ‘The spatial development of Ephesos from ca. 1000–ca. 670 BC against the background of other EIA settlements in Ionia’. In Mazarakis Ainian, A., Alexandridou, A. and Charalambidou, X. (eds.), Regional Stories Towards a New Perception of the Early Greek World (Acts of an International Symposium in Honour of Professor Jan Bouzek, Volos, 18–21 June 2015) (Volos), 487–512.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

209

—. 2017b: ‘East Aegean pottery workshops in the 7th century BC: Tracing regional styles’. In Charalambidou, X. and Morgan, C. (eds.), Interpreting the Seventh Century BC: Tradition, and Innovation (Oxford), 100–13. Kerschner, M., Kowalleck, I. and Steskal, M. 2008: Archäologische Forschungen zur Siedlungsgeschichte von Ephesos in geometrischer, archaischer und klassischer Zeit. Grabungsbefunde und Keramikfunde aus dem Bereich von Koressos (Ergänzungshefte zu den Jahresheften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 9) (Vienna). Kerschner, M. and Mommsen, H. 2009a: ‘Neue archäologische und archäometrische Forschungen zu den Töpferzentren der Ostägäis’. In Dupont, P. and Lungu, V. (eds.), Les productions céramiques du Pont-Euxin à l’époque grecque (Actes du colloque international Bucarest, 18–23 septembre 2004) (= Il Mar Nero 6 for 2004–06) (Rome), 79–93. —. 2009b: ‘Imports of East Greek Pottery to Sicily and Sicilian Productions of East Greek Type. Archaeometric Analyses of Finds from the Votive Deposit in Katane’. In Pautasso, A., Stipe votiva del Santuario di Demetra a Catania 2: La ceramica greco-orientale (Studi e materiali di archeologia greca 9) (Catania), 125–50. Kerschner, M., Mommsen, H., Beier, T., Heimermann, D. and Hein, A. 1993: ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of Bird Bowls and Related Archaic Ceramics from Miletus’. Archaeometry 35, 197−210. Kerschner, M. and Schlotzhauer, U. 2005: ‘A New Classification System of East Greek Pottery’. Ancient West and East 4.1, 1–56. Klinkott, H. 2015: ‘Die Tempel und ihr Land im achaimenidischen Kleinasien’. In Winter, E. and Zimmermann, K. (eds.), Zwischen Satrapen und Dynasten. Kleinasien im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Asia Minor Studien 76) (Bonn), 147–73. Koparal, E. 2013: ‘Teos and Kyrbissos’. Olba 21, 45–70. Korpusova, V. 1980: ‘Painted Rhodian-Ionian Oinochoe from the Tumulus near Filatovka in the Crimea’. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 2, 98–104. Kotsonas, A. 2014a: ‘Introduction: why standardization and variation?’. In Kotsonas 2014b, 1–23. —. (ed.) 2014b: Understanding Standardization and Variation in Mediterranean Ceramics: Mid 2nd to Late 1st Millennium BC (BABESCH Suppl. 25) (Leuven/ Paris/Walpole, MA). Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, C. 2004: ‘The Archaic City of Abdera’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 235–48. Kuznetsov, V.D. 2003: ‘Kepoi–Phanagoria–Taganrog’. In Grammenos, D.V. and Petropoulos, E.K. (ed.), Ancient Greek Colonies in the Black Sea (Publications of the Archaeological Institute of Northern Greece 4), vol. 2 (Thessaloniki), 895–955. —. (ed.) 2008: Fanagoriya. Po materialam Tamanskoi ekspeditsii IARAN (Moscow). —. 2010: ‘O vremeni osnovaniya Fanagorii’. Drevnosti Bospora 14, 315–21. —. (ed.) 2013: Fanagoriya: Rezulʹtaty archeologicheskikh issledovanii, 4 vols. (Moscow). —. (ed.) 2016: Phanagoria (Moscow). Lawall, M.L. 1995: Transport Amphoras and Trademarks: Imports to Athens and Economic Diversity in the Fifth Century BC (Dissertation, University of Michigan). Lemos, I.S. 2002: The Protogeometric Aegean: The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries BC (Oxford).

210

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

—. 2007: ‘The Traditions to the West Coast of Asia Minor: Tradition and Archaeology’. In Cobet et al. 2007, 713–27. Loukopoulou, L. 2004: ‘Thrace from Nestos to Hebros’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 870–84. Loukopoulou, L. and Parissaki, M.-G. 2004: ‘Teos and Abdera: The Epigraphic Evidence’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 305–10. Mac Sweeney, N. 2016: ‘Anatolian-Aegean interactions in the Early Iron Age: Migration, Mobility, and the Movement of People’. In Molloy, B.P.C. (ed.), Of Odysseys and Oddities: Scales and Modes of Interaction between Prehistoric Aegean Societies and their Neighbours (Oxford/Philadelphia), 411–34. Möller, A. 2000: Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece (Oxford). Mommsen, H., Hein, A., Echt, R. and Krastev, I. 1996: ‘Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse an verschiedenen nach Drama-„Kajrjaka“ in Südostbulgarien importierten Gefäßen’. Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 77, 1996, 130–36. Mommsen, H. and Japp, S. 2009: ‘Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse von 161 Keramikproben aus Pergamon und Fundorten der Region’. IstMitt 59, 269–86. —. 2014: ‘Statistical interpretation of elemental concentration data and the origin of Pergamene pottery’. In Meyza, H. (ed.), Late Hellenistic to Mediaeval Fine Wares of the Aegean coast of Anatolia, their Production, Imitation and Use (Travaux de l’Institut des cultures méditerranéenes et orientales de l’Académie polonaise des sciences 1) (Warsaw), 31–40. Mommsen, H., Kerschner, M., Lang, M. and Weber-Lehmann, C. 2006: ‘On the export of East Greek Wild Goat style pottery to Sicily. Archaeometric analyses of pottery found at Syrakus, Naxos, Gela, Selinus and from the Kunstsammlungen at the Ruhr-University Bochum’. In Lentini, M.C. (ed.), Vasi del Wild Goat Style dalla Sicilia e dai Musei Europei (Exhibition Catalogue) (Syracuse), 25–27. Mommsen, H., Mountjoy, P. and Özyar, A. 2011: ‘Provenance determination of Mycenaean IIIC vessels from the 1934–1939 excavations at Tarsus by Neutron Activation Analysis’. Archaeometry 53, 900–15. Mommsen, H., Schlotzhauer, U., Villing, A. and Weber, S. 2012: ‘Herkunftsbestimmung von archaischen Scherben aus Naukratis und Tell Defenneh in Ägypten durch Neutronenaktivierungsanalyse’. In Schlotzhauer et al. 2012, 433–55. Monakhov [Monachov], S.Y. 1999: Grecheskiie amfory v Prichernomor’e. Kompleksy keramicheskoi tary VII–II vekov do n.e. (Saratov). —. 2003a: Grecheskie amfory v Prichernomor’e: Tipologiya amfor vedushchikh tsentrov-eksporterov tovarov v keramicheskoi tare. Katalog-opredelitel’ (Moscow). —. 2003b: ‘Amphorae from Unidentified Centres in the Northern Aegean (the so-called “proto-Thasian” series according to I.B. Zeest)’. In Bilde, P.G., Højte, J.M. and Stolba, V.F. (eds.), The Cauldron of Ariantas: Studies presented to A.N. Ščeglov on the Occasion of his 70th birthday (Black Sea Studies 1) (Aarhus), 247–59. Morgan, C. 2004: Attic Fine Pottery of the Archaic to Hellenistic Periods in Phanagoria (Phanagoria Studies 1; Colloquia Pontica 10) (Leiden/Boston). Mountjoy, P.A. 2005: ‘The Mycenaean pottery from the 1934–1939 excavations at Tarsus’. In Özyar, A. (ed.), Field Seasons 2001–2003 of the Tarsus-Gözlükule Interdisciplinary Project (Istanbul), 83–134. Mountjoy, P.A. and Mommsen, H. 2015: ‘Neutron Activation Analysis of AegeanStyle IIIC Pottery from 11 Cypriot and Various Near Eastern Sites’. Egypt and the Levant 25, 421–508.

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

211

Moustaka, A., Skarlatidou, E., Tzannes, M.-C. and Ersoy, Y.E. (eds.) 2004: Klazomenai, Teos and Abdera: Metropolis and Colony (Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Archaeological Museum of Abdera, 20–21 October 2001) (Thessaloniki). Muss, U. 1994: Die Bauplastik des archaischen Artemisions von Ephesos (Sonderschriften des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes 25) (Vienna). Naso, A. 2005: ‘Funde aus Milet XIX. Anfore commerciali arcaiche a Mileto. Rapporto preliminare’. AA 2, 73–84. Neeft, C.W. 1987: Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi (Allard Pierson Series 7) (Amsterdam). Niemeier, W.-D. 1999: ‘Die Zierde Ioniens. Ein archaischer Brunnen, der Jüngere Athenatempel und Milet vor der Perserzerstörung’. AA, 373–413. Öǧün, B. 1964: ‘Teos Kazıları 1963’. Türk Arkeoloji Dergisi 13.1, 115–21. Ohnesorg, A. 2007: Der Kroisos-Tempel. Neue Forschungen zum archaischen Dipteros der Artemis von Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 12.4) (Vienna). Özgünel, C. 1979: Karia Geometrik seramiği/ Carian Geometric Pottery (Ankara). —. 2003: ‘Geometrische Keramik von Alt-Smyrna aus der Akurgal-Grabung’. In Rückert, B. and Kolb, F. (eds.), Probleme der Keramikchronologie des südlichen und westlichen Kleinasiens in geometrischer und archaischer Zeit (Internationales Kolloquium, Tübingen 24.3.–26.3.1998) (Antiquitas 3; Abhandlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte der Altertums 44) (Bonn), 69–89. Özkan, T. 2009: ‘Funde aus einem spätgeometrischen Brandgrab (Geç Geometrik Bir Kremasyon Mezarın Buluntuları)’. Arkeoloji Dergisi 14.2, 57–78. Papapostolou, I.A. 1968: ‘Paratereseis epi geometrikon angeion ex Ialysou’. Archaiologikon Deltion 23 Meletai, 77–98. Pemberton, E.G. 1989: Corinth 18.1: The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore. The Greek Pottery (Princeton). Popham, M.R., Sackett, L.H. and Themelis, P.G. 1980: Lefkandi 1: The Iron Age. (British School at Athens Suppl. Vol. 11) (London). Posamentir, R. and Solovyov, S.L. 2006: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaischionischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Eremitage von St. Petersburg’. IstMitt 56, 103–28. —. 2007: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch-ionischer Keramik: die Funde aus Berezan in der Eremitage von St. Petersburg II’. IstMitt 57, 179–207. Posamentir, R., Arslan, N., Bîrzescu, I., Karagöz, Ş. and Mommsen, H. 2009: ‘Zur Herkunftsbestimmung archaisch-ionischer Keramik III: Funde aus den Hellespontstädten, Histria, Olbia und Istanbul’. IstMitt 59, 35–50. Povalahev, N. and Kuznetsov, V.D. (eds.) 2011: Phanagoreia, Kimmerischer Bosporos, Pontos Euxeinos (Altertümer Phanagoreias 1) (Göttingen). Ruban, V.V. 1991: ‘Opyt klassifikatsii tak nazyvaemykh miletskikh amfor iz Nizfnego Pobuzh’ya’. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 2 182–95. Rubinstein, L. (with the collaboration of A. Greaves) 2004: ‘Ionia’. In Hansen and Nielsen 2004, 1053–1107. Schlotzhauer, U. 2006: ‘Griechen in der Fremde: wer weihte in den Filialheiligtümern der Samier und Milesier in Naukratis?’. In Naso, A. (ed.), Stranieri e non cittadini nei santuari del Mediterraneo antico (Atti del convegno internazionale, Udine 20 al 22 novembre 2003) (Studi udinesi sul mondo antico 2) (Grassina), 292–324.

212

MICHAEL KERSCHNER AND HANS MOMMSEN

—. 2014: ‘Taman-Halbinsel, Russische Föderation. Die Arbeiten der Jahre 2012 und 2013’. In e-Forschungsberichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 2014-3, 78–81 . Schlotzhauer, U. and Villing, A. 2006: ‘East Greek Pottery from Naukratis: The Current State of Research’. In Villing and Schlotzhauer 2006, 53–68. Schlotzhauer, U., Weber, S. and Mommsen, H. 2012: Griechische Keramik des 7. und 6. Jhs. v. Chr. aus Naukratis und anderen Orten in Ägypten (Archäologische Studien zu Naukratis 3) (Worms). Seifert, M. 2004: Herkunftsbestimmung archaischer Keramik am Beispiel von Amphoren aus Milet (BAR International Series 1233) (Oxford). Sezgin, Y. 2012. Arkaik dönem İonia üretimi ticari amphoralar (Istanbul). Skarlatidou, E. 2004a: To archaïko nekrotapheio ton Abderon. Symbole sten ereuna tes apoikias ton Klazomenion sta Abdēra (Archaeological Institute of Macedonian and Thracian Studies Publication 9) (Thessaloniki). —. 2004b: ‘The Archaic Cemetery of the Clazomenian Colony at Abdera’. In Moustaka et al. 2004, 249–59. —. 2012: ‘Selected Groups of Corinthian and Ionian Pottery from the Early Archaic Cemetery at Abdera’. In Tiverios, M., Misailidou-Despotidou, V., Manakidou, E. and Arvanitaki, A. (eds.), Archaic Pottery of the Northern Aegean and its Periphery (700–480 BC) (Proceedings of the Archaeological Meeting, Thessaloniki, 19–22 May 2011) (Dēmosieumata Archaiologikou Institoutou Makedonıkōn kai Thrakikōn Spoudōn 11) (Thessaloniki), 453–60. Smith, A.C. 2014: ‘Variation among Attic fine wars: the case of the Pan Painter’s pelikai’. In Kotsonas 2014b, 133–47. Stillwell, A.N. and Benson, J.L. 1984: Corinth 15.3: The Potters’ Quarter. The Pottery (Princeton). Stissi, V. 2014: ‘Standardization and Greek pottery, a broad view from far above’. In Kotsonas 2014b, 115–31. Strang, J.R. 2007: The City of Dionysos: A Social and Historical Study of the Ionian City of Teos (Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Tsetskhladze, G.R. 2016: ‘On “Pre-Colonial” Links, Once Again’. Ancient West and East 15, 279–301. Tuna-Nörling, Y. 1995: Die attisch-schwarzfigurige Keramik und der attische Keramikexport nach Kleinasien. Die Ausgrabungen von Alt-Smyrna und Pitane (Istanbuler Forschungen 41) (Tübingen). van der Spek, R.J. 2014: ‘Cyrus the Great, Exiles, and Foreign Gods: A Comparison of Assyrian and Persian Policies on Subject Nations’. In Kozuh, M., Henkelman, W.F.M., Jones, C.E. and Woods, C. (eds.), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68) (Chicago), 233–64. Villing, A., Bergeron, M., Bourogiannis, G., Johnston, A., Leclère, F., Masson, A. and Thomas, R. 2013–20: Naukratis: Greeks in Egypt. British Museum Online Research Catalogue . Villing, A. and Schlotzhauer, U. (eds.) 2006: Naukratis: Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean (British Museum Research Publication 162) (London).

TEOS IN THE GEOMETRIC AND ARCHAIC PERIOD

213

Walter, H. 1968: Samos 5: Frühe samische Gefäße. Chronologie und Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße (Bonn). Walter-Karydi, E. 1973: Samos 6.1: Samische Gefäße des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.: Landschaftsstile ostgriechischer Gefäße (Bonn). Zeest, I.B. 1960: Keramicheskaya tara Bospora (Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 83) (Moscow/Leningrad).

EPHESUS AND ITS FOUNDATION MYTH WITHIN THE ROMAN IMPERIAL CITYSCAPE: THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED* Simon YOUNG

Abstract Foundation myths not only played an important role in the narrative of an Ionian city’s foundation, but also within the visual iconography of public monuments, especially in the Roman Imperial period. The Ephesian Roman citizens enthusiastically promoted Androclus as their founder, and his importance is exemplified by the public display of a statue of Hadrian’s favourite, Antinous as Androclus. In this paper, I will present some key examples of where the foundation myth of Ephesus was visible to its inhabitants on a daily basis in public architecture, how this interacted with the cityscape, and how the myth was both a source of pride and of political prestige. Among other monuments and examples, I will primarily discuss the Heroon of Androclus, which was carefully placed at an important juncture of urban ways. The Heroon was situated with other prominent Roman monuments at the point where the street from the Library of Celsus began to lead upward to the State Agora, where the north south street from the theatre met this juncture, and where a pedestrian could leave the street and access the Tetragonos Agora via the plaza in front of the Library of Celsus. This Heroon was a physical symbol of the founder of Ephesus – and it perhaps even provided a piece of evidence for the myth’s veracity to those who passed by it from all corners of the city.

On the foundation of Ephesus, Pausanias related Pindar’s account that it was the Amazons (Pausanias 7. 2. 7–8),1 while according to Athenaeus (6. 92), who consulted Malacus’ entry to the Siphian Annals, it was founded by a force of around 1000 escaped slaves from Samos (Fig. 1). Athenaeus reported on an entry in Creophylus’ annals, that when these rogue slaves could not fix upon where to settle, they sent for an oracle for divine assistance. The perplexing answer was delivered: build a city where the fish would show you and where the boar would guide you, directions they followed (Athenaeus 8. 62). Pherecides offered a slightly different version, according to Strabo (14. 1. 3). * I would like to thank Gocha Tsetskhladze for his support throughout my PhD, and for his invitation to participate in this conference. 1 For an in-depth discussion on the Amazon foundation myth and the early temple of Artemis, see Mac Sweeney 2013, 137–56.

216

SIMON YOUNG

Fig. 1. Location of Ephesus.

He described how the area around Ephesus had been occupied by Carians and Leleges, and that Androclus, the legitimate son of Codrus, king of Athens, led an Ionian expedition of colonisation.2 He drove out the local tribes and settled his followers at three places: near a sacred spring, the Athenaeum and near the slopes of Mt Koressos. As Androclus was the son of a king, Ephesus became the royal capital of all Ionian cities. His descendants, Strabo wrote, were still called kings, wore purple robes and took places of privilege at the games. Pausanias’ 2nd-century AD account of the story agreed with Strabo’s (Pausanias 7. 2. 9), but he added that when Androclus responded to Priene’s plea for military assistance against the Carians, he fell in battle. His body was carried back and buried in the Ephesian homeland, where his tomb, crowned by the statue of an armed man, could still be seen in Pausanias’ day, located on the way from the sanctuary of Artemis, past the Olympieion and before the Magnesian gate.3 Of course, the truth behind the urban development of Ephesus was far more 2 Scherrer 2014, 114, suggests that this myth was created in the 5th century BC, when the city was part of the Attic-Delian league. 3 For further discussion on the Androclus foundation myth and the symbology of the boar, see Scherrer 2014, 114–16.

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

217

complex, nonetheless, these stories had blended together by the 2nd century AD to produce the figure of Androclus: a brave adventurer, a boar-slayer, a fearless warrior and the founder of Ephesus. The urban landscape at Ephesus is multilayered, whose development spans many centuries, and 120 years of systematic excavations in 2015.4 In the first two decades of the 3rd century BC, Lysimachus took the initiative to relocate the reluctant Ephesian population, who perhaps were occupying the ‘upper city’ at Ayasoluk near the Artemision.5 The new settlement supplanted ‘old Smyrna’,6 and was conceived as a well-defended Classical-style polis with an orthogonal street plan typical of the age (Fig. 2).7 Although a clear picture of the general appearance of Ephesus in this early period is difficult to ascertain, judging by the city’s territory and street plan, it was conceived on a grand scale.8 Its conscripted governing body, the Epicleti (Strabo 14. 1. 21) probably oversaw work on the site’s formidable city walls as well as other public buildings. The defences that enclosed Lysimachus’ new city were situated between the slopes of Panayır Dağ and Bülbül Dağ.9 The city was also furnished with an earth-ramp stadium, a small commercial market by the harbour, public buildings in the region of the Upper Agora, a theatre10 and fountain-houses.11 The Upper Agora may have also been the location of a gymnasium, perhaps at its eastern end.12 Ephesus was to become a significant commercial centre: the most important trade route was from Athens, located some 350 km away via the Aegean islands. Ephesus acted as a transport hub to the north, the south and the interior of Asia Minor via river and land routes (Fig. 3).13

4 The quantity of publication on the subject of Ephesus is prodigious, however in terms of building history and research on individual monuments, thankfully the work of the Austrian Archaeological Institute contains careful summaries of previous scholarship. Raja (2012, 56–84) also conveniently provides a recent concise synthesis of the excavation history of Ephesus as well as research summaries and bibliographies of key publications up to 2012. 5 Strabo 14. 1. 21; Hueber 1997, 28. 6 Scherrer and Trinkl 2006, plan 6. 7 Groh 2006, 54. 8 Groh (2006, 114) estimated that it was envisaged that the Hellenistic city would accommodate 50,000 residents, but that later the city needed to be enlarged. Hueber et al. (1997, 41) had estimated 200,000 in the Hellenistic period. 9 Hueber 1997, 38; Scherrer 2001, 58. 10 Groh 2006, 70. 11 For the relocation, see Hueber et al. 1997, 39. For the walls, see Scherrer 2001, 62, n. 26. 12 According to Auinger (2011, 69), although the initial construction date, subsequent development and form of this building are poorly understood, it was still in use until at least the 5th century AD. 13 Groh 2006, 80.

218

SIMON YOUNG

Fig. 2. Ephesus, Hellenistic city (adapted from Groh 2006, fig. 20 and Brückner 2012, 48).

The gentle slope that ascended between the two mountains commenced at the meeting of three ways, the so-called Triodos (Fig. 2).14 One road led from Ortygia, the mythical birthplace of Apollo and Artemis,15 and the second from the Koressian gate to the north-east.16 At the Triodos, these roads merged to one, forming the so-called Embolos street,17 which ascended the valley,18 and was an important section of the city’s processional way. After reaching the top of the valley, the processional way passed through the Upper Agora area, continued through a residential zone and finally left the city, somewhere near the later Magnesian gate.19 14

Raja 2012, 81; Thür 1995, 80; Halfmann 2001, 67. Thür 1995, 80; Hueber 1997, 43; Halfmann 2001, 72. 16 While Scherrer (2001, 62) maintained that the processional way may have started near the Koressian gate, whose location remains disputed, Groh (2006, 71–72) argued that it may have begun at the so-called Crevice Temple. 17 Scherrer 2001, 81. 18 Bauer 2014, 81–90; Halfmann 2001, 67; Raja 2013, 81; Thür 1995, 80. 19 Groh 2006, 92. The Magnesian gate seems to have only have existed from the mid-1st century BC, and was constructed over the Lysimachan wall (Sokolicek 2010b, 39; 2010a, 378). See also Scherrer 2001, 63, n. 27. 15

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

Fig. 3. Roman Republican roads in Asia (after French 2014, fig. 5.1).

219

220

SIMON YOUNG

In 133 BC, the city was incorporated into the Roman province of Asia,20 and was the ideal location for a Roman base of operations, perhaps due to its defensive position and, by that time, its well-established network of sea and land transport. In 89–88 BC, the city supported Mithridates in revolt against Rome, and participated in the Asiatic Vespers. At Ephesus, Roman citizens were murdered – some were dragged from the altar of Artemis (Appian Mithr. 22). Soon after (85–84 BC), Sulla dealt out harsh terms to many cities of Asia Minor presumably from Ephesus, with the Treaty of Dardanos.21 Around this time, near the Triodos, at the commencement of the Embolos’ ascent and on its southern side, a grave monument was constructed, between 85–50 BC (Figs. 4 and 5).22 It represents a rare example of well-preserved Roman Republican-period honorific architecture at Ephesus, during a particularly turbulent period.

Fig. 4. Ephesus, position of the Androclus monument (after Thür 2009, fig. 1).

20 Groh 2006, 73; Raja 2012, 56, n. 204. Hueber et al. (1997, 46) argued that this was the turning point when Ephesus took over from Pergamon as the most important city in the region. 21 Plutarch Vit. Sull. 25–26; Hind 1994, 162; Raja 2012, 57. 22 On the dating to the second quarter of 1st century BC, see Waldner 2009, 292.

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

221

Fig. 5. Ephesus, the Androclus monument elevation (adapted from Thür 1995, fig. 16).

Set out on a solid core, atop a raised platform with steps on two sides, but not the one facing the street,23 it was a pi-shaped structure that featured twostoreys, the first Doric and the second Ionic. The building’s projecting wings framed its central set-back bay, and this arrangement focused attention on the arched niche on the second level, that most probably contained a statue.24 The curious broken pediment that crowned the structure contained a shield motif whose raking simae were steeper than their counterparts. The low-relief 23 24

Thür 1995, 85. Thür 1995, 102.

222

SIMON YOUNG

Fig. 6. Ephesus, the Androclus monument pediment (after Thür 1995, fig. 17).

friezes that decorated the entablature depicted the story of a military campaign, and in Thür’s section H375, a mounted rider that is similar in form to later depictions of Androclus’ pursuing the boar (Fig. 6). Section H377, argued Thür, may represent the scene of Androclus’ demise at the hands of the Carians.25 The original construction of the supporting structure strongly suggests that the monument incorporated a water feature that continued to flow into the Late Roman period, evidenced by the spolia blocks displaying a Late Roman decorative style, and that are still in place today, marking out the edge of a basin (Fig. 7). From the subject of the friezes, the monument’s position near the Lower Agora,26 as many Heroons in other Greek cities were,27 and from an evaluation of Pausanias’ description of its location, which he described as after the Olympieion and before the Magnesian gate, Thür concluded that this was the grave monument for Androclus.28 Indeed, its water feature would be in keeping with the theme of the sacred spring Hypeleus mentioned in the foundation myth. One notable feature of this building is its benches with lions’ feet, which form part of the supporting structure of the lower Doric storey’s columns.29 The monument was also laid out to include a small 4 × 8 m open square on its northwestern side, which was also furnished with benches with stylistically identical 25

Thür 1995, 99–100. Commonly referred to as the Tetragonos Agora; for the sake of not assigning a semantic meaning to the space, the locational term Lower Agora will be applied. The same approach will be employed for the Upper Agora which is commonly referred to as the State Agora. 27 Thür (1995, 77, n. 69) provided a good catalogue of parallels. 28 Thür 1995, 102–03. 29 Thür 1995, 83. Thür (1995, 91) identified this structure as the Heroon of Androclus, described by Pausanias, however, she also conceded that this is not certain, as no inscription has been recovered. 26

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

223

Fig. 7. Ephesus, the Androclus monument Late Roman basin, facing south-west.

lions’ feet to those of the monument.30 This small square extended from the main structure to the edge of the road that perhaps gave access to a residential area.31 Of special interest is that some of these benches were inscribed with letters,32 similar to the practice observed in theatres to reserve seats. The arrangement of the monument, with its seating facilities and adjoining small open square, also with seating, clearly reveals one of its functions: that of a gathering place. No grave chamber is suggested by the building’s structural form, nor has any grave been found among its foundations. Thür ventured that this was a cenotaph, an empty memorial for the deceased whose remains had either been lost or were safeguarded elsewhere.33

30

Thür 1995, 89–90. Not to the processional way to Ortygia as Thür (1989, 134) and Hueber et al. (1997, 77) maintained. Rather, it marked a transition between residential and public space (Groh 2006, 88). 32 Thür 1995, 89. 33 Thür 1995, 102. 31

224

SIMON YOUNG

Being clearly seen was one of the most important considerations in the design of the monument. At 13 m above the Triodos,34 its pediment, and perhaps its statue, would have been visible both from the Lower Agora and perhaps the harbour. One overlooked feature is the significance of the position of its benches. Those seated on the monument would have enjoyed carefully directed lines of sight. The front of the monument featured no seats, probably so as not to detract from the impact of the elaborately architecturally framed façade and statue. Those seated on the eastern side would have had excellent views of the Embolos as it ascended north-east. The benches on the western side of the monument, along with the small open square, were angled in such a way that those seated on the monument side were the best positioned to view the traffic from the harbour area. Those seated on the benches below may have had their view somewhat restricted, but those on the outer seats would have at least seen someway up the slope of the Embolos. That this seating was considered highly valued is strongly suggested by the carved letters on the first four benches on the north side of the six rows. Perhaps most importantly was that the seated spectators on the rows of benches, and on the monument, could see each other: surely to facilitate some kind of interaction. So, not only did the monument command a key location at the juncture of the city’s pedestrian flow, but it also afforded those who gathered there an excellent vantage point of all directions of the Triodos. Although no interpretation of the function of the carved initials was offered by Thür, it is worth giving thought to whether the citizens mentioned by Strabo, who were, or at least believed themselves to be, descendants of Androclus, may have been among those who gathered there. Another tomb was set up next to the monument in the mid-1st century BC, the so-called Octagon, the presumed burial place of Arsinoe IV, and which was slightly higher than the Androclus monument at 13.5 m (Fig. 8, no. 17).35 Between 50 and 25 BC,36 at the top of the Embolos, a towering 17 m tall monument was erected for Gaius Memmius, grandson of Sulla.37 In the Augustan period, the commercial precinct in the area toward the harbour was renovated and formalised with colonnaded halls, a multitude of shops as well as magnificent gateways, including the gate of Mazaeus and Mithridates, constructed in 3/2 BC.38 The Upper Agora was likewise formalised.39 As Ephesus continued to 34

Thür 1995, 87. Thür 1990, 49. 36 Outschar 1990, 85. 37 Webb 1996, 82. 38 Halfmann 2001, 29; Graham 2013, 391. An inscription records Mithridates as a freeman (see Graham 2013, 391, n. 40). 39 This renovation included a variety of public buildings, such as a basilica-stoa, prytaneion, and a temple (see Groh 2006, 91; Steskal 2010, 239). 35

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

225

Fig. 8. Ephesus, public buildings at the end of the 2nd century AD (adapted from Groh 2006, fig. 20 and Brückner 2012, 48).

grow during Nero’s principate (AD 54–68), the route of the sacred way was diverted from the Lower Agora, to a new marble thoroughfare that provided direct access from the theatre to the Triodos. This is the so-called Marble street.40 Perhaps the most evocative statement of Roman imperial authority was the construction of a neokoros temple that was consecrated in AD 88/89.41 From the base of the Embolos, this temple would have seemed to occupy the summit of the valley. During Trajan’s principate (AD 98–117), building activity showed no sign of abating. The harbour district was radically transformed with the construction of the enormous baths and portico of Verulanus, and an upgrade of 40 41

Scherrer 2001, 81. For a summary of research and bibliography on this building, see Groh 2006, 92.

226

SIMON YOUNG

shipping facilities.42 The Androclus monument received a new neighbour, a three-bayed arch that was carefully positioned next to the open square with benches.43 The arch, no doubt, also closed the architectural vista of the Marble street when approaching the Triodos from the theatre. Soon, other individuals would jostle for a place on the Embolos, in close proximity to Androclus’ monument and around the Triodos. The library of T. Iulius Celsus Polemaenus, who was once proconsul of Asia, also served as his tomb and was carefully positioned at the lower end of the Embolos.44 In AD 113–114, Aristion and his wife Iulia Lydia Laterane built the city’s third aqueduct, which was 38 km in length,45 as well as a monumental fountain as its end point on the Embolos (Fig. 9).46 The focus of the 8.4 × 17 m-wide monumental fountain was an over-life-size statue of Trajan at the centre, but also featured portraits of the imperial family, and mythical figures including Androclus.47 Aristion was interred in a tomb next to his monumental fountain.48 By the 2nd century AD, the Androclus monument had been standing at the foot of the Embolos for several centuries, memorialising an even more ancient individual. The Triodos connected the Lower Agora via the square in front of the Library of Celsus and the Marble street, resulting in one of the most important known crossroads of the city. The Androclus monument’s height, and possibly its statue, may once have served as a tall visual rallying point, but was now overshadowed by the neokoros temple, and other monuments. The building itself told a story of struggle through its frieze reliefs, which were no doubt colourfully painted and visually legible by all who passed by. In the 1st century BC, when it was constructed, the monument may have reminded the descendants of the Lysimachan era settlers of their origins. Much later, when their relocation from the upper city near the Artemision may have been a distant memory, the monument perhaps was an allegory for the Ephesians’ struggle against Rome, perhaps set up by the defiant citizens. Centuries later, in the 42 On the development of this area, see Groh 2006, 77. For a good bibliography on the publications related to the Harbour baths, see Steskal and La Torre 2008, 294, n. 1541. 43 Thür 1989, 134; Scherrer 2001, 76, n. 107. 44 Graham 2013, 398; Groh 2006, 86. 45 Graham 2013, 405, n. 109. The previous two aqueducts were the Aqua Iulia and the Aqua Troessitica, which were built during Augustus’ principate (see Halfmann 2001, 24; Graham 2013, 395, nn. 60 and 62; and Scherrer 2001, 82, n. 74). 46 Groh 2006, 93; Quatember 2011, 110. Aristion built at least one other public building, as his name appears in the accusative on a monumental building fragment (see Graham 2013, 406, n. 115). 47 Quatember 2011, 111. Other statues preserved were: two of Dionysos, a satyr, Aphrodite, herms, two unidentified female deities, a helmeted warrior and a philosopher (see Jacobs 2010, 294). 48 Halfmann 2001, 65.

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

227

Fig. 9. Ephesus, reconstruction of Trajan’s fountain (after Quatember 2011, fig. 112).

2nd century AD, the ancient monument offered a continuity of Androclus’ memory for any who passed by or sat there. Those who were afforded seats of honour on its reserved benches may have watched sacred processions from the monument in order to associate themselves with Ephesus’ ktsites.49 A series of inscriptions from the 2nd century AD suggests that an annual celebration commemorated Androclus on a given day,50 and it would seem plausible that these festivities were at least in someway connected to the monument. It is significant that Pausanias (7. 2. 6) singled out the Androclus Heroon for extended commentary. If indeed this is the monument that Pausanias described, as Thür contended, for us, we are left wondering why this monument? How 49 Sources attest to at least four annual processions in this period: the first, the exodus of the goddess along the processional way outside the city, the second, the exodus of the goddess to Ortygia on her birthday; the third, the procession from Ephesus to the Artemision; and the last, a procession as part of the games instituted by C. Vibius Salutaris (from AD 104). Except for the Vibius procession, the directions they took are unknown. On the processions, see Thomas 2010, 126; Groh 2006, 107. 50 Thür 1995, 74.

228

SIMON YOUNG

could Pausanias have failed to be impressed with the Library of Celsus and the other enormous Roman imperial building projects at Ephesus? Perhaps it was because the figure of Androclus was so cherished by his contemporaries, both by those who lived in Ephesus and those who visited. How many other visitors in Pausanias’ day, and especially from the Ionian colonies, were drawn to their homeland and ultimately to that monument, the monument for their ktistes? The building with its statue, that in all likelihood portrayed Androclus and occupied the central niche, greeted Ephesians from all quarters as they began their ascent of the Embolos. It is true that by the 2nd century AD, the monument had been hemmed in by an arch on one side, the tomb of an Egyptian princess on the other and was faced by tavernas, and the numerous other monuments in close proximity (Fig. 10). However, during this period, which was arguably the height of Ephesus’ wealth and success, this ancient monument provided a link to two distant pasts. The first was mythical, that of Androclus and his successors, and the second was immediate, that of the Roman Republican city; although it is likely that little distinction between the two was made for the 2nd-century AD

Fig. 10. Ephesus, the monumental ensemble of Hadrian’s arch, Androclus monument and Octagon at the lower Embolos (after Thür 2009, fig. 6).

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

229

observer. Indeed, during the 2nd century AD, the hero was the subject of renewed interest. From Hadrian onward (AD 117–138), coins with Androclus’ various exploits and associated imagery were struck.51 This coincided with the steady increase of wealth and public benefaction within the ranks of the indigenous elite, who, according to Halfmann, were beginning to overtake foreigners in terms of the scale of their building projects and amounts they poured into the city.52 Androclus’ heroic figure appeared in other public contexts as well: in reliefs in the so-called Temple of Hadrian on the Embolos,53 and in the statuary of Aristion’s Trajanic fountain. In a statue recovered from the Vedius gymnasium, some argue he is clearly in the guise of Hadrian’s favourite Antinous.54 If this is the case, the synthesis of Antinous and Androclus resulted in a firm statement of the city founder’s relevance. With Androclus’ immediate recognisability for a 2nd-century AD viewing public, the wealthy local elite of the period, with their fountains, tombs and statuary programmes, may have aimed to create a link between themselves and the founder by association, and thus suggest that they shared the virtues Androclus possessed and be seen as his rightful successors.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Auinger, J. 2011: ‘The Sculptural Decoration of Ephesian Bath Buildings in Late Antiquity’. In Dally, O. and Ratté, C. (eds.), Archaeology and the Cities of Asia Minor in Late Antiquity (Kelsey Museum Publication 6) (Ann Arbor), 67–80. Bauer, E. 2014: Gerusien in den Poleis Kleinasiens in hellenistischer Zeit und der römischen Kaiserzeit: Die Beispiele Ephesos, Pamphylien und Pisidien, Aphrodisias und Iasos (Munich). Brückner, H. 2012: ‘Paläogeografie’. Jahresbericht, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 46–49. French, D.H. 2014: Roman Roads and Milestones of Asia Minor 3. Milestones 3.5: Asia (Ankara). Graham, A.S. 2013: ‘The Word is Not Enough: A New Approach to Assessing Monumental Inscriptions. A Case Study from Roman Ephesos’. American Journal of Archaeology 117.3, 383–412. Groh, S. 2006: ‘Neue Forschungen zur Stadtplanung in Ephesos’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 75, 47–116. Halfmann, H. 2001: Städtebau und Bauherren im römischen Kleinasien: ein Vergleich zwischen Pergamon und Ephesos (IstMitt Beih. 43) (Tübingen). 51

Thür 1995, 71. Halfmann 2001, 31. 53 Although these may originate from a different building, they have been dated stylistically to the 2nd century (see Thür 1995, 102). 54 Thür 1995, 74. 52

230

SIMON YOUNG

Hind, J.G.F. 1994: ‘Mithridates’. CAH IX2, 129–64. Hueber, F., Erdemgil, S. and Büyükkolanci, M. 1997: Ephesos gebaute Geschichte (Mainz). Jacobs, I. 2010: ‘Production to Destruction? Pagan and Mythological Statuary in Asia Minor’. American Journal of Archaeology 114.2, 267–303. Mac Sweeney, N. 2013: Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge). Outschar, U. 1990: ‘Zum Monument des C. Memmius’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 60, 57–85. Quatember, U. 2011: Das Nymphaeum Traiani in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 11.2) (Vienna). Raja, R. 2012: Urban Development and Regional Identity in the Eastern Roman Provinces, 50 BC–AD 250: Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Athens, Gerasa (Copenhagen). —. 2013: ‘Changing Spaces and Shirting Attitudes: revisiting the Sanctuary of Zeus in Gerasa’. In Kaizer, T., Leone, A., Thomas, E. and Witcher, R. (eds.), Cities and Gods: Religious Space in Transition (BABESCH Suppl. 22) (Leuven), 31–41. Scherrer, P. 2001: ‘The Historical Topography of Ephesos’. In Parrish, D. (ed.), Urbanism in Western Asia Minor: New Studies on Aphrodisias, Ephesos, Hierapolis, Pergamon, Perge and Xanthos (Journal of Roman Archaeology Suppl. 45) (Portsmouth, RI), 57–95. —. 2014: ‘Hunting the Boar – the Fiction of a Local Past in Foundation Myths of Hellenistic and Roman Cities’. In Alroth, B. and Scheffer, C. (eds.), Attitudes Towards the Past in Antiquity Creating Identities (Proceedings of an International Conference held at Stockholm University, 15–17 May 2009) (Stockholm), 113–19. Scherrer, P. and Trinkl, E. 2006: Die Tetragonos Agora in Ephesos: Grabungsergebnisse von archaischer bis in byzantinische Zeit – ein Überblick Befunde und Funde klassischer Zeit (Forschungen in Ephesos 13.2) (Vienna). Sokolicek, A. 2010a: ‘Chronologie und Nutzung des Magnesischen Tores von Ephesos’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 79, 359–81. —. 2010b: ‘Magnesisches Tor’. Jahresbericht, Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut, 37–40. Steskal, M. 2010: Das Prytaneion in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 9.4) (Vienna). Steskal, M. and La Torre, M. 2008: Das Vediusgymnasium in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 14.1) (Vienna). Thomas, C.M. 2010: ‘Greek Heritage in Roman Corinth and Ephesos: Hybrid Identities and Strategies of Display in the Material Record of Traditional Mediterranean Religions’. In Friesen, S.J., Schowalter, D.N. and Walters, J.C. (eds.), Corinth in Context: Comparative Studies on Religion and Society (Novum Testamentum Suppl. 134) (Leiden/Boston), 117–47. Thür, H. 1989: Das Hadrianstor in Ephesos (Forschungen in Ephesos 11.1) (Vienna). —. 1990: ‘Arsinoe IV., eine Schwester Kleopatras VII., Grabinhaberin des Oktogons von Ephesos? Ein Vorschlag’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 60, 43–56. —. 1995: ‘Der ephesische Ktistes Androklos und (s)ein Heroon am Embolos’. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes in Wien 64, 63–103. —. 2009: ‘Zur Kuretenstraße von Ephesos – Eine Bestandsaufnahme der Ergebnisse aus der Bauforschung’. In Ladstätter, S. (ed.), Neue Forschungen zur Kuretenstrasse von Ephesos (Akten des Symposiums für Hilke Thür vom 13. Dezember

THE ANDROCLUS GRAVE MONUMENT REVISITED

231

2006 an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) (Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 382; Archäologische Forschungen 15) (Vienna), 9–28. Waldner, A. 2009: ‘Heroon und Oktogon. Zur Datierung zweier Ehrenbauten am unteren Embolos von Ephesos anhand des keramischen Fundmaterials aus den Grabungen von 1989 und 1999’. In Ladstätter, S. (ed.), Neue Forschungen zur Kuretenstrasse von Ephesos (Akten des Symposiums für Hilke Thür vom 13. Dezember 2006 an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) (Denkschriften, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 382; Archäologische Forschungen 15) (Vienna), 283–300. Webb, A. 1996: Hellenistic Architectural Sculpture: Figural Motifs in Western Anatolia and the Aegean Islands (Madison, WI/London).

PART II

IONIA, WEST AND EAST

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE Leonhard R. GEIßLER, Hans MOMMSEN, Richard POSAMENTIR and Kai RIEHLE

Abstract This paper deals with Ionian pottery of the Archaic period that has been found in both the East and the West. It seeks to discern what pottery, especially its shape and decoration, meant to people who moved away from their mother cities. Due to successful provenance determination by neutron activation analysis (NAA) we have a rather clear image today of the origin of the various styles produced in the Ionian cities along the west coast of Asia Minor. Moreover, we are able to say whether these styles were copied somewhere else abroad or not. Even though the inhabitants of the Ionian cities were extremely focused on their own specific and most characteristic wares, obviously inheriting some kind of recognition value, the same people used a wild mixture of pottery styles when moving abroad – remarkably without copying what they knew from their homelands. To manufacture local imitations on a certain level of quality – inferior examples are to hand – would have been in fact difficult in such regions as the lands around the Black Sea or in Egypt, due to the lack of high quality clay, but on the other hand it would have been easy in the West. Nevertheless, hardly any indication can be found up to now that genuine Ionian pottery of the 7th and 6th centuries BC (with the exception of the ‘Ionian cups’) was made in the Greek cities of Sicily and southern Italy. Even though Ionia was only peripherally involved in the ‘colonisation process’ in the West, this comes as a surprise: selected places there and styles in use show impressively that potentially a wild mixture of ceramics was produced on the same spot. In clear contrast to the Ionian production centres, indigenous vessels, pseudo-Corinthian or pseudoEuboean products, for example, and later South Italian decorated black gloss seem to have been made from the same clay and in the same kilns – not so Ionian-style vessels. The same phenomenon seems to be reflected by examples from Etruria: the unquestionably strong Ionian influence in Archaic times led neither to any substantial import of such vessels nor to definite imitations on a large scale, but instead to the manufacture of certain stylistic groups with an Ionian ‘touch’ that still have not been located safely in their place of origin. Finding answers to the questions arising from these first series of NAA samples from the West will be the task of further research in this region.

Due to substantial publication deficits concerning some of the most important pottery production centres of Ionia – such as Miletus, Clazomenae and Teos – Archaic Ionian pottery still remains somehow understudied from a stylistic

236

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

point of view.1 Paradoxically, this does not hold for research on the archaeometric aspect: the original provenance of the various clay vessels and vases has been studied extensively over the past 25 years even though, in the majority, samples have been used from Ionian daughter cities of East and West and, not seldom, from the fringes of the Greek world. Luckily, a group of scholars – starting with M. Kerschner2 and soon supplemented by many others such as U. Schlotzhauer and A. Villing,3 O. Dally, R. Posamentir and R. Attula,4 and so on5 – collaborated in this effort with H. Mommsen from Bonn University and shared the same successful and, today, undisputed method – the neutron activation analysis (NAA).6 Results are therefore comparable on a large scale and have helped us to draft a fairly reliable image of ceramic production in the Ionian cities of the 7th and 6th centuries BC,7 clearly definable from the surrounding hinterland.8 Due to this, we do know today – to mention only 1 This was already lamented by Cook and Dupont (1998, 5, 51), but is unfortunately still true. Certainly, things have improved by having access to on-line publications such as Käufler 2006, Krotscheck 2008 and Schlotzhauer 2014, or preliminary overviews on certain groups such as Schlotzhauer 1999, and Wascheck 2008. Additionally, presentations of exceptional objects such as those published by Carl (2006), von Graeve (2006, 250–51; 2013, 12), Schlotzhauer (2006c, 134–40; 2007, 269–82) and elsewhere (all Milesian vessels) have to be mentioned – but the overall picture remains difficult to judge. Unfortunately, there is no up-to-date study on the most important vase-painting styles of Archaic Ionia. Even more meagre is the evidence from North Ionian cities: for Clazomenae, see still Ersoy 1994; 2004; Özer 2004; and Iren 2006, 105–15. For an excellent overview of both regions with colour illustrations, see Coulié 2014, 41–195. 2 For a first comprehensive approach from an archaeometric point of view, see Akurgal et al. 2002, 28–94 (Kerschner). Full credit is given there to various earlier approaches, which in some sense prepared the ground for this ‘research cluster’, which represents the most successful and comprehensive attempt. For additional and more recent publications on this subject by Kerschner and others, such as Dupont, see the references below and the summary in Schlotzhauer 2014, 359–61. Unfortunately, using a different method, Dupont in particular often fails to present sufficient information on his data: see Dupont 1983; 1999; 2008; 2014. To a great extent, his results remain irreproducible to the reader. 3 Predominantly for Egypt, most importantly and recently: Mommsen et al. 2012. 4 Predominantly for the Black Sea region, but also certain regions of Asia Minor, see Attula 2006; Attula et al. 2014; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006; 2007; and Posamentir et al. 2009. 5 Mountjoy, Jung and Hertel must be mentioned here especially for the study of Bronze Age pottery with NAA (see, for example, Mountjoy and Mommsen 2006; Mommsen et al. 2001; Mommsen et al. 2011) or, for the West, Badre et al. 2005 and Naso 2014. Later periods: Schneider and Mommsen 2009. 6 For example, Kerschner et al. 2006; Mommsen 2007; 2012; Mommsen et al. 2012; and most recently Mommsen 2014. Even though other scholars also have applied NAA to Archaic Ionian pottery, results are never directly comparable – this can lead to the absurd situation that well-known pottery, in this case from Miletus, is classified as a ‘non-local group’, since the ‘Orientalising’ pottery produced in the Troad formed the starting point of this very study (see Aslan and Pernicka 2013, 45–48). 7 Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, for a first attempt to visualise the various spectra of products. 8 Carian pottery, even though often strongly taking on Milesian models, can be identified stylistically as well as archaeometrically: for Geometric and Archaic Carian pottery, see Bulba

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

237

the most important sites in Ionia – what pottery produced in Miletus, Teos, Clazomenae, Cyme/Larisa/Phocaea, Chios and to some extent Ephesus, Smyrna, Samos and Erythrae looked like,9 where and to what extent it was exported, and that local imitation of these wares happened only on a surprisingly small scale.10 IONIAN POTTERY IN THE EAST: THE STATE OF RESEARCH A brief summary of what has been achieved has to be given here, in order to understand the differences in pottery production between East and West, starting with the East. In short, Miletus (with its Mommsen groups MilA = old A and MilD = old D) turned out to be the undisputed hometown of South Ionian Wild Goat and its subsequent Fikellura style,11 even though it should not be ruled out that the one or other not very powerful Milesian ‘branch’ existed somewhere else – apart from the so called ‘Hellespontine workshop(s)’ which will be discussed below.12 In Clazomenae (Mommsen group KlazE = old E) potters and painters produced vessels of the so called North Ionian Wild Goat style (formerly often referred to as Late Wild Goat style);13 followed by a heavily Corinthianising ware and finally the famous black-figured Clazomenian vases.14 In nearby Teos (Mommsen group TeosB = old B) the production 2005; Fazlιoğlu 2007; or the older contributions in Cook 1993; 1999; and Cook and Dupont 1998, 63–66. More recently Lentini 2006a, 123–43. For differences and interferences between Ionian and Lydian pottery (Mommsen group SardQ = old Q), see, for example, Kerschner 2005, 134–41; 2007, 233–36. 9 This certainly includes the identification of one or more chemical fingerprints of the respective production centres: see Mommsen et al. 2012, 439–43. 10 For the rather modest local production and imitation of Ionian wares in Egypt, see Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 62–65; Schlotzhauer 2012, 62–65; Mommsen et al. 2012, 441– 42. For the again modest local groups from the Black Sea region, see Kerschner 2006c, 151–54; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 124–26; 2007, 194–95; and most recently Attula et al. 2014. The so-called Ionian cups or, better, Knickrandschalen are certainly a different chapter: see Kerschner 2004, 124; 2007, 231–32; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 202–05. More recently and elaborately, Schlotzhauer 2014, 362–72, who essays a rigorous evaluation (370–72) of Dupont’s results in Dupont and Lungu 2012 and Dupont 2014. 11 Cook and Dupont 1998, 33–46, 77–89; compare with Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 200–01, Abb. 6; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 83–84; and the examples in Lentini 2006a, 30–75 or Coulié 2014, 44–45, 48–62, 66–163. 12 Some other places of manufacture might have existed (see Posamentir et al. 2009, 46–47, Abb. 7 or Lentini 2006a, 120–21). 13 Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2007, 298–99, with n. 20. 14 Cook and Dupont 1998, 51–56, 95–107, with the older research; compare now with Akurgal et al. 2002, 76–80 (Kerschner); Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 184–90, Abb. 1–2; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86–88, or Coulié 2014, 45–46, 164–73.

238

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

spectrum was very similar in many aspects, but additionally the city has to be held responsible for the invention of an ‘export hit’ such as the famous Subgeometric bird bowls and successors.15 No ‘branch’ producing or imitating these specific North Ionian wares (for the exception of Mommsen group AiolG = old G; see below) has so far been identified somewhere else,16 even though the amount of such pottery is predominating in the various Ionian apoikiai after around 600 BC.17 Cyme (or Larisa on Hermos or Phocaea – a question at least in our minds not finally solved;18 Mommsen group AiolG = old G19) was obviously well known for the production of a colourful black ware20 and a very specific subspecies of the North Ionian Wild Goat style (the London Dinos group for example) with clear reminiscences to the Aeolian region.21 Apart from this, group AiolG, wherever it was in fact produced, seems to be an interesting ‘borderline’ case in this context, as its spectrum is supplemented by many vessels one would visually tend to attribute to the pottery workshops of Teos or Clazomenae. Naturally, all these above-mentioned products in this brief and incomplete summary are only the respective ‘highlights’ of specific Ionian cities, products with a certain level of ‘recognition value’. Many more ordinarily decorated vessels (such as simple plates with collars or a meander on the rim)22 were certainly manufactured in several places, even though often with certain characteristic details that still need to (and probably can and will) be identified.23 15 For a recent report on this production centre and its final localisation in Teos, see Kadιoğlu et al. 2015, 349–53; and previously Akurgal et al. 2002, 66–72. Unfortunately, Kerschner’s PhD study on North Ionian bird bowls remains partly unpublished; see Kerschner in this volume. 16 For thoughts on this possibility, see Posamentir et al. 2009, 47–49. See also the wellillustrated compilation of North Ionian pottery found in the West in Lentini 2006a, 84–105. 17 The pottery found at Berezan is a good example of this: Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 105. 18 Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 181–82; Posamentir 2010, 73–74; Iren 2003, 165–207 and the responses by Kerschner 2004, 26–128, 140–43, and Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 88–91. The fact that characteristic groups such as the colourful black ware jugs and the dinoi of the so called ‘London Dinos Group’ are remarkably widespread would go well together with the reputation of Phocaeans as founders of apoikiai and widely travelling traders. 19 Akurgal et al. 2002, 84–92 (Kerschner); Kerschner 2006a; Mommsen and Kerschner 2006, 105–08. More recently, and archaeometrically better supported with material from Cyme: Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 90–91. 20 Walter-Karydi (1973, 19–20) called these (predominantly) oinochoai ‘Schwarzbunte Gefäße’ and assumed their place of manufacture in Samos. They are, surely on purpose, faintly reminiscent of the so-called Rhodian ‘Vroulia ware’: see Cook and Dupont 1998, 114–15. 21 For Aeolian pottery, see the overview in Cook and Dupont 1999, 56–61; and more recently Iren 2003 or Coulié 2014, 47, 176–80. 22 Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 87. 23 Akurgal et al. 2002, 80–84 (Kerschner); Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 109–10; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 190–94; Posamentir et al. 2009, 44; definitely more sceptical

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

239

Nevertheless, some overlap between the three North Ionian production centres mentioned above (and others such as Smyrna: see below) will always remain, but, and this is perhaps one of the most important insights concerning pottery production in the East, the respective spectrum of wares of specific cities is in fact far from being arbitrary or completely mixed up.24 More research is going to clarify much but will, in all likelihood, not change the image we have gained with the help of NAA. Chian pottery (Mommsen group ChiB) 25 does not have to be mentioned here in detail, as it is visually easy to distinguish from the rest, under-studied from an archaeometric point of view but otherwise well published.26 Other important Ionian cities, and therefore probably also pottery production centres – such as Ephesus (Mommsen groups EpheH = old H, EpheI = old I and X),27 Samos (Mommsen group SamJ = old J)28 or Erythrae (presumably one of the Mommsen groups with the identifier Chi*)29 – are mentioned only briefly here. Details are still a bit less clear than with the other groups discussed before, but it is noteworthy that they all share the characteristic feature of not having played a major role in pottery export. Representatives of these groups are hardly found anywhere – neither in Egypt nor the West nor the Black Sea cities. The ‘global players’ were without doubt Miletus, Teos, Clazomenae and Cyme/Larisa/Phocaea. On the other hand, places like Ephesus seem to have been more open to adopting stylistic stimulation and influence from other regions around,30 a circumstance which might be directly connected to the low numbers of exported vessels and therefore production.31 Some more Kerschner 2006b, 142–43 (‘Das Töpferzentrum G/g in Kyme … erweist sich damit als Schmelztiegel verschiedenster Stilrichtungen…’); Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 88. 24 Exceptions always considered: see, for example, for the local production of Lydian ‘Marbled Ware’ in Smyrna, Kerschner 2006c, 273–74. For bird kotylae and South Ionian Wild Goat style from Ephesus, see Kerschner 2007, 223, 229–30; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 84. For Samian bird kotylae: Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 85. For Milesian bird kotylae and local imitations of bird kotylae in general: Akurgal et al. 2002, 41, 67–72 (Kerschner). 25 Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, 129–36. 26 See Lemos 1991; Cook and Dupont 1998, 46–51, 71–76; or Williams 2006, 127–32. More recently some examples in colour in Lentini 2006a, 77–83. 27 Kerschner et al. 2002, 189–206; Badre et al. 2005 (appendix by Kerschner); Kerschner 2007; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86. 28 A good and safe reference in this case are the so-called Samian Hera cups, which were exported to branches of this sanctuary in Egypt, obviously as lawful bearers of a ritual meaning: Schlotzhauer 2006a, 312–13, 318–19; Schlotzhauer and Villing 2006, 59–61. See also Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 84–85. 29 Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 86, n. 45. 30 Kerschner 2007, 227–28. See also Dupont 2010, 37, who sees the reason for this in the fact that most archaeometrically analysed finds come from the super-regionally significant sanctuary of Artemis. 31 A different interpretation in Kerschner 2017.

240

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

chemical fingerprints from the East Dorian area (with more widely spread wares; Mommsen groups EMEB/EMEb,32 islands like Kos (group RHc1, now renamed KosB),33 Mytilene, Cyprus and others have been collected and analysed with the help of NAA;34 but again they are obviously of minor importance concerning super-regional trade. Nevertheless, one can generally conclude that we already have quite a good overview and stable grip on all of these sites and their ceramics as well.35 However, the situation is not that simple: the most surprising discovery during this sampling process over recent years has, without any doubt, been the identification of a South Ionian or even Milesian pottery branch in the region around Troy (Mommsen groups HelleD = old TRO–D and HelleB = old TRO–B) presumably situated in the Milesian apoikia of Abydos.36 This branch, obviously founded in order to be closer to the Black Sea market and supplying the apoikiai in the north with pseudo-native pottery, mainly produced only a limited variety of shapes such as plates and fruit stems37 – but happened to teach us a lot of enormously important things: First, pottery workshops or branches abroad normally used the clay locally available and did not import raw material from Ionian cities – as sometimes assumed in the past for similar cases.38 In fact, given the obvious lack of high quality clay in the apoikiai along the northern shores of the Black Sea, one would expect to find such a phenomenon there if anywhere. However, we only find North Ionian products made of North Ionian clay, South Ionian products made of South Ionian clay and products of the Milesian branch made of clay 32

Mommsen, Schwedt and Attula 2006. Mommsen et al. 2010; stamped handles from Miletus assign pattern RHc1 to Kos. 34 A first preliminary overview: Kerschner 2001, 87–89. For more recent and partly archaeometrically supported studies, see Mommsen, Cowell et al. 2006; Attula 2006; Coulié 2014, 47–48, 182–91; Coulié 2015, and the tentative compilation in Lentini 2006a, 110–19. Cyprus: see Mommsen et al. 2012, 438–42; Mountjoy and Mommsen 2015. 35 For a comprehensive overview of located wares and groups, see Kerschner 2001, 81–90. This account is certainly in some parts outdated, so it is useful to add Mommsen, Cowell et al. 2006, 72–73; Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a; Mommsen et al. 2012, 439–55, in order to follow this long-term process. 36 Kerschner 2006b, 148–51; Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 113–17; 2007, 195–201; Posamentir et al. 2009; Posamentir 2010, 74. These vessels were in all likelihood predominantly made for the Black Sea market but were shipped to other places as well. For three examples from Naukratis, see Mommsen et al. 2012, 440. 37 Already realised by Kerschner 2006b, 150–51; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 195–99. See also Aslan and Pernicka 2013, 42–45. The production spectrum certainly contains other shapes as well, but on a very low level(?): see Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 115–16; Posamentir et al. 2009, 37–44. A certain limitation is also perceptible among the pottery found in the cities of the Black Sea region in general: see Posamentir 2010, 68. 38 See, for example, Boardman 1998, 11. 33

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

241

from the Troad.39 If potters at Berezan, Olbia or Histria, for example, had imported clay on a notable scale, one would very soon find a strange mixture of certain stylistic features and various chemical fingerprints of the clay – which has never been detected in a single case. Second, visual impression and inspection of the fired clay alone will hardly ever provide the possibility to distinguish between products made from Milesian clay and similar products made from clay around Abydos for example – and this will be true for other places and products as well.40 The varieties in colour and fabric are in many cases surprising and ascriptions to certain places of origin without the support of archaeometric analyses should be made only to a certain degree and never ignore the painted decoration or other features. Third, once knowing the difference from an archaeometric point of view, one might nevertheless be able to discover minimal stylistic or visual differences in the end.41 An example should be mentioned here: on products manufactured in Miletus the rays of so-called metope plates are always turned inwards,42 while those from Abydos, the daughter city, show them turned outwards (Fig. 1) for whatever reason.43 Whether this happened incidentally, or perhaps on purpose as some kind of branding of products made for export to the Black Sea cities, certainly remains unclear for the moment. However, we can now safely assume that Ionian pottery was – obviously rather exceptionally – produced in a place outside Ionia and especially for the markets of the Black Sea region, where first-class clay resources were absent. Naturally, that makes us speculate about the West where, in clear contrast, an abundance of such clay resources is present at almost all locations. IONIAN POTTERY

IN THE

EAST: NEW DATA

However, before turning to the West after this brief summary, some new data on the provenance determination of Ionian pottery products have to be introduced to the discussion. The so-called ‘Mommsen group F’ (now SmyF) can now be ascribed to the Aeolian/North Ionian city of Smyrna (Herodotus 1. 149–150), 39

Posamentir and Solovyov 2007. Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 201. See also Aslan and Pernicka 2013, 42, who identify two visual fabric groups, both fitting the chemical profile of the Troad clay sources. Substantial visual differences between vessels sharing the same ‘fingerprint’: Akurgal et al. 2002, 67–68, 70 (Kerschner). 41 Kerschner 2006b, 149–50. 42 See, for example, the Milesian plates in Lentini 2006a, 58–62; or Walter-Karydi 1973, 60–61, nos. 654–655, Taf. 80. 43 Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 195–99, Abb. 5.4, 9; Posamentir et al. 2009, 37. 40

242

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

Fig. 1: Metope plates from Miletus and Berezan, produced in Miletus and Abydos(?), Mommsen Groups MilA and Tro-D (courtesy S. Solovyov and U. Schlotzhauer).

even more safely than Kerschner had supposed in the past.44 In the 1980s, the late E. Akurgal donated a handful of sherds from this city to the Tübingen Museum collection. We deliberately picked a wide range of quite different sherds for sampling and therefore seem to have a rather resilient result: all the sherds show exactly the same clay composition that eventually seems to mirror the chemical fingerprint SmyrF = old F of the Smyrnean workshop(s) (samples Tuebi 50–52, 54–55; Fig. 2). The result conforms perfectly to all earlier archaeometric approaches and reveals North Ionian as well as Aeolian traits. Doubtless the number of sampled sherds or vessels is still too small to try to identify characteristic features of this pottery manufacturing place, but the assemblage depicted in this contribution should allow for a first visual impression. Another new, very interesting consideration can be stated: the so-called Clazomenian sarcophagi45 (two are kept in the Museum of Tübingen and have been sampled: Tuebi 121–22) obviously do form a very homogeneous group. The two examples match other examples of this extraordinary manufacture in Mommsen’s database (Mommsen group IonK)46 – which means that obviously 44

Akurgal et al. 2002, 80–84 (Kerschner); Kerschner and Mommsen 2009a, 88–90. Cook 1981a; Cook and Dupont 1998, 121–28. 46 Tübingen examples: inv. nos. S/12.2862 and S/10.2253. See Cook 1981a, 40, no. G.17, pl. 69, and 50–51, no. G.36, pl. 80. The references come from Clazomenian sarcophagi in the university museums of Bonn and Bochum. 45

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

dƵĞďŝϱϮ

dƵĞďŝϱϭ

243

dƵĞďŝϱϱ

dƵĞďŝϱϰ

dƵĞďŝϱϬ

Fig. 2: Samples of SmyrF (L. Geißler).

they all share the same chemical composition to a certain extent. This had also already been noticed by Kerschner,47 but surprisingly the ‘fingerprint’ obtained is significantly different from the one presumably identified for painted pottery from Clazomenae itself (Mommsen group KlazE = old E).48 This certainly does not mean (even though it could have meant or still mean) that these sarcophagi were not produced in Clazomenae but that, at least, a different clay and clay processing was used for these items – which is not so awkward, taking into account that they are not really ‘fine ware’. These new insights concern details, however, and at this point we can finally conclude for the East that we already do have a rather clear image, due to the fact that the cities mentioned had a more or less clearly defined pottery

47 Personal communication with Kerschner who sampled the two sarcophagi in Bonn and Bochum a few years earlier: see Mommsen, Kerschner et al. 2006, 26–27. These two, on the other hand, found matches with coarse ware pottery from Clazomenae but as well from Smyrna. 48 This fact is surprising insofar as the same painters (the Borelli Painter for example) seem to have decorated sarcophagi as well as clay vessels: see Cook 1981a, 12–13; and especially Cook and Dupont 1998, 126.

244

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

production spectrum.49 Only in exceptional cases – not even regularly in other Ionian cities – was this spectrum, or pieces of higher ‘recognition value’, copied elsewhere. This fact, however, might make one speculate about the value of these pottery products as ‘identity markers’ of specific cities. Also, these Ionian production centres obviously did not imitate products originating from other regions such as Corinth, Athens or Laconia (at least not on a notable scale) – the Corinthianising ware from Teos and/or Clazomenae being a symptomatic but perceptible exception. It is therefore not really surprising that almost no vessels of North Ionian imprint have been found in South Ionian cities or vice versa;50 export ‘hits’ such as the famous bird bowls do form another truly symptomatic exception. Remarkably, this picture is not reflected in the find-spectrum of Ionian cities along the shores of the Black Sea, where vast amounts of North and South Ionian vessels have been uncovered side by side,51 even though most places are said to have been founded by Milesians. Additionally, a change of the direction of influence seems to be discernible around 600 BC, since pottery from North Ionian production centres starts to prevail measurably.52 This change of influence can also be detected in the apoikiai of the West,53 where things were anyway different from the beginning. If Ionian pottery really had a certain significance in terms of identity in connection to certain cities, it lost this value in the Ionian apoikiai abroad: there, it was only important that pottery came from the Ionian lands, not from a specific city, even though everybody might have still been able to differentiate between Milesian and Teian vases.

49 Certainly, with exceptions: see Akurgal et al. 2002, 91 (Kerschner); Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 190–94; Posamentir 2010, 73. This view was seriously challenged in the past by an observation made in Clazomenae, where an Archaic pottery kiln was excavated (see Ersoy 2000, 403–06; or 2003, 255–56). However, the more archaeometric work has been done on Archaic Ionian pottery, the less and less it seems likely that the conclusions to which the excavators came – ‘diverse styles produced by different workshops’ – would bear examination on a larger scale, which means the really characteristic wares of a certain production place. Unfortunately, the detailed documentation of this excavation, including the pottery, has never been fully published. 50 Akurgal et al. 2002, 77–78 (Kerschner). Ephesus seems to be somewhat different in this respect. 51 Posamentir 2006, 160–61; Posamentir and Solovyov 2007, 180. 52 Posamentir and Solovyov 2006, 105; Posamentir 2010, 68. 53 Kerschner 2000, 487.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

IONIAN POTTERY IN THE WEST: THE STATE

OF

245

RESEARCH

As already said, we know the East (which includes Ionia, the Black Sea area and the Levant) much better from an archaeometric point of view than we do concerning styles and dating issues54 – the fact that Ionian pottery production stopped or was at least severely interrupted after the Persian Wars, admittedly helps in this context. For the West it is completely the other way around, as scholars have concentrated more on stylistic differentiation but not on the exact provenance of the abundant mass of different products. Naturally, taking only Ionian pottery of Archaic times into account, it is not so easy to compare the find spectra from East and West since we are dealing with a rather imbalanced process. Around the Black Sea, dozens of daughter cities were founded by Ionian Greeks, mostly coming from Miletus, but also from Clazomenae, Teos, Samos, Cyme/Larisa/Phocaea and Erythrae55 – cities which (meanwhile archaeometrically proven) have to be considered as important pottery production centres. In the West things are quite different and, even though ancient literary sources are much more substantial, we are dealing with just a handful of sites where Ionian Greeks were involved in their foundation. Apart from Euboean colonisation activities, which are definitely a different story,56 at places like Cumae, Naxos or Rhegion and Zancle,57 only the allegedly Phocaean apoikiai such as Massalia, Elea or certainly Emporion/ Ampurias come to mind.58 Of course, we should not forget a few exceptions such as Colophon’s foundation of Siris and the co-founding of Naxos by the inhabitants of the island of Naxos – at least if we trust the written sources.59 Obviously as a result, the amount of Ionian pottery from Western apoikiai is extremely limited, compared to the cities of the Black Sea region.60 Nevertheless, it was Kerschner and Schlotzhauer again, together with Mommsen and in close co-operation with Lentini and Pautasso,61 who pioneered an archaeometric investigation of Ionian pottery from Western Greek 54

See the important attempts in Kerschner and Schlotzhauer 2005; 2007; Schlotzhauer 2007. See, for example, the overview in Tsetskhladze 2006b, lxii–lxxiii. 56 For archaeometric analyses with NAA, see the various samples and studies published recently in Kerschner and Lemos 2014. For an overview of the newly identified and localised groups, see Mommsen 2014, 13–21. 57 Boardman 1999, 165–72. 58 For an overview, see Morel 2006. 59 Boardman 1999, 169, 184. 60 This becomes already quite clear by swiftly going through the compilations in WalterKarydi 1973, nos. 624, 651, 742–743, 758, 899–900, 907, 938, 979–981. Pottery of South Ionian imprint is very rare, Chian pottery a bit more frequent, but the bulk is sherds and vessels with a North Ionian style of decoration. 61 Lentini 2006a; Pautasso 2009. 55

246

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

sites. A first study was devoted to some 35 vessels from various places such as Syracuse, Selinus and Naxos and additionally pieces from the collections of the museum in Bochum.62 It revealed a rather cohesive image: if not chemical ‘loners’ nonetheless clear in their composition, the sampled fragments are definitely Eastern imports (Mommsen groups MilA = old A, MilD = old D, TeosB = old B and AiolG = old G; respectively CarA) and are therefore genuinely Ionian or Carian. The provenance group KosB (old name RHc1), originating from Kos was somehow over-represented in this study with some seven examples – but notably Gela was, at least according to the sources, founded by people from the East Dorian sphere, more specifically Rhodians and Cretans.63 Only one piece, symptomatically an Ionian cup or Knickrandschale, turned out to be a regional imitation.64 A second approach focused on some finds from the sanctuary of Demeter in Katane and revealed with its 22 sampled pieces almost the same image: the visually identified Ionian sherds are – apart from the chemical loners – exclusively genuine imports from Teos (TeosB = old B), Clazomenae (KlazE = old E), Smyrna (SmyF = old F), Cyme/Larisa/Phocaea(?) (AiolG = old G) and Chios (ChiB).65 Just two – admittedly modest – pieces (not very surprisingly small plates again) derive from presumably local workshops on the island of Sicily but anyway differ slightly in their decoration.66 This means that no substantial local production of Ionian fine ware and no Ionian pottery branches anywhere abroad have so far been identified in the West; the socalled Ionian cups, cups with everted rim or Knickrandschalen are excluded from this conclusion. Admittedly, the body of evidence is still not very high and should definitely be enlarged, but some new and additional sampling from Selinus (Seli 77; group TeosB, Teos; Fig. 3), for example, has not challenged 62 See Mommsen, Kerschner et al. 2006. Furthermore, about 80 samples from the survey of the region of Gela but of various origins have been analysed by NAA (see Lang and Mommsen 2010). 63 Boardman 1999, 177–78. For a recent study on Archaic pottery produced on the island of Rhodes, see Coulié 2015, 1313–39. 64 Schlotzhauer 2006b, 73–75, no. 21B; Mommsen, Kerschner et al. 2006, 26, no. Boch 6. This cup was originally labelled as belonging to group NaxA because of a waster from Naxos, but in the meanwhile several wasters from Catania/Katane (Kata 42–45) with a closely similar composition turned up, so the group had to be renamed KatA: see Schlotzhauer 2014, 397. Recent analyses and comparison with petrographic results of reference material, however, reassigned this concentration pattern (now named SybB) to the southern Sibarytic plain: see Jung et al. 2015, 455–63 and here below. The larger number of samples from southern Italy and Sicily permitted a separation of the group SybB with members Boch 6 and Naxos 6 from the group of the wasters from Catania which are named now SicB (unpublished). 65 Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, especially 146. 66 Kerschner and Mommsen 2009b, 72, fig. 169 (Kata 11), 74, fig. 170 (Kata 10), 142–43.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

247

^Ğůŝϳϳ

Fig. 3: North Ionian plate, Mommsen Group TeosB (after Hoesch 2006, 143–44, fig. 3).

248

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

this view.67 A local production of ‘real’ Ionian pottery – apart from PseudoIonian and Etrusco-Ionian groups68 – seemingly did not (or almost not) exist in the West and this is, given the vast amount of omnipresent clay sources, rather strange if one looks at the few pottery production sites that have already been sampled by help of NAA and will now follow. The image obtained there is very different from the East; even more, one could probably conclude that in the West every possible ware, Ionian pottery excluded, was produced in every possible place. Even though direct comparison should only be made between the apoikiai of the West and those from the Black Sea region, the apparent absence of discernible patterns is striking: the eclectic mixture of styles and wares made from the same clay that can be observed at sites in the West will make it, in contrast to the East, very hard to extract any kind of information on their inhabitants.69 POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE WEST: A BLURRED IMAGE AND SOME NEW INSIGHTS Turning to the West, things start to be much more complicated: dozens of different styles existed in fact at the same time, as yet without reliable determination of provenance.70 However, a start had to be made in order to identify at least some of the probably countless production centres, to see what kind of wares people produced at such places. As an example of a securely localised complex of chemical groups, one can now turn to the samples taken from the pottery found at L’Amastuola in the vicinity of Taranto (Fig. 4). The Dutch excavators have unearthed a very interesting settlement illustrating the close ties between indigenous tradition and colonial influences. Leaving aside the architectural remains, this interaction between local inhabitants and colonists can be traced through the mixture of typically indigenous pottery and vessels of different shapes, decoration schemes and techniques, which clearly show Greek influence. Apart from this diversity among the pottery, it was the uncovering of kilns that made the site especially attractive for archaeometric research.71 67 The North Ionian plate inv. no. SL 21344 was recently published by Hoesch 2006, 143–44, fig. 3. The authors want to express their gratitude to M. Bentz, recent excavation director of Selinus, for granting permission to sample an assemblage of pottery from this site; the archaeometric results will be published elsewhere. 68 See Boardman 1998, 219–23; Cook and Dupont 1998, 68–70, 108–13. 69 On this complex and problematic question, see most recently Denti 2016; Bellamy 2016. 70 For first thoughts on this issue, see Jones and Buxeda i Garrigós 2004. 71 The authors want to express their deepest gratitude to the excavators J.P. Crielaard and G.-J. Burgers for granting permission to use this sampling work and access to the finds from L’Amastuola.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

Lama 4

Lama 5

Lama 72

Mommsen Group TaIA

Lama 76 Lama 63

Lama 53

Lama 9

Tuebi b 115 bi

Lama 79

Fig. 4: Overview of Mommsen Groups TaIC and TaIA (L. Geißler, S. Kioukioukali and T. Zachmann).

249

250

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

Altogether, a significant part of the 97 sampled sherds can be attributed to three slightly different but strongly related chemical provenance groups (Mommsen groups TaID, TaIC and TaIA) which can safely be considered local or at least regional. This categorisation is based on the fact that the remains of the pottery kilns as well as closely related artefacts fall into two of these chemical groups detected in L’Amastuola. They can be used as reference material, while the third group shows significant similarities and partly overlaps in its characteristics. The first group introduced here was labelled TaID and contains just four specimens. Among them there is the fragment of a grill (Lama 97) belonging to a potter’s kiln; and a spindle whorl (Lama 100) and a spool (Lama 102) which can be considered locally made tools. Additionally, a white-ground amphoriskos (Lama 98), decorated with pink dots, is assigned to this chemical group as well.72 Since this group is very small, its merits are limited, but from an archaeometric point of view such a clearly identifiable local group is important for obtaining some knowledge of the different clay recipes used in this very place. The second chemical group of undoubtedly local origin was labelled TaIC. It consists of 11 samples, four of which can be connected with another kiln in the potter’s workshop.73 Among them are two pieces from the kiln itself (Lama 1; Lama 2) as well as an L-shaped stacker (Lama 4) and a test piece (Lama 5). Other sampled ceramics, a spindle-whorl and a roof tile have to be considered local products from an archaeological point of view. Having discussed the evidence for our interpretation of this chemical group as a local one, we now turn to medium and fine wares, which belong archaeometrically to the same group (TaIC). A possible relief vase (Lama 42) of bigger dimensions found in the vicinity of the potter’s workshop proves, not surprisingly, that such elaborate wares were produced in this local environment as well.74 However, in light of the decorated fine wares, it is also clear that pottery 72 The amphoriskos, found together with another similar one, was published by Crielaard and Burgers 2012, 82–83, figs. 25, 27b. It has to be mentioned here that the kiln to which the grill belongs had already ceased to function when these amphoriskoi were produced – a new one, not identified yet, must have been installed. The possible connection of the objects to the small ritual building uncovered in the same trench underlines the connection of the local cults with locally made, nearby created votive offerings. 73 For the L’Amastuola kilns, see Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 91–92, figs. 21–23; Crielaard and Burgers 2012, 78–81, 97. 74 Since such relief-decorated vases occur only in small numbers at south Italian sites, Crielaard suggests that they might have been made by travelling potters, using the local workshop facilities or even applying the relief decoration to a vase that a local potter had produced – rather than that they were part of the standard repertoire of local workshops. For such a constellation from an Euboean site, see, for example, Matthaiou 2009, 543.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

251

of colonial tradition has to be attributed to this chemical group.75 The earliest piece is a cup fragment (Lama 72) associated with the Thapsos ware once thought to be one of the earliest imports at the site.76 A second, rather early, piece is the fragment of a Subgeometric krater (Lama 71) showing a bird in outline drawing.77 Both, the Thapsos ware fragment and the Subgeometric piece prove the beginning, already, of the local production of a so-called ‘colonial’ style of pottery in the 7th century BC. The last fragment of this chemical group is a Corinthianising wall sherd of a kotyle (Lama 76) related to early to middle Corinthian prototypes. These imitations of Corinthian pottery are well attested from other nearby sites. As C.W. Neeft has already pointed out, there is clear evidence for a local Corinthianising production around Taranto, especially evident in the finds from nearby Satyrion.78 The archaeometric Group TaIC allows, therefore, for identifying such an early production of colonial-style pottery in L’Amastuola or its surroundings from the 7th century BC onwards. If now one turns to the largest chemical group found at L’Amastuola, labelled TaIA, it becomes very clear how diversified a local/regional pottery production in southern Italy in fact was. Sadly enough, this group does not bear any direct references to the material of the pottery kilns on the site. However, a few pieces of utilitarian objects, which are generally considered local products, as well as the chemical composition (very similar to the two safely identified local groups TaIC and TaID), allow for cautiously considering this chemical group to be local/regional as well.79 Roughly immobile objects such as a possible disk-acroterion (Lama 84) provide additional proof for this assumption. A modest miniature skyphos (Lama 81) and a votive amphoriskos

75 The existence of local production of colonial-style pottery in L’Amastuola was already mentioned in Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 103. They dated the beginning of local colonial pottery to the end of the 6th century BC. 76 This specimen, together with the fragment Kart 8 (Mommsen group X003) mentioned below are proof that the Thapsos style was imitated at different places in the Greek West. In Vegas 1998, 128 the corresponding piece to Kart 8 is listed as no. 19 but wrongly depicted as no. 20. For more western imitations of the Thapsos ware, see Jacobsen 2010, 263–65 (Francavilla Marittima); Mermati 2012, 203–05 (Pithekoussan-Cumaean ware). 77 The archaeometric result has proven this unparalleled decoration to be a distinctive local one, as the excavators had already suspected (see Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 96). 78 Neeft 1996. An attribution to one of Neeft’s workshops seems impossible, but the general appearance of the clay and the brownish and slightly unstable gloss seems to match the local products. For the Satyrion specimens, see Alessio 1996, 293–94. 79 This might mean that the chemical group was not necessarily used solely on site, but in the surrounding area, which includes ancient Taras. Further details on the relation between the local groups TaIA and TaIC and the strongly related group TaID are to be published together with a complete account of the results.

252

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

(Lama 80) do not challenge this view and may as well indicate a local but at least regional production.80 The typological diversity, already demonstrated above for Mommsen group TaIC, is no less than enormous for Mommsen group TaIA: on the one hand, the clay recipe was used for Subgeometric pottery, as illustrated by one of the skyphoi found in the Subgeometric ritual deposit (Lama 63). On the other hand, the group also includes some pieces of indigenous matt-painted pottery, the 7th-century BC bichrome fragment (Lama 53) being an example of it. The best testimony for the phenomenon of merging colonial and indigenous pottery, as Crielaard and Burgers have already stressed, is a wheel-made scodella (Lama 31), also assigned to the Group TaIA.81 Regarding the timespan, the slightly misfired black gloss skyphos (Lama 6) takes us down to the late 6th century BC. In this century, the chemical fingerprint TaIA was also used for so-called Ionian cups or Knickrandschalen, as proven by one almost fully preserved example (Lama 9).82 In contrast to Ionia, the story does not end here in terms of time: possibly the latest, yet most impressive examples within this group are the fragments of the handle volutes of a black gloss krater (Lama 79), dating to ca. 360–250 BC. The picture gets even more confusing since the TaIA group is also present in the list of reference materials obtained through a broad survey of ancient pottery in the Collection of Antiquities of the Institute for Classical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen.83 A single fragment of an Apulian redfigure krater (Tuebi 115), which cannot be ascribed to an identified painter or workshop, is also part of this chemical group, otherwise as yet only known from the samples in L’Amastuola.84 The fragment, with its very fine drawing of an Ionian naiskos, would make it tempting to assign it to a major workshop of a big city, not so much situated in a rather small site in the hinterland of

80 The amphoriskos is very similar to the ones assigned to group TaID: Crielaard and Burgers 2012, 83, fig. 27e. 81 Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 103. 82 The L’Amastuola example follows Type B2, corresponding to Type 9.1 in Schlotzhauer 2014, 24, 105–11. The question concerning the origins of the Knickrandschalen in the South Italic region is of high interest, especially as their local imitation has frequently been suspected. See, for example, Guzzo 1978, 123–24; van Compernolle 1996, 299–300. 83 Sampling work in this collection was undertaken within the framework of a project entitled ‘Interdisziplinäre Analyse kultureller Kontakte in antiken Randzonen’, funded by the Ministery of Science, Research and Art of Baden-Württemberg. 84 Although it might be sheer coincidence, the fragment was acquired in Taranto. This town is commonly known to have played a big role in the production of Apulian red-figure (see Trendall 1991, 21, 28; Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 119–28). For an overview of the ceramic industries in Taranto, see Dell’Aglio 1996.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

253

Taranto. Nevertheless, it may easily be that potters based in Taranto, some 20 km away, extracted their clay from nearby places such as L’Amastuola. As has now become clear, it will not be easy to ascribe a chemical group to a specific site on secondary evidence alone. Problematic cases such as Mommsen’s TaIA group underline the necessity to expand archaeometric analysis on a super-regional scale, since localised archaeometric surveys offer an incomplete and therefore less convincing insight into the structures of ancient ceramic production. POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE WEST: MORE BLURRING IN ETRURIA By sampling some other sherds of obviously Italian origin in the collection of Tübingen Museum, a similar picture emerged for the North – and made clear that the result obtained from L’Amastuola was anything but an isolated incident. Some eight pieces from the Tübingen collection formed a chemical cluster that was labelled Mommsen group Ul92 (Unlocated 92, Fig. 5). In contrast to the case of L’Amastuola, distinct reference material was unfortunately lacking for this group. Therefore, a preliminary localisation can only be based on stylistic and statistical arguments, as will be shown below. However, four matches in the Bonn NAA database offered a first hint: two of these matching vessels had been detected during a research project on redfigure pottery from Olympia.85 The two other items belonging to this group are an Etrusco-Corinthian olpe by the Swallow Painter in Bochum and a red-figure bell krater in Berlin.86 Without any doubt, a highly eclectic mixture at first sight. The eight pieces sampled from the Tübingen collection widen this image and will first be placed in chronological order: Among the oldest pieces (albeit with a slightly different chemical pattern in respect to Ul92) is an amphora of the Gruppo ad Archetti intrecciati (Tuebi 127), being a representative of the non-figurative groups of the last quarter of the

85 This group was also detected in a recent archaeometric study on the pottery production around Olympia (Mommsen et al. 2016). The two samples from this study (Mommsen Kori 5/ Bonn 1257 and Kori 19/Bonn 1615.91) were stylistically categorised as being Italo-Corinthian, the latter with a recorded provenance from Cumae. 86 The olpe in Bochum (S 1029 – Boch 5) is published in CVA Deutschland 82 = Bochum 3, 47, Tab. 30, 1–4. Its archaeometric analysis, still then as a singleton, was published in Lentini 2006b, 18, fig. 1; Mommsen, Kerschner et al. 2006. The bell krater in Berlin (inv. no. 1993.252), then also a loner, was published together with the analysis in CVA Deutschland 95 = Berlin, Antikensammlung 11, 73; 83–90, Taf. 73.1–3, 76.12, Beilage 14.3.

254

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE



dƵĞďŝϳ

dƵĞďŝϭϮϲ dƵĞďŝϵ

ĂŵĂϯϰ

dƵĞďŝϯϮ

dƵĞďŝϯϰ

dƵĞďŝϯϳ

D/ĂƚŽϰϭ dƵĞďŝϭϭϰ

dƵĞďŝϰϵ dƵĞďŝϭϭϴ

Fig. 6: Overview of Mommsen Group SybB (L. Geißler, S. Kiokioukali, K. Riehle, H. Töpfer and T. Zachmann).

259

260

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

(Tuebi 114) and a most exceptional red-figure stand (Tuebi 118).109 Yet, for none of these pieces has a place of manufacture been identified with certainty, even though one would hardly doubt their Apulian origin.110 In fact, further sampling series from Ascoli Satriano and Ripacandida, including locally made loom-weights and regional pottery styles (among them vessels of the Fabbrica di Ripacandida, the Classe Ruvo-Satriano and the Ofanto subgeometrico) confirmed a provenance of group SybB in Apulia as well.111 Thus, it seems that we are dealing (at least for the moment) with a chemical pattern called group SybB that can be found in characteristic local pottery styles of two geographically distinct areas: one in the Sibaritide, the other in northern Apulia. Since the amount of sampled sherds with this pattern (126) is already rather high and overlapping between the respective wares is minor from a stylistic point of view, the problem seems to lie somewhere else. Either the raw clay is in fact very similar in these two regions or we still need more samples in order to divide the two groups from an archaeometric point of view, or the least likely, potters in both regions used almost identical recipes to refine the raw clay material. At present, however, a clear distinction by NAA seems impossible. Unfortunately, vessels assigned to this group but originating from other find-spots, provide no information that will shed more light on this problem: among the six associated pieces from L’Amastuola, imitations of Attic wares (Lam 39) can be found, as well as two Corinthian-inspired Coppe a filetti (Lama 32; Lama 34); the latter being widespread throughout southern Italy and certainly produced at more than just one site.112 Potentially, both wares could have been produced in either the Sibaritide or northern Apulia and have always been judged this way; only the hitherto suspected Samian origin of a bowl (Lama 89) had to be revised in this respect.113 However, pottery of this provenance group SybB has not only been found in southern Italy but also in western Sicily: its chemical pattern was detected in 109 The decoration on this stand seems to represent a mixture of Attic, Apulian, Paestan and Sicilian elements but anyway its rectangular plinth with figural depictions makes it unique. 110 For the matt-painted pottery of Apulia, see De Juliis 1977; Yntema 1990. For the suspected location of the Darius Underworld Workshop in Canosa, see Trendall and Cambitoglou 1982, 483–84, whereas Todisco (2012, 81) mentions the whole area between Canosa, Ordona and Arpi. 111 For the sampling series from Ripacandida as well as for the problems concerning the localisation of group SybB, see Riehle et al. 2021. 112 Recently, a production of Coppe a filetti in Siris-Polieion could be confirmed by Vullo 2012. For an overview of find-spots from southern Italy – among them numerous pieces from the Sibaritide – see Vullo 2012, 84, n. 22. 113 Likewise, the handle of a possible Thapsos-type skyphos (Kart 3) does not contribute much to the question concerning the localisation of group SybB.

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE

261

the fragment of an Ionian-inspired Knickrandschale excavated at Selinus (Seli 21), like the Coppe a filetti a widespread shape throughout Western Greece as well.114 Though certainly also produced at many sites, a Western manufacture of these bowls has been suggested by NAA just for Catania until recently.115 More surprising is the membership of this group by a sub-type of a K480 bowl, found on Monte Iato (MIat 41) and only slightly differing from the well-known model of suspected Himerian origin in shape and decoration.116 While the shape of the K480 bowls is generally thought to be orientated at the Attic banded cups, the frieze of painted drops between the handles reflects a broad contemporary trend in the early 5th century BC.117 It is hardly possible to say whether the mentioned pieces, all following Greek types, originate from northern Apulia or the Sibaritide, both areas supplying us with a large amount of sherds with the chemical pattern SybB. Without doubt, the area around Sybaris with its dense cultural contacts must have been one of the hotspots of local pottery production – the entire region is long known as the place of manufacture of diverse pottery styles, confirmed once again by recent research in Francavilla Marittima.118 At some sites, this diversity is even reflected by the production of both indigenous-style vessels and Greek-style pottery at the same spot. 119 Furthermore, inspirations and imitations within pottery production should not be believed to derive from Greek models alone, as can be seen, for example, by the adoption of the Nestorides for red-figure technique.120 However, this is obviously only part of the whole story: the red-figure-style pottery might indeed stem in its majority from northern Apulia, even though divergent opinions have 114 Seli 21 corresponds to type Schlotzhauer 9.1, formerly known as a type B2. See Schlotzhauer 2014, 105–11. 115 For a formerly assumed production in Sicily based on NAA, see n. 64. For the assumed production based on macroscopic analysis, see n. 82. 116 Personal comment of B. Wimmer, pottery specialist of the current excavations carried out by the University of Innsbruck. The bowls K 19179 and K 11819 will be published in Kistler et al. forthcoming. Once again, the authors want to express their gratitude to Kistler and his team for granting permission to use the samplings and giving access to the pottery. For a suspected production in Himera and the Punic part of Sicily, see Vassallo 1996, 104–09 (supported by archaeometric data in Alaimo et al. 2000 for Himera at least). However, recent NAA samplings in Himera, directed by E. Mango, led to the identification of a local chemical pattern, not affiliated with group SybB. 117 For the K480 bowls, see Caflisch 1991, 54–58. Vassallo 1996, 92–94, sees a strong influence of ‘Ionian cups’. 118 For Sybaris itself, see Bedini 1970, 154–58. For Francavilla, see, for example, Jacobsen and Handberg 2010; Jacobsen 2013, 3–11. 119 See, for example, Jacobsen 2013 (Francavilla); Denti and Villette 2013 (Incoronata) and, in combination with the present results, Burgers and Crielaard 2007, 91–92 (L’Amastuola). 120 Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 98. Recently also Schierup 2015.

262

L.R. GEIßLER, H. MOMMSEN, R. POSAMENTIR AND K. RIEHLE

been expressed in the past,121 and the spatial proximity of workshops identified in Metaponto and Taras has to be kept in mind. Particularly in the areas around large Greek apoikiai, zones of dense cultural contact like the Sibaritide, we should – much more than in the relative remote regions around Ripacandida or Ascoli Satriano – rather expect very different forms of material expressions reflecting cultural diversity, as is suspected also for other Western regions in the present study. POTTERY PRODUCTION IN THE WEST: NOT A LOST CAUSE IN THE END Having this ‘mess’ in mind, the – till now – less heterogeneous Mommsen group X003 seems to be contradictory at first sight, especially in the light of its suspected origin. However, this might reflect a gap in knowledge rather than reflecting facts, since the group was detected accidentally and for the first time during our sampling programmes in Carthage and Tübingen. Altogether, with just 14 associated items its quantity is comparatively small (Fig. 7). The preliminary localisation of X003 is given by the stylistic classification of two 5th-century BC items from Tübingen as Campanian black-figure vessels (Tuebi 129, 131) – among them a neck-amphora of the Gruppo della Festa Campestre (Tuebi 131) – which are usually supposed to have been produced in the region of Capua.122 The suspected Campanian origin seems to be supported by some of the 12 associated items from Carthage123 – even though Pithekoussai, not Capua, was thought to be their place of manufacture.124 Among these pieces, the wall fragment of a Late Geometric oinochoe (Kart 1), decorated with huge running blobs, can be found, a pattern of ornamentation paralleled by other finds from Carthage, Pithekoussai, Rome and on Euboea.125 Obviously also inspired by Euboean pottery are the sherds of two more skyphoi: 121 Furtwängler 1893, 150, who suspected Thourioi to be the starting point for South Italian red-figure pottery in general – for archaeological reasons rightly refuted by, for example, Trendall 1991, 20–21; Denoyelle and Iozzo 2009, 98–99. However, a huge amount of red-figure sherds has been excavated in Sybaris and Thurioi during the late 1960s, classified as Lucanian and Apulian wares: Guzzo et al. 1970, 544. 122 For the Gruppo della Festa Campestre and its suspected origin, see Parise Badoni 1968, 59–65, 140–49; Falcone and Ibelli 2007, 79–83. 123 For some other imitations of typical Greek wares, a production in Carthage – rather than in Campania – has already been suspected after macroscopic analyses; Briese 1998, 437–43; Kourou 2002, 95–100; D’Agostino 2009, 177. For Greek wares made and found in Carthage, see Kart 49 and Kart 70 in Riehle and Mommsen forthcoming. 124 Seven out of 12 sherds are as yet unpublished. For the six pieces not mentioned here, see Riehle and Mommsen forthcoming. 125 For the mentioned pieces, see Docter 2007, 473 (with further references).

IONIANS EAST AND WEST: DIFFERENCES ACCORDING TO POTTERY EVIDENCE