Τι κάνει μια ευβοϊκή αποικίαMeditarch25_Kotsonas.pdf

MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Vol. 25, 2012

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE AT ATHENS

O F F P R I N T

This pdf belongs to Meditarch Publishing. The author is licenced to make up to 30 offprints from it. It may not be published on the World Wide Web until three years from publication (May 2018), unless the site is a limited access (password protected) intranet.

MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGYAustralian and New Zealand Journal for the Archaeology

of the Mediterranean World

Editor: Jean-Paul Descudres Assistant Editor: Derek Harrison

Editorial BoardCamilla Norman, Ted Robinson, Michael Turner, Gaye Wilson

Advisory BoardD. Anson (Otago Museum, Dunedin), A. Betts (The University of Sydney), T. Bryce (The University of Queensland, Brisbane), A. Cambitoglou (The Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens), M. Campagnolo (Cabinet de numismatique, Muse dArt et dHistoire, Geneva), L. Capdetrey (University of Poitiers), J. Chamay (Geneva), G. W. Clarke (The Australian National University, Canberra), M. David-Elbiali (University of Geneva), Chr. Forbes (Macquarie University), D. Frankel (La Trobe University, Melbourne), M. Gras (CNRS, Nanterre), J. R. Green (Sydney), R. Hannah (University of Waitako, Hamilton), M. Harari (University of Pavia), V. Karageorghis (The Cyprus Institute, Nicosia), R. Kearsley (Macquarie University, Sydney), D. Knoepfler (Collge de France), A. Laronde (Sorbonne, Paris), J. V. S. Megaw (Adelaide), J. Melville-Jones (The University of Western Australia, Perth), J.-M. Moret (Geneva), B. Ockinga (Macquarie University, Sydney), I. Pini (Marburg), R. Ridley, A. Sagona (The University of Melbourne), P. Schubert (The University of Geneva), F. Sear (The University of Melbourne), M. Strong (Abbey Museum, Caboolture), M. Wilson Jones (Rome), R. V. S. Wright (Sydney), J.-L. Zimmermann (Geneva).

Managerial CommitteeA. Cambitoglou (Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens), G. W. Clarke (The Australian National University, Canberra), R. Hannah (University of Waitako, Hamilton), C. A. Hope (Dept. of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian Studies, Monash University, Melbourne), J. Melville-Jones (Dept. of Classics and Ancient History, The University of Western Australia, Perth), A. Moffatt (Canberra), T. Hillard (Dept. of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney), M. OHea (Classics Dept., The University of Adelaide), A. Sagona (Dept. of Classics and Archaeology, The University of Melbourne), M. Strong (Abbey Museum, Caboolture).

Statement of PurposeMediterranean Archaeology (abbreviated Meditarch) is published annually. One of its main objectives is to provide a forum for archaeologists in Australia and New Zealand whose research and field work focus on the Mediterranean region. At the same time, it responds to the need for an international journal that treats the Mediterranean region as an entity. It is open to contributors from any country and publishes papers in English, French, German, and Italian.

All articles (but not reports) published in Mediterranean Archaeology have been reviewed by at least two members of the Advisory Board.

Manuscripts and inquiries about the journal should be addressed to:

The Editor Mediterranean Archaeology

CCANESA, Madsen Building (F09)The University of Sydney

NSW 2006 Australia phone: +61 2 9351 2079; fax: +61 2 9351 2079

e-mail: [email protected]

Mediterranean Archaeology is produced by MEDITARCH, CCANESA, Madsen Building (F09), The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia

and distributed by Sydney University Press Fisher Library (F03), The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia

e-mail: [email protected]; on-line sales: sydney.edu.au/sup/archaeology

Price per volume: Aus$ 100.00 (institutional) Aus$ 80.00 (personal) Aus$ 70.00 (student)

Printed by Ligare on archive-quality paper (May 2015).The OdysseaU font used to print the Greek characters in this work is available from Linguists Software, www.linguistsoftware.com, +1-425-775-1130.

All rights reserved. ISSN 1030-8482

MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Vol. 25, 2012

to the memory of David Ridgway11 May, 193820 May, 2012

ABBREVIATIONS

The reference system adopted by Meditarch is modelled on that of the German Archaeological Institute, and the bibliographical abbreviations are those listed in Archologischer Anzeiger 1997, 61224, with the addition of the following:

ABNGV Annual Bulletin of the National Gallery of Victoria, MelbourneABVic Art Bulletin of Victoria, MelbourneAION ArchStAnt Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Orientale de Napoli, Archeologia e storia anticaANES Ancient Near Eastern StudiesAtti I CMGr Atti del primo Convegno di studi sulla Magna GreciaAWE Ancient West and EastBeazley, ABV J. D. Beazley, Attic Black-figure Vase-painters (1956)Beazley, Addenda Beazley Addenda. Additional References to ABV, ARV (2nd ed.) & Paralipomena,

compiled by L. Burn & R. Glynn (1982)Beazley, Addenda2 Beazley Addenda. Additional References to ABV, ARV (2nd ed.) & Paralipomena,

ed. by T. H. Carpenter (1989)Beazley, ARV J. D. Beazley, Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (2nd ed., 1963)Beazley, EVP J. D. Beazley, Etruscan Vase Painting (1947)Beazley, Paralipomena J. D. Beazley, Paralipomena. Additions to Attic Black-figure Vase-painters and to Attic

Red-figure Vase-painters (1971)BTCGI G. NenciG. Vallet (eds.), Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione Greca in Italia,

Iff. (1977ff.)CBJ Cahiers du Centre Jean BrardDACL Dictionnaire darchologie chrtienne et de liturgieDOP Dumbarton Oaks PapersOEANE E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (1997)ProcBritAc Proceedings of the British AcademyQBNGV Quarterly Bulletin of the National Gallery of Victoria, MelbourneRGVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und VorarbeitenSHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan (Department of Antiquities, Amman)

Abbreviations of ancient authors and works, and transliterations of Greek names conform to those listed in The Oxford Classical Dictionary.

Settlements and Intercommunal Links in the Geometric Period (900700 BC)

Proceedings of the conference held byThe Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens

andThe Archaeological Society at Athens

Athens, 2022 May, 2012

Edited by Jean-Paul Descudres and Stavros A. Paspalas

cONTENTS

Prologue viiby Alexander Cambitoglou

Editors' Note ix

Alexandros P. GounarisZagora: the Harvest. The contribution of Zagora to the study of the built environment of the Geometric period 1

Catherine MorganSetting Zagora in Context 29

Lesley A. Beaumont et al.New Investigations at Zagora: the Zagora Archaeological Project 2012 43

Stavros A. PaspalasPainted Coarse-ware from Zagora 67

Christina A. TelevantouHypsele on Andros: the Geometric Phase 83

Demetrius SchilardiKoukounaries of Paros and Zagora of Andros. Observations on the history of two contemporary communities 89

Susan LangdonSeeking Social Life in the Early Iron Age Cyclades 107

Alexander Mazarakis AinianThe Domestic and Sacred Space of Zagora in the Context of the South Euboean Gulf 119

Vicky VlachouFigurative Pottery from Oropos and Zagora: a Comparative Analysis 137

Jean-Sbastien GrosLes pithoi. Notes sur le stockage et lconomie domestique dans le monde grec du dbut de lAge du Fer 153

Irene S. LemosThe Missing Dead: Late Geometric Burials at Lefkandi 159

Ian K. Whitbread and Antonia LivieratouEarly Iron Age Coarse-ware Pottery in Context. New finds from the settlement of Xeropolis at Lefkandi 173

Samuel VerdanGeometric Eretria: Some Thoughts on Old Data 181

Jan Paul CrielaardThe Early Iron Age Sanctuary and Settlement at Karystos-Plakari 191

Donald C. HaggisThe Structuring of Urban Space in Archaic Crete: an Example of Settlement Development from the Early Iron Age to Archaic Periods 201

Nota KourouCypriots and Levantines in the Central Aegean During the Geometric Period:the Nature of Contacts 215

Barbara LeoneA Trade Route between Euboea and the Northern Aegean 229

Antonis KotsonasWhat Makes a Euboean Colony or Trading Station? Zagora in the Cyclades, Methone in the Thermaic Gulf, and Aegean networks in the 8th century bc 243

Jacques Y. Perreault and Zisis BoniasAfter Zagora Andrian Colonization in the Northern Aegean: the Case of Argilos 259

Michalis A. TiveriosAndros and Its Colonies 273

Francesca MermatiOsservazioni sulla costruzione dellidentit coloniale tra Pithekoussai e Cuma 283

Maria Costanza LentiniRecent Investigation of the Early Settlement Levels at Sicilian Naxos 309

Abstracts 317Addresses of contributors to Meditarch Vol. 25 322Plates 140

vii

PROLOGuE

The excavations by an Australian team at the site of Zagora on the island of Andros under the sponsorship of the Archaeological Society at Athens and the University of Sydney were carried out between the years 1967 and 1977 in alternating digging and study seasons. The expedition was financed to some extent by the Archaeological Society, but mainly by the Australian Research Grants Committee, the University of Sydney, and funds generously provided by the Association for Classical Archaeology founded in Sydney in 1967 under the chairmanship of the late Sir Arthur T. George.

My attention had been drawn to the site in 1965 by the late Professor Nicolas Kontoleon following a first digging campaign that had been carried out in 1960 by the then Ephor of Antiquities of the Cyclades, the late Nicolas Zapheiropoulos. He generously yielded the rights of further research on the Geometric town to me. Archaeological fieldwork is by definition collaborative, and the excavations at Zagora owe a lot to the participation of two very distinguished scholars, Dr J. J. Coulton and Professor J. R. Green. It also owes a lot to Dr Ann Birchall who proved to be an outstanding excavator.

The work carried out at Zagora owes a debt of gratitude for the assistance of the following former Vice Chancellors of the University of Sydney, Sir Stephen Roberts, Sir Bruce Williams, Professor John Ward, and Professor Don McNicol. At the Greek end it owes a lot to the late Inspectors General of Antiquities Professors Spyridon Marinatos and Nicolas Yalouris, and to Professor Nicolas Kontoleon.

One of the sad facts related to archaeological fieldwork is that more often than not the objects unearthed are not properly displayed in museums, but put away in storerooms. In this respect the finds from the excavations at Zagora in the late sixties and early seventies received better treatment thanks to the generosity of the late Basil and Elise Goulandris, who had built and donated to the island the Archaeological Museum in Chora.

The excavations at the site proved to be very important, and the great specialist of Greece during the Geometric Period, the late Professor J. N. Coldstream, who visited the site more than once during the excavation seasons commented on Zagora as follows:

At Zagora, on the south-west coast of Andros, a stone-built Geometric town of 6.4 hectares has been partly explored. Since occupation is virtually limited to the eighth century, the architecture is extremely well preserved, and no other place in the Greek world offers a clearer picture of domestic life during this period (Geometric Greece, 900-700 B.C. [2003] 210).

Yet, although this first Australian expedition to Zagora had yielded important results, only part of the Geometric town had been explored. Thirty years later it occurred to me that a resumption of its exploration using up-to-date technology was highly desirable.

The conference Zagora in Context. Settlements and Intercommunal Links in the Geometric Period (900700 BC) was organized with the revival of research at the site in mind. The papers read at the conference aimed at summarizing the knowledge acquired about the Geometric period in the Aegean and beyond as a guide to the renewed exploration of the site.

The Institute is deeply grateful to its Deputy Director, Dr Stavros Paspalas, for the impeccable organization of the conference. It is hoped that its proceedings will be a valuable resource to all those interested in the Mediterranean Early Iron Age, particularly the Aegean, and in early Greek history and archaeology in general.

Alexander Cambitoglou Director of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens

Athens, March 2015

EDITORS NOTE

The Proceedings are dedicated to the memory of David Ridgway. No one who attended the conference will ever forget the moment when Alexander Cambitoglou opened the first working session on Monday morning with the announcement that David had left us the night before, on his way to his hotel after a joyous gathering with a number of friends and colleagues.

Following the keynote lecture on Setting Zagora in Context by Catherine Morgan on Sunday evening, the two-day conference was subdivided into seven sessions (see Appendix) and closed with Susan Langdons paper on Social Life in the Early Iron Age Cyclades. Starting the discussion with an assessment of the impact the work carried out at Zagora has had on our vision of the Geometric period before examining, in ever wider circles, other settlements of the Geometric period and their interrelationship within the Aegean and beyond, clearly revealed the importance of the planned resumption of its exploration. It is thus in keeping with the conferences original concept that we agreed to replace the papers in which Lesley Beaumont, Matthew McCallum, and Margaret Miller had outlined the aim of future investigations at Zagora with the report on the first campaign, carried out in September 2012 by a team from the University of Sydney under the direction of Professor Miller and her colleagues.

Two other papers which had not been part of the conference programme have been included in this volume. Both Vicky Vlachous presentation of the figured pottery from Oropos and Zagora and Barbara Leones discussion of the links between Euboea and the northern Aegean fit in so neatly that our decision to take them on board surely needs no explanation.

Our thanks go to all contributors and especially to those who submitted their manuscripts on time. We are also grateful to Derek Harrison, Kristen Mann, and Valeria Pratolongo for their assistance in the proof-reading process and, as always, to Camilla Norman for the final production of the volume.

ix

1. The CycladesChristina A. Televantou, Karl Reber and Photini Zapheiropoulou, Plithos on Naxos. An Early Iron Age CemeteryDemetrius Schilardi, Zagora and Koukounaries of Paros: Two Parallel Cases

2. Euboea and OroposIrene S. Lemos, The Missing Dead: Late Geometric Burials at Xeropolis, LefkandiSamuel Verdan, What is New in Old Eretria? A (Re)assessment of the Geometric Period and ProspectsAlexander Mazarakis Ainian, The Domestic Space of Zagora in the Light of the Excavations at

OroposJan Paul Crielaard, The Iron Age Sanctuary and Settlement at Karystos-Plakari

3. Crete and CyprusNota Kourou, Across the Sea. Cypriots and Levantines en route for the Euboian GulfDonald C. Haggis, The Structuring of Urban Space in Archaic Crete: an Example of Settlement

Development from the Early Iron Age to Archaic Periods

4. The northern AegeanAntonis Kotsonas, Zagora in the Cyclades and Methone in Macedonia. Rethinking trade and

colonization within the Aegean of the 8th century BCJacques Y. Perreault and Zisi Bonias, After Zagora: Andrian Colonization in the Northern Aegean: the

Case of ArgilosMichalis Tiverios,

5. Ionia and the central MediterraneanMichael Kerschner, Settlements in Ionia During the 8th and Early 7th Century BC: Expansion into the

LandscapeJean-Paul Descudres, OrikosA Euboian Colony in the Adriatic?David Ridgway and Francesca Mermati, New Thoughts on Pithekoussai and the AegeanMaria Costanza Lentini, Recent Investigation of the Early Settlement Levels at Sicilian Naxos

6. ArchitectureMatthew McCallum, Zagora and its Heurist Database: the Architectural PerspectiveAlexandros P. Gounaris,

Margaret Miller and Lesley Beaumont, Zagora: the Perils and Potential of Archaeological Positivism

7. PotteryStavros A. Paspalas, How Coarse Can Fine Wares Be? Some local (?) pottery from ZagoraBeatrice McLoughlin, Kitchen Equipment at Zagora. A comparative analysis of the domestic ceramic

assemblages from four unpublished housesJean-Sbastien Gros, The Pithoi from the Early Iron Age Settlement at OroposIan K. Whitbread and Antonia Livieratou, Early Iron Age Coarse-ware Pottery in Context. New finds

from the settlement of Xeropolis at Lefkandi

x

WHAT MAKES A EUBOEAN COLONY OR TRADING STATION? ZAGORA IN THE CYCLADES, METHONE IN THE THERMAIC GULF,

AND AEGEAN NETWORKS IN THE 8TH CENTURY BC*

Antonis Kotsonas

INTRODUCTION

Conferences dedicated to specific sites have become popular in Greek archaeology in the last five years. My contribution brings together Zagora, the focus of the present conference, and Methone in Macedonia, which was the subject of a conference organized by Yannis Tzifopoulos in Thessaloniki in 2012 (see below, n. 91). It is through a comparative glance at Methone that I intend to set Zagora in context and explore the sites links with Euboea and other Aegean regions.

Comparative approaches to Greek and other colonization movements are popular in post-colonial literature and occasionally involve case studies from different cultures, geographic areas, and periods.1 This literature has shown that previous understandings of Greek colonization have often been coloured by empirical notions, which emphasize unequal relationships and include rigid distinctions between active colonists and passive natives. Such notions have largely gone unchallenged by processual approaches like world systems analysis,2 which often remains bound to sharp divisions of space into cores and peripheries. An alternative model for understanding space and interaction in antiquity has only recently been introduced with the development of network theory.3 The nodes and links (or ties) of network structures can generate more nuanced understandings of Greek colonization by encouraging interpretations which do not necessarily involve hierarchical relationships between sites and regions and allow for the formulation of bottom-up (rather than top-down) analyses of regional and interregional links. Drawing from network perspectives, I will look

* Note the following abbreviations in addition to the usual ones:

Malkin I. Malkin, A Small Greek World: Networks in the Mediterranean (2011)

I . BessiosY. Tzifopoulos Kotsonas, (2012)

Zagora 1 A. Cambitoglou et al., Zagora 1. Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros. Excavation Season 1967; Study Season 19681969. Australian Academy of the Humanities, Monogr. 2 (1971)

Zagora 2 id. et al., Zagora 2. Excavation of a Geometric Town on the Island of Andros. Excavation Season 1969; Study Season 19691970 (1988)

This contribution is in memory of David Ridgway and engages with issues he discussed at length in his classes which I attended in Edinburgh. It is unfortunate that I reached his inbox only few days before he passed away, and we will never have his views on a site which resembles his beloved Pithekoussai. This paper is also a

token of gratitude towards Alexander Cambitoglou for his fieldwork at Zagora. I am further thankful to colleagues working on Zagora and Hypsele, who shared with me their knowledge during the conference visit to Andros, to Yannis Tzifopoulos and Manthos Bessios for our collaboration for Methone as well as the comments which they, along with John Papadopoulos, offered on my text.1 C. L. LyonsJ. K. Papadopoulos (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism (2002); H. HurstS. Owen (eds.), Ancient Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity and Difference (2005); T. Hodos, Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean (2006); I. Ness (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration (2013), esp. s.v. Greek Colonization (Descudres).2 e.g., S. SherrattA. Sherratt, The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the early first millennium BC, WorldA 24, 1992/3, 36178. 3 C. Constantakopoulou, The Dance of the Islands: Insularity, Networks, the Athenian Empire and the Aegean World (2007); I. MalkinC. Constantakopoulou K. Panagopoulou (eds.), Greek and Roman Networks in the Mediterranean (2009); C. Knappett, An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society (2011); Malkin.

MEDITARCH 25, 2012, 243 257

244 Antonis Kotsonas

at the different patterns of connectivity manifested in the ceramic record of Zagora and Methone of the 8th century. My emphasis on pottery is because this class of material can be given a fairly specific provenance. This is particularly important for my purpose of analysing the scale and complexity of Aegean networks in the period in question, and critically reviewing the identification of Zagora and Methone as colonies or trading stations.

Nodes in interregional networks usually show varying degrees of connectivity, including strong and weak ties.4 A trading station (or emporion) is by definition widely engaged in such networks. Likewise, colonies are no longer considered to have been targeted basically for the exploitation of the land and are taken to have been deeply involved in long-distance trade networks.5 Accordingly, nodes with relatively limited evidence for connectivity cannot easily be interpreted as colonies or trading stations. The role of a site or node in networks of interregional interaction can be reflected in the relative quantity of imports it attracts. It is well known, for example, that early Greek colonies typically show a much wider range of imported pottery than sites (including metropoleis or mother-cities) in mainland Greece.6 Resistance to imports by particular social groups at specific places or on specific occasions could obscure the pattern, but I do not think that such an attitude is manifested in Zagora and Methone of the 8th century. Varying modes of consumption can make, however, a big difference in patterns of imports,7 and this is clearly shown below, particularly with reference to transport amphorae. By developing a comparative study of Zagora and Methone, I aim to demonstrate that imported ceramics can provide a rough but reliable guide to the identification of colonies and trading stations, which can be used further in relevant contexts.

There are good reasons for comparing Zagora and Methone. Both are coastal and relatively well preserved sites and both were destroyed or abandoned in the Archaic or Classical periods. Moreover, fieldwork at both sites has primarily targeted domestic contexts. Excavations at Methone only began in 2002 and remain largely limited in scope, whereas a more substantial part of the settlement of Zagora has been researched, including a number of distinct areas.8 Many of the ceramic (and other) categories I will be discussing are well represented at Methone, but hardly so in Zagora, and this discrepancy looms large in my assessment. Attributing this discrepancy to depositional and post-depositional processes would be misleading, since Zagora, as is well known, has hardly been affected by later activity.9

Both Zagora and Methone are widely identified as Euboean (specifically Eretrian) colonies founded in the Geometric period. A range of literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence has been drawn in support of these identifications, and is, more generally, regularly referred to in broader discussions on the Euboeans overseas. In reviewing these discussions

4 Knappett op. cit. 416, 12445. 5 R. Osborne, Early Greek colonization? The nature of Greek set tlement in the West, in: N. FisherH. van Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (1998) 25169; D. Yntema, Mental landscapes of colonization: The ancient written sources and the archaeology of early colonial-Greek southeastern Italy, BABesch 75, 2000, 140; Malkin passim.6 Osborne art. cit. 25960; J. M. Hall, A History of the Archaic Greek World ca. 1200479 BCE (2007) 110. For trading stations, see D. Demetriou, Negotiating identity in the ancient Mediterranean: the Archaic and Classical Greek multiethnic emporia (2012) 22. 7 Cf., e.g., M. Dietler, Consumption, agency, and cultural

entanglement: theoretical implications of a Mediterranean colonial encounter, in: J. Cusick (ed.), Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology (1998) 288315. 8 For Methone, where new fieldwork commenced in 2014 under the direction of Manthos Bessios, John Papadopoulos, DQG 6DUDK 0RUULV VHH , )RU =DJRUD VHHJ. R. Green, ZagoraPopulation Increase and Society in the Later Eighth Century bc, in: J.-P. Descudres (ed.),

What Makes a Euboean Colony or Trading Station? 245

in the section which follows I do not assume a rigid model of Euboean, let alone Greek, expansion overseas. Rather I opt for a more rigorous and consistent terminological and methodological approach to Euboean and related colonization, centred on individual case-studies in their local context, and bottom-up assessments of the range of evidence available (including an acknowledgement of their limitations). This approach is laid out in the last two sections of the paper, which offer a comparative analysis of the role of Zagora and Methone in Aegean networks of the 8th century bc.

WHAT MAKES A EUBOEAN COLONY OR TRADING STATION?

This title involves taking sides in two fundamental debates about the Greeks overseas. On the first of these debates, I side with those arguing that the use of the term colonization should persist, despite its misleading connotations,10 acknowledging that relevant literature has increased awareness of the problem and has helped overcome certain aspects of it.

The second, older debate concerns the nature of Greek colonization: were colonies sponsored by particular city-states (like Eretria or Chalcis), or did they emerge from the increased mobility of private individuals of diverse provenance?11 I personally follow David Ridgway, the scholar to whose memory this volume is dedicated, and Irad Malkin, in taking the basic and reliable identification of a colony as Euboean to involve that its population included a sizeable and/or dominant (the two need not always be the same) group of Euboeans, in addition to other Greeks and non-Greeks, the role of whom should not be underestimated.12 Based on the work of these two scholars, and drawing from studies by John Papadopoulos,13 I revisit the range of evidence which have been used to establish the settling of Euboeans overseas. Anticipating the following analysis, I note that the different pieces of evidence involve varying degrees of uncertainty, but taken together, they can help us distinguish between reliable and tenuous identifications of Euboean settlement overseas.

The identification of a Euboean or other Greek colony is traditionally based on the references of ancient literature and often takes in archaeological, historical, epigraphic, and linguistic evidence.14 Recent scholarship, however, investigates the formation and even the invention of the literary traditions on Greek colonization and no longer takes foundation stories at face value.15 Instead, historians place more emphasis on the nomima, the customary

10 G. R. Tsetskhladze, Revisiting ancient Greek colonization, in: Tsetskhladze (ed.), Greek Colonisation: an Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlement Overseas, 1 (2006) xxv-xxviii; contra Osborne art. cit. (n. 5); Descudres loc. cit. (n. 1). 11 A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (1964) 78. Compare J. Boardman, Settlement for trade and land in North Africa: Problems of identity, in: G. R. TsetskhladzeF. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John Boardman (1994) 1378, with Osborne art. cit. (n. 5). See also Malkin 234 and, more recently, Descudres loc. cit.12 D. Ridgway, The First Western Greeks (1992) 62, 11020; id., Euboeans and others along the Tyrrhenian seaboard in the 8th century BC, in: K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (2004) 2233. Cf.: K. RaaflaubH. van Wees (eds.), A Companion to Archaic Greece (2009) 3789 s.v. Foundations (Malkin); Malkin 557.13 J. K. Papadopoulos, Euboians in Macedonia? A closer look, OxfJA 15, 1996, 15181; id., Phantom Euboians,

JMedA 10, 1997, 191219.14 T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks. The History of Sicily and South Italy from the Foundation of the Greek Colonies to 480 BC (1948); Graham op. cit.; J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies and Trade (4th ed., 1999). For the Euboeans in particular, see: Ridgway op. cit.; Papadopoulos art. cit.; M. BatsB. dAgostino (eds.), Euboica. LEubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente, Atti del Convegno intern. di Napoli, 1316 novembre 1996. CJB 16/AION ArchStAnt Quad. 12 (1998); D. Ridgway, The first Western Greeks revisited, in: Ridgway et al. (eds.), Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in honour of Ellen Macnamara (2000) 1835; M. Tiverios, LQV 15 Osborne art. cit. (n. 5); Papadopoulos art. cit.; Yntema art. cit. (n. 5); Hall op. cit. (n. 6) 93110; J. K. Papadopoulos, The Early Iron Age Cemetery at Torone (2005) 5808.


institutions, such as calendars, festivals, and the titles of tribes and magistracies, which colonists modelled after those of their mother-city.16

Epigraphic and linguistic evidence has generally been given much attention with reference to the identification of the ethnic background of Greek colonies and this also applies to the case of Euboea.17 There are, however, few cases in which the epigraphic record of one of these colonies involves inscriptions in more than one alphabet and dialect.18 The relative abundance of 8th- and early 7th-century inscriptions from Euboea and her colonies is particularly useful for establishing the Euboean provenance of the alphabet of newly discovered inscriptions.19 This abundance, however, creates a potential bias in the identification of the alphabet of these inscriptions, since the quantity of early inscriptions from any region goes hand-in-hand with variety in letter forms.20 This means that the letters of new inscriptions have considerably higher chances of finding one or several matches in the epigraphic record of Euboea than in that of any other region.

Identifying a Greek, including Euboean, colony on the basis of archaeological evidence alone is perhaps more difficult. This is particularly the case since ethnic identities are not monolithic entities, especially in contexts where people of different origins come together, and are not always reflected directly in material culture.21

Burial customs have often been brought to the fore in relevant debates on Greek colonization. Distinguishing the cemeteries of Greeks overseas from those of indigenous populations has proved considerably easier than identifying the precise ethnic background of Greeks in any particular colony.22 The burial customs in a colony often differ from those of the mother-city, but can still remain closer to them than to those of Greek colonies of different origins.23 A well-known case regards the correspondence of the burial rites of Eretria and Cuma.24 Correspondences can, however, be more apparent than real. This proved to be the case with the Early Iron Age cemetery of Torone, the Euboean comparisons of which, first assumed on the basis of preliminary excavation reports, were eventually dispelled.25

Weights and standards have also played a role in this debate. The discovery of a Euboean weight standard in 8th-century Pithekoussai conforms to other evidence for the Euboean

16 See D. Knoepfler, The Calendar of Olynthus and the Origin of the Chalcidians in Thrace, in: J.-P. Descudres (ed.), Greek Colonists and Native Populations. Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall (1990) 99115, and, more recently, Malkin art. cit. (n. 12) 38690; Malkin 557.17 L. H. JefferyA. W. Johnston, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: a Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries BC (1990) 7980, 23548; M. L. Lazzarini, Lalfabeto euboico: origine e diffusione, in Cuma. Atti XLVIII CMGr (2009) 27383.18 See especially F. DellOro, Alphabets and dialects in the Euboean colonies of Sicily and Magna Graecia or what could have happened in Methone, in: J. S. ClayI. Malkin Y. Z. Tzifopoulos (eds.), Panhellenes at Methone: graph in Late Geometric and Protoarchaic Methone, Macedonia (ca. 700 BCE) (forthcoming). 19 6HH PRVWO\$ %DUWRQN* Buchner, Die ltesten griechischen Inschriften von Pithekoussai (2. Hlfte des VIII. bis 1. Hlfte des VI. Jhs.), Die Sprache 37, 1995, 129237;

A. Kenzelmann-PfyfferT. TheurillatS. Verdan, Graffiti dpoque gomtrique provenant du sanctuaire dApollon Daphnphoros Ertrie, ZPE 151, 2005, 5183.20 JefferyJohnston op. cit. (n. 17).21 Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1997) 20305; C. Gosden, Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of culture, identity, and knowledge, in: I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory To day (1999) 24161; J. M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between thnicity and Culture (2002) 90124; G. J. Stein (ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives (2005); Hall op. cit. (n. 6) 98.22 e.g., Yntema loc. cit. (n. 5).23 Boardman art. cit. (n. 11) 138.24 G. Buchner, Articolazione sociale, differenze di rituale e composizione dei corredi della necropoli di Pithecusa, in: G. GnoliJ.-P. Vernant (eds.), La mort, les morts dans les socits anciennes (1982) 116.25 Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1996) 165; I. S. Lemos, Euboea and its koine, in BatsdAgostino (eds.) op. cit. (n. 14) 54; Papadopoulos op. cit. (n. 15) 394.


colonization of the island.26 Conversely, the Near Eastern weights found in a 9th-century grave at Lefkandi confirm the cosmopolitan character of the site, but leave open the issue of the identity of the deceased and find little corroborative evidence for identifying a Phoenician enclave at the site.27 Taken alone, weights and standards found in a commercial hub are poor markers of ethnic identity. This is clearly suggested by the recent publication of the weights found in the late-7th-century marketplace of Ashkelon, which correspond to at least three different metrological systems.28 Clearly, this find is later in date than those from Lefkandi and Pithekoussai, but 7th-century Ashkelon was not the major Mediterranean hub that Lefkandi and Pithekoussai had been in previous centuries.

Discussions of ethnicity, material culture and Greek colonization have often focused on pottery.29 Past assumptions, which took pottery imports at a site as evidence for the origins of traders or colonists, have been heavily criticized, particularly in the last fifteen years.30 It is currently agreed that Euboian pottery does not equal Euboian presence, nor does that pottery have to be carried by a Euboian,31 even if John Boardman objects that this is unproven for the 8th century.32

The argument against the identification of pots with people cuts both ways. This means that the literary tradition for the foundation of a colony from a certain mother-city cannot be dispelled because of the paucity of pottery originating from that mother-city. There is a certain naivit in the ex pectation that colonial Phoenicians or Greeks can be recognized always in terms of the pottery of the motherland.33 The ceramic record from a site generally sets apart Phoenician from Greek colonies, but is not equally revealing of the precise ethnic background of Greek colonies. For example, Euboean pottery is relatively rare (especially in comparison to Corinthian pottery) in several sites which ancient literature identifies as Euboean colonies.34 Relative, rather than absolute figures are perhaps more important in this respect. Widely exported regional wares, like Corinthian of the late 8th and 7th centuries bc, Ionian of the 7th and 6th centuries, or Attic of the 6th and 5th centuries, cannot be taken to indicate the ethnic origins or background of a colony. Higher significance should be placed

26 Ridgway op. cit. (n. 12) 95; id. op. cit. (n. 14) 185; id., Some reflections on the early Euboeans and their partners in the Central Mediterranean, in: A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age. Acts of an Int. Round Table, Univ. of Thessaly, June 1820, 2004 (2007) 148.27 M. PophamI. S. Lemos, A Euboean warrior trader, OxfJA 14, 1995, 1517; J. H. Kroll, Early Iron Age balance weights at Lefkandi, Euboea, OxfJA 27, 2008, 3748; J. K. Papadopoulos, Phantom EuboiansA decade on, in: D. W. RuppJ. E. Tomlinson (eds.), Euboea and Athens. Proceedings of a Colloquium in Memory of Malcolm B. Wallace, Athens, June 2009. Publications of the Canadian Institute in Greece, 6 (2011) 1157.28 K. J. BirneyE. Levine, Balance weights, in: L. E. StagerD. M. MasterJ. D. Schloen (eds.), Ashkelon 3: the seventh century B.C. (2011) 47392.29 Boardman op. cit. (n. 14) 123.30 Graham loc. cit. (n. 11); Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1997); S. P. MorrisJ. K. Papadopoulos, Phoenicians and the Corinthian pottery industry, in: L. R. RolleK. Schmidt R. F. Docter (eds.), Archologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt (1998) 2546; Ridgway art. cit. (n. 12) 245; Papadopoulos op. cit. (n. 15) 409, 5778; Hall op. cit.

(n. 6) 10610; Ridgway art. cit. (n. 26) 147; A. Kotsonas, The Archaeology of Tomb A1K1 of Orthi Petra in Eleutherna: the Early Iron Age Pottery (2008) 2334; R. Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes: Greeks and their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer (2008) 4950; Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 27) 114, 122; A. Kotsonas , in 31 Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1997) 194.32 Boardman op. cit. (n. 14) 272; J. Boardman, Greece and Syria: Pots and People, in: G. R. Tsetskhladze A. M. Snodgrass (eds.), Greek Settlements in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea (2002) 45.33 MorrisPapadopoulos art. cit. (n. 30) 2545.34 Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1996) 1646; id. art. cit. (n. 13, 1997) 205; id. op. cit. (n. 15) 586, 588; J.-P Descudres, Euboean Pottery Overseas (10th to 7th centuries bc), in: DescudresS. A. Paspalas (eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Symposium of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens, Athens 1012 October, 2005. Meditarch 19/20, 2006/07 (2008) 134 table 3 s.v. Cumae, Leontinoi, Naxos, Mende, Methone, Naxos, Pithekoussai, Torone.


on concentrations of (more) rarely exported wares, like the Laconian pottery in the Spartan colony of Taras, or the Cretan pottery in Gela, founded jointly by Cretans and Rhodians according to Thucydides (VI 4: 3).35 It must be admitted, however, that Cretan and other lesser wares are more likely to be systematically sought for and published in a colony identified as such in ancient literature.

For Ridgway, the evidence of imports found at a colony was no safe indication for the provenance of the colonists. He believed that more reliable evidence is provided by the morphological and technological style of the locally-produced imitations of foreign pottery.36 By combining traditional stylistic analysis with applications of archaeological science, he and his collaborators presented an argument for the identification of Euboean and Corinthian potters at work in Pithekoussai.37 This line of inquiry is potentially significant and of some relevance to the finds from Methone discussed below. Euboean-style pottery, however, was also locally produced in non-Greek sites in Italy, presumably by Euboean potters who settled in indigenous communities.38

More problematic than the identification of a Euboean colony is the identification of a Euboean emporion or trading station. This is largely because ancient sources are not systematic in their treatment of the term, using it to refer to two discrete concepts: a community specializing in trade, like Naucratis in Egypt, or a specific city quarter devoted to trade. Accordingly, the archaeological correlates of the emporion are not straightforward.39 Likewise, the formal distinction between a colony and an emporion is often obscure and some scholars have even argued that this distinction is of little value.40 Discussions of Euboean emporia have traditionally focused on Pithekoussai,41 which, as some scholars think, must be denied the status of a colony because: 1) the site is not described as an apoikia in the literary sources and has no named oecist; 2) it had an economy which was not based on agriculture, but on craft and trade; 3) it lacks evidence for social stratification and political organization; 4) it had a population of mixed ethnic background.

Most of these points are arguments from silence, rather than reliable criteria. It therefore came as no surprise that closer study of the literary and archaeological evidence on Pithekoussai, together with some new discoveries, rendered the second and third of the abovementioned points unsound. The fourth point, on the mixed ethnic background, is probably of little help as well, since such a background is increasingly assumed for many

35 Boardman art. cit. (n. 11) 1378.36 Ridgway art. cit. (n. 12, 2004) 256; Ridgway art. cit. (n. 26) 1478; cf. A. Kotsonas, Foreign Identity and Ceramic Production in Early Iron Age Crete, in: G. Rizza (ed.), Identit culturale, etnicit, processi di trasformazione a Creta fra Dark Age e Arcaismo: per i cento anni dello scavo di Prinis 19062006. Convegno di studi, Atene, 912 nov. 2006 (2011) 13355.37 A. DeriuG. BuchnerD. Ridgway, Provenance and firing techniques of Geometric pottery from Pithekoussai: A Mssbauer investigation, AnnAStorAnt 8, 1986, 99116.38 J.-P. DescudresR. Kearsley, Greek pottery at Veii: Another look, BSA 78, 1983, 30 n. 68; L. Mercuri, Eubens en Calabre lpoque archaque: formes de contacts et dimplantation (2004); J. K. JacobsenG. P. Mittica S. Handberg, Oinotrian-Euboean pottery in the Sibaritide: A preliminary report, in: M. BettelliC. De FaveriM. Osanna (eds.), Prima delle colonie: organizzazione territoriale e produzioni ceramiche specializzate in Basilicata e in Calabria settentrionale ionica nella prima et del ferro. Atti delle

giornate di studio, Matera, 2021 nov. 2007 (2008) 20320.39 Tsetskhladze op. cit. (n. 10) xli-xlii; M. H. Hansen, Emporion: A study of the use and meaning of the term in the Archaic and Classical periods, ibid. 139; Malkin 1567; Demetriou op. cit. (n. 6) 1623.40 Osborne art. cit. (n. 5); Hall op. cit. (n. 6) 98.41 E. Greco, Pithekoussai: Emprion o apoika?, in A: Scritti in onore di Giorgio Buchner (1994) 118; Ridgway art. cit. (n. 14, 2000) 1856; T. Fischer-HansenT. H. NielsenC. Ampolo, Italy and Campania, in: M. H. HansenT. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. An Investigation Conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation (2005) 286; Hansen art. cit. (n. 39) 334. Discussion has also involved Al Mina, the latest and most detailed accounts of which conclude it was definitely not a Euboean emporion: J. Luke, Ports of Trade, Al Mina and Geometric Greek Pottery in the Levant (2003) and J.-P. Descudres, Al Mina across the Great Divide, Meditarch 15, 2002 (2003) 4972.


colonies.42 Pithekoussai is widely acknowledged to have yielded particularly rich evidence for mixed population,43 but this could partly be related to the extraordinary amount of archaeological evidence we have for the first decades in the life of the community, at which time identities and their material expressions had not crystallized. Accordingly, the lack of a precise colonial tradition and an amount of Euboean and Euboeanizing pottery are the only remaining criteria for the identification of Pithekoussai as a Euboean emporion.

Although unsatisfactory, the last two criteria have served as the basis for the identification of a Euboean emporion at Sindos in the Thermaic Gulf.44 The comparison between Sindos and Pithekoussai is questionable. The assumed mixed community of Sindos only involved the indigenous population and Euboeans (whose actual settling is questionable), and was not multi-ethnic, as that of Pithekoussai. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the economy of Sindos relied primarily not on agriculture, but on craft and trade. Rather than a Euboean emporion, 8th-century Sindos can best be seen as a Euboean port of call, that is, a regular stop for Euboean ships. It was also not a major node in Aegean networks, as is suggested by the relative dearth of imported pottery from anywhere but Euboea. By the 6th century, imports become rich and varied, but the material culture of Sindos preserves an indigenous character, manifested most notably in the cemetery associated with the settlement and the golden masks which accompanied rich burials. These finds do not easily come to terms with the alternative recent argument for the identification of Sindos as a colony.45

To sum up, it remains challenging to differentiate between a Euboean and any other Greek colony, especially on archaeological grounds. Likewise, differentiating between a colony and a trading station can be difficult, if at all useful. Nonetheless, the range of evidence discussed above should make more explicit the distinction between a colony or trading station, on the one hand, and any other (indigenous) settlement on the other. The quantity and range of imports found at a site can be highly indicative of this distinction and the role of individual nodes in interregional networks. It is in the light of this premise that I revisit below the range of evidence for the Euboean colonization of Zagora in the Cyclades and Methone in the Thermaic Gulf.

A EUBOEAN COLONY OR TRADING STATION AT ZAGORA?

Already in the first excavation report, Alexander Cambitoglou noted that most of the imported ceramics found at Zagora (pl. 28: 1) came from Euboea, and explained this by the geographic proximity of Andros to Euboea.46 Soon after, Jean-Paul Descudres published a brief note wondering whether Zagora was an Eretrian colony.47 He argued that Zagora was a trading station for Eretrian ships travelling east and considered the abandonment of the site as symptomatic of the dwindling of Euboean trade with Al Mina after the end of the 8th century.

42 J. M. Hall, How Greek were the early western Greeks?, in: K. Lomas (ed.), Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of Brian Shefton (2004) 3554.43 The scholarly consensus on the mixed ethnic background of Pithekoussai is apparent in the references which are collected in Kotsonas art. cit. (n. 30) 233 n. 1567.44 M. A. Tiverios, The ancient settlement in the AnchialosSindos double trapeze: seven years (19901996) of archaeological re search, in BatsdAgostino (eds.) op. cit. (n. 14) 24950; M. A. Tiverios, Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean, in Tsetskhladze (ed.) op. cit. (n. 10) 21, 24. This interpretation is not commented upon in the final

publication of the settlement of Sindos: S. Gimatzidis, Die Stadt Sindos: eine Siedlung von der spten Bronze- bis zur klassischen Zeit am Thermaischen Golf in Makedonien (2011).45 A. Despini, Gold Funerary Masks, AntK 52, 2009, 3047. Contra V. Saripanidi, (2012) 2434.46 Cambitoglou, phem 1970, 228; Zagora 1 p. 58.47 J.-P. Descudres, Zagora auf der Insel Androseine eretrische Kolonie?, AntK 16, 1973, 878.


The argument was based on the correspondences of the fine and coarse pottery from Zagora and Eretria, as well as on Strabos reference (X 1: 10) to the Eretrians ruling over the northern Cyclades at some unspecified time. Descudres kindly informed me that he no longer holds this view, but his original argument has had considerable appeal. Nicolas Coldstream introduced it in his Geometric Greece, in which he referred to Zagora both as a colony and a trading station of Eretria.48 More recently, Keith Walker reiterated that Zagora was an Eretrian emporion.49

The excavators of Zagora, as well as those of Hypsele and Palaiopolis, on the west coast of Andros, have not embraced the interpretation of Zagora as a Euboean colony, but have otherwise been divided on the matter. Lydia Palaiokrassa and Michalis Tiverios have accepted the argument for Eretrian control over Andros.50 Likewise, Christina Televantou has accepted Strabos testimony, but has written of a partnership instead.51 Conversely, Alexander Cambitoglou has long argued that Zagora was not a colony, but a port of call for Euboean ships sailing east.52 Likewise, doubts over the Eretrian control of the site have been briefly expressed by Papadopoulos53 and Alan Johnston, the latter on the basis of the dissimilarity of the architecture in the two sites.54

I find that the argument for Zagora as a Euboean dependency has no solid foundation. The passage in Strabo does not make any reference to colonization and cannot be taken to reflect a historical reality, particularly that of the 8th century. It is indicative that Strabos reference to the Eretrian control of Andros is followed by the remark that Eretria received an influx of population from Elis, a reference in which, to my knowledge, no historical value is acknowledged. Likewise, the poor epigraphic evidence from Zagora does not provide any evidence for the connection of the site with Euboea.55

The archaeological grounds for the Euboean control of Zagora are also questionable. Following recent discoveries at Hypsele56 and Palaiopolis,57 the settlement history of Zagora is increasingly understood primarily within the context of the settlement history of Andros,58 rather than on the basis of external incentives from Euboea or elsewhere.59 Likewise, as far

48 Coldstream op. cit. (n. 9) 199200, 211, 213, 305. 49 Archaic Eretria: a political and social history from the earliest times to 490 BC (2004) 93, 96, 122, 146. 50 L. Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa, (2007) 16; Tiverios art. cit. (n. 44, 2008) 52. AlsoRhomiopoulou, , inC. Stampolidis (ed.), (1999) 127. 51 CTelevantou, , in: A. N. Balkas (ed.), 1997. 29 (1998) 32; ead., in Stampolidis (ed.) op. cit. (n. 50) 132; ead., (2008) 19.52 A. Cambitoglou, Archaeological Museum of Andros. Guide to the Finds from the Excavations of the Geometric Town at Zagora (1981) 20, 111.53 Papadopoulos art. cit. (n. 13, 1997) 205.54 A. Johnston, The Emergence of Greece (1976) 54; cf. Raaflaubvan Wees (eds.) op. cit. (n. 12) 216 s.v. The Aegean (Mazarakis AinianLeventi); contra Walker op. cit. (n. 49)

132 note 97.55 JefferyJohnston op. cit. (n. 17) 298, 466. 56 Televantou loc. cit. (n. 51).57 C . A. Te levantou , (2002); Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa op. cit. (n. 50).58 Cambitoglou op. cit. (n. 46) 168; Zagora 1 p. 11; Coldstream op. cit. (n. 9) 399, 407; Televantou art. cit. (n. 51, 1998) 41; ead. art. cit. (n. 51, 1999) 136; ead. op. cit. (n. 57) 18, 28, 41; ead., H (.), in: N. Stampolidis A. Giannikouri (eds.), 2002 (2004) 4216; Palaiokrassa-Kopitsa op. cit. (n. 50) 16; Televantou op. cit (n. 51) 19; also C. Morgan, this volume.59 As in Descudres art. cit. (n. 47) 88 fn. 18; Cambitoglou op. cit. (n. 52) 111; Zagora 2 pp. 2412; Coldstream op. cit. (n. 9) 213; Walker op. cit. (n. 49) 98; S. Gimatzidis, The Northwest Aegean in the Early Iron Age, in: A. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), The Dark Ages Revisited. Acts of an International Symposium in Memory of William D. E. Coulson, Univ. of Thessaly, Volos, 1417 June 2007 (2011) 964.


as one can tell from the publications available, the material record of 8th-century Zagora and Hypsele does not lend support to any markedly different historical role of the two sites.

Both Zagora and Hypsele have yielded considerable quantities of Euboean imported fine ware pottery. Unlike Descudres,60 I am reluctant to identify these vases as specifically Eretrian. The fabric and style of 8th-century pottery from Eretria is very similar to that of Chalcis, Lefkandi, and Oropos. It is presently impossible to tell apart the products of these sites on analytical grounds, as confirmed by a very recent project of chemical analysis of Euboean pottery, directed by Irene Lemos and Michael Kerschner.61 Hence, the interpretation of Zagora as a dependency of Eretria cannot be confirmed on the basis of fine ware pottery. The same applies to coarse-wares. Beatrice McLoughlin has recently attributed the correspondences in the style and technology of pithoi from Andros, Tenos, and Euboea to a shared ceramic tradition stimulated by the mobility of potters.62 In this light, I consider that geographic proximity and human mobility (rather than political/economic affiliation) best explain the ceramic correspondences of Zagora and Eretria. Relatively narrow water channels, like that separating Andros from Euboea, posed no serious barrier for the spread of archaeological styles. This is clearly manifested in the Early Iron Age, during which time the two islands are widely agreed to have fallen within the same regional culture.63 The intensification of trade and the strengthening of material connections in the 8th century represents the culmination of patterns seen already in the 10th century, rather than the outcome of colonization.

No less problematic is the notion of Zagora as an Eretria emporion devoted solely to commercial activities.64 As already noted, the distinction between colonies and emporia has been deemed by some scholars as one of little value. More to the point, Cambitoglou has argued for the mixed economy of Zagora,65 and it is generally much more likely that the economy of a community like this was primarily based on agriculture rather than trade.66 Indicative of agricultural production at a large scale and with considerable surplus are the many large pithoi and other storage vessels recovered from most houses at Zagora.67 The pithoi in particular have been taken to have held a range of foodstuffs suggesting diversified agricultural production.68

The impression that Zagora was no major node in trade networks is also suggested by imported ceramics, the provenance and relative quantity of which is schematically

60 Descudres art. cit. 88 fnn. 123. Potential complications on the identification of Euboean pottery excavated at Zagora may arise from the characterization of the main fine-ware fabric of Hypsele. At a macroscopic level, this fabric seems to me to be close to the fabric of central Euboea, but quite distinct from at least one of the painted fabrics of Zagora (see S. A. Paspalas, this volume). 61 The project involves chemical analysis of mostly fine-ware pottery from Lefkandi and Eretria and secondarily from Oropos, Chalcis, and non-Aegean sites: M. Kerschner I. S. Lemos (eds.), Archaeometric Analyses of Euboean and Euboean Related Pottery: New Results and Their Interpretations. Proceedings of the round table conference held at the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, 15 and 16 April 2011 (2014).62 B. McLoughlin, The pithos makers at Zagora. Ceramic technology and function in an agricultural settlement context, in Mazarakis Ainain (ed.) op. cit. (n. 59) 91328.63 V. R. dA. Desborough, The Greek Dark Ages (1972) 1856; Lemos art. cit. (n. 25) 4950; A. M. Snodgrass, The Dark Age of Greece (2nd ed., 2000) 159; I. S. Lemos,

The Protogeometric Aegean. The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries bc (2002) 207, 213; J. N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery: A Survey of Local Styles and Their Chronology (2nd rev. ed., 2008) 148, 1645; Raaflaubvan Wees (eds.) op. cit. (n. 12) 194 (Houby-Nielsen).64 Walker op. cit. (n. 49) 96.65 Cambitoglou art. cit. (n. 46) 166; Zagora 1 p. 10.66 K. A. Sheedy, Attic and Atticizing Pottery in the Cyclades During the Eighth Century BC, in Descudres (ed.) op. cit. (n. 8) 34 fn. 29; M. C. Vink, Urbanization in Late and Sub-Geometric Greece. Abstract considerations and concrete case studies of Eretria and Zagora c. 700 B.C., Acta Hyperborea 7, 1997, 132; W. ScheidelI. MorrisR. Saller (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of the Graeco-Roman World (2008) 279 s.v. Archaic Greece (Osborne). Contra Zagora 2 p. 241.67 Cambitoglou art. cit. (n. 46) 21925; Zagora 1 pp. 526; Cambitoglou op. cit. (n. 52) 425; Zagora 2 pp. 1814.68 McLoughlin loc. cit.; also C. Morgan, this volume.


represented in fig. 1 (the straight lines of the network links involve no assumption on the particular route the objects followed; lineweight is, however, indicative of the quantities of imports originating from a certain region). The fine-ware imports at Zagora come from different areas within the region of the central to central-east Aegean, namely Euboea, Attica, Corinth, perhaps the Argolid, as well as some Cycladic islands. Finds from farther afar, namely interregional imports, are very rare and include one vase possibly from Crete and DIHZWULQNHWV IURPWKH1HDUDVW69 Zagora has not yielded the very mixed assemblages of imported ceramics typically found in Greek colonies and trading stations of this period, to which I return below. More significantly, Zagora has produced only a small assemblage of transport amphorae (Attic, Chian, Lesbian), which one would expect to find in abundance in

69 On imports at Zagora, see Cambitoglou art. cit. (n. 46) 22831; Zagora 1 pp. 589; Zagora 2 pp. 191221, 235; Coldstream op. cit. (n. 63) 469. The Chian and Argive pieces mentioned by Descudres (art. cit. [n. 47] 88 fn. 14) are perhaps to be identified with the unpublished few fragments of Chian transport amphorae (see below n. 70) and a fragment of the Argive monochrome ware. A Cretan import (identified by Coldstream, according to Cambitoglou) is mentioned without any details in Zagora 1 p. 58. Among the published material the only possible

Cretan import I can see is Zagora 2 pp. 2167 inv. no. 1208, on display in the Andros Museum. The vase finds parallels in east Crete: M. Tsipopoulou, (2005) 3601 nos. AN8751 (for decoration) and AN1445 (for the profile of the body and neck); G. C. Gesell W. D. E. CoulsonL. P. Day, Excavations at Kavousi, Crete, 1988, Hesperia 60, 1991, 1589 fig. 4.1 (for the profile of the body and neck). I am thankful to Leslie Day for her advice.

MM?

Figure 1. Ceramic imports at Zagora in the late 8th century: provenances and relative quantities (based on Zagora 1 and 2).


any trading station.70 Likewise, trademarks are rare in Zagora (as they are at Hypsele)71 and this does not lend support to a purely commercial role assumed for the site.

The position of Zagora on Andros, which is not particularly rich in natural resources, cannot fully explain its unimpressive record in ceramic and other imports. It is indicative that another Cycladic site, ancient Thera on Santorini, shows a much wider range of fine wares and transport amphorae imported from many sites in the central and southern Aegean and even Cyprus in the late 8th and 7th centuries.72 There are questionable colonization stories for Thera, which credit the Phoenicians and the Spartans for settling the island,73 but the local alphabet is probably imported as well, namely from Crete,74 which was the source of a range of exports to Thera in this period.75 Compared to Zagora, Thera seems to have been a more important node in Aegean networks.

My conclusion is that Zagora should be envisaged as a small node in the networks of the east-central Aegean, with only weak ties extending farther afield.76 The material culture of the site does not lend support to its interpretation as a Euboean colony or trading station. There is no colonial foundation story and no relevant epigraphic support, whereas the archaeological evidence precludes the identification of a trading station at Zagora. The links of the site with Euboea are also seen at Hypsele and, to a lesser extent, Palaiopolis and can be explained by the varied modes of human mobility and interaction which brought Andros and Euboea in the same regional culture already in the 10th century. Some decades after the abandonment of Zagora, the link between the inhabitants of the two islands would result in the joint ventures of Euboeans and Andriots in the Chalcidice.77

THE CASE FOR A EUBOEAN COLONY AT METHONE

Unlike Zagora, Methone in the Thermaic Gulf (pl. 28: 2) poses rich literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence in support of its identification as a Euboean colony. This evidence has lately been extensively discussed with reference to a large assemblage of late 8th- and 7th-century pottery with inscriptions, graffiti, and trademarks.78

Methone has a fairly detailed foundation story which makes it an Eretrian colony. Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 11 [Mor. 293 AB]) narrates that it was founded by Eretrians who had originally settled in Corfu, but were driven out by Corinthians.79 Upon returning to Eretria, the failed colonists were repulsed by their former compatriots. They left for the north and established a new colony at the site of Methone which was already inhabited.

The reliability of Plutarchs story has been called into question. Doubts have been raised on the basis of the paucity of finds for the settling of Eretrians at Corfu, but have occasionally

70 The only reference to the discovery of transport amphorae at Zagora is made in Cambitoglou op. cit. (n. 52) 68 no. 167 and regards SOS amphorae on display in the Archaeological Museum of Andros (one of which is definitely not Attic). Stavros Paspalas and Beatrice McLoughlin kindly confirmed the paucity of transport amphorae at the site, but have also drawn my attention to very few unpublished pieces from Chios and Lesbos.71 Zagora 2 p. 198; Televantou op. cit. (n. 51) 367 fig. 41.72 H. Dragendorff (ed.), Thera II. Theraeische Graeber (1903); E. Pfuhl, Der archaische Friedhof am Stadtberge von Thera, AM 28, 1903, 1290.73 The reference of Herodotus (VI 1478) to the islands colonization by Phoenicians and Spartans finds no archaeological support: I. Malkin, Myth and Territory in the Spartan Mediterranean (1994) 734, 8998.

74 JefferyJohnston op. cit. (n. 17) 3169, 46970.75 A. Kotsonas, Ceramics, analytical scales and cultural histories of 7th-century Crete, in: C. Morgan X. Charalambidou (eds.), The Seventh Century BC Reappraised: traditions and developments in the Greek world (forthcoming).76 Cf. Knappett op. cit. (n. 3) 12636; Malkin 267.77 Balkas (ed.) RS FLW Q ; Rhomiopoulou art. cit. (n. 50); Tiverios art. cit. (n. 44, 2008) 523; M. Tiverios and J. PerreaultZ. Bonias, this volume.78 79 Q WKH SDVVDJH VHH PRVW UHFHQWO\ . Tzifopoulos, , in 1 (also, p. 32 n. 15 for another, vague reference to Methone as a colony); Kotsonas art. cit. (n. 30, 2012) 2279.


been also extended to the foundation of a colony at Methone itself.80 The historicity of Plutarchs story has been defended by Michael Sakellariou on the basis of comparable textual evidence.81 Further and stronger support for this case can be drawn from archaeological discoveries made by Manthos Bessios at Methone since 2002.82 These discoveries recall Plutarchs text in: a) suggesting that a colony was established at a pre-existing site; b) lending support to the foundation date of 733/2 BC inferred from Plutarchs text; and c) corroborating the identification of the colonists as Euboeans. They further establish how important a node Methone was in Aegean networks of the time.

Fieldwork suggests that Methone was first inhabited in the Late Neolithic period, and habitation probably remained uninterrupted until the destruction of the site by Phillip II in the mid-4th century bc.83 Nonetheless, a turning point in the history of Methone can probably be identified in the second half of the 8th century, when the quantity and range of pottery imports increases exponentially.84 The scale of this increase may be somewhat exaggerated by the vicissitudes of excavation and the chances of preservation and survival, but the date is highly significant in corresponding with the date inferred by Plutarch.85

The identification of the colony established at Methone as Euboean does not only rely on the testimony of Plutarch, but also on epigraphic and archaeological evidence. The epigraphic evidence includes a group of 24 alphabetic inscriptions which date from the late 8th and 7th centuries, are inscribed post-firing on pottery of varied provenance and are mostly fragmentarily preserved. The study of these inscriptions by Yannis Tzifopoulos has established that the longest of them is rendered in the Euboean alphabet (pl. 28: 3).86 Interestingly, the skyphos carrying the inscription is Euboean as well.87 The inscription can be read as meaning: I belong to [H]akesandros, whoever steals me shall loose his eyes.88 The letter forms of the cup of Akesandros recall the roughly contemporary (late 8th-century) cup of Nestor from Pithekoussai. As for content, the best parallel is found on the early to mid-7th-century lekythos of Tataie from the Euboean colony of Cuma.89

The close Euboean comparisons for the inscriptions on the cup of Akesandros do not apply to all other inscriptions from Methone. Euboean parallels are available for the form of the letters that occur on them, but there are a few cases in which these forms are arguably not Euboean.90 This interpretation, which was hotly debated in the recent conference on Methone,91 allows the possibility that the Euboeans who settled at the site were accompanied by other Greeks as well.

The interpretation of Methone as a Euboean colony finds some indirect support in the archaeological, especially the ceramic record of the site. Actual Euboean imports are relatively rare at Methone, as in other Euboean colonies in the north Aegean and the central

80 S. C. Bakhuizen, Chalcis-in-Euboea, Iron and Chalcidians abroad (1976) 19; C. Morgan, Euboians and Corinthians in the area of the Corinthian Gulf?, in BatsdAgostino (eds.) op. cit. (n. 14) 2819. Further references are given in Kotsonas art. cit. (n. 30) 299 fnn. 15145.81 , especially Kotsonas art. cit. (n. 30) 2278.82 M. B. Sakellariou, Quelques questions relatives la colonisation eubenne en Occident, in Gli Eubei in Occidente. Atti XVIII CMGr 1978 (1979) 312.83 M. Bessios, , AErgoMak 17, 2003, 4458; id., (2010) 78, 94, 105; id. , in 41111.84 Kotsonas art. cit. (n. 30, 2012) 164219, 2278.

85 Ibid. 2278, 298 fn. 1512.86 no. 2; Y. Tzifopoulos, , in no. 2.87 Kotsonas art. cit. 1679 no. 2.88 3412; Tzifopoulos art. cit. 3134.89 3413; Tzifopoulos art. cit. 311, 313.90 Tzifopoulos art. cit. 3112; cf. Kotsonas art. cit. 2367.91 The conference Panhellenes at Methone: graph in Late Geometric and Protoarchaic Methone, Macedonia (ca. 700 BCE), was organized by Y. Z. Tzifopoulos and the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki, on 810 June 2012. For the publication details, see n. 18.


Mediterranean (see above), but locally-produced imitations of Euboean pottery, especially skyphoi with concentric circles on the lip, abound.92 Interestingly, the same type of skyphos was locally imitated in Sicilian Naxos, a colony which, according to the literary sources, was co-founded by Euboeans.93 The production of Euboean-style pottery in Methone is documented not only by the macroscopic examination of its fabric, but also by the discovery of misfired Euboean style vessels at the site.94 It is possible that Euboean potters settled at Methone, but this requires confirmation by analytical research in the spirit of the work that David Ridgway conducted on pottery from Pithekoussai.95

In short, literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence corroborate the identification of a Euboean colony at Methone in the late 8th century. At the same time, the epigraphic and archaeological evidence shed light on the character of this colony. It is often assumed for the colonization of the north Aegean that the object was simply land, and there can have been little interest at first in trade;96 or that the individual colonies were basically agricultural in

92 Kotsonas art. cit. 12834, 1679, 236; Bessios art. cit. (n. 83, 2012). The assumption that much pottery from Euboea and possible copies of Euboean pottery have been found in late-8th-century Methone (Gimatzidis art. cit. [n. 59] 957) is misguided.

93 Relevant references are collected in Kotsonas art. cit. 247 fn. 123.94 Bessios art. cit. (n. 83, 2012) 60, 94; Kotsonas art. cit. 128.95 Kotsonas art. cit. 236.96 Boardman op. cit. (n. 14) 229.

Figure 2. Ceramic imports at Methone in the late 8th century: provenances and relative quantities (based on Methone I).

?


character until the mid-7th century.97 Notwithstanding the significance of agriculture for the local economy, Methone does not seem to conform to this traditional model of colonization in the north Aegean. Trade seems to have been a major reason for the establishment of the colony and this is clearly reflected, among other things, by the pottery from the site.

Methone of the late 8th century has produced considerable quantities of pottery imports from its surrounding region, as well as different parts of Greece, and also as far afield as Phoenicia, as is schematically shown in fig. 2.98 Contrary to Zagora, which yielded mostly regional imports, and neighbouring Sindos, which mostly attracted Euboean imports, Methone of the late 8th century presents considerable to large quantities of interregional imports from Corinth, the Argolid, and perhaps Achaia, Attica, and Euboea, Rhodes, Samos, Miletus, Chios, Lesbos, and the north-east Aegean, in addition to Phoenicia. This range, which is typical for Greek colonies, but not for sites in mainland Greece,99 suggests that Methone was deeply involved in networks of considerable scale and complexity.

This conclusion is reinforced by the discovery of a large assemblage of early transport amphorae at Methone. These vases, which originate from most of the abovementioned regions, as well as the Thermaic Gulf, suggest that Methone was a major node in the networks which linked the Thermaic Gulf and its hinterland with the Mediterranean. This interpretation is confirmed by the occurrence of a large assemblage of trademarks at Methone, which are rendered post-firing on imported transport amphorae (and, to a lesser extent, locally produced and imported fine wares). The quantities of imported ceramics and the range of trademarks found at Methone are best paralleled at Pithekoussai and Kommos,100 which are widely conceived as major nodes in commercial networks of the 8th and 7th centuries, involving Greeks from different regions, as well as non-Greeks.

The scores of transport amphorae found at Methone of the late 8th century are a very strong indication for the increased and diversified patterns of consumption which emerged at the site after the arrival of the colonists.101 Consumption is a domain of practice that is increasingly recognized as fundamental to the development of colonization. The link between the two phenomena has been systematically explored in the western Mediterranean,102 but hardly so within the Aegean. To compensate for this imbalance, we recently began a project of residue analysis of a sizeable sample of transport amphorae from Methone.103 This project will effectively contribute to a deeper understanding of the importance of the transport of foodstuffs to a newly founded colony and will also enable a more nuanced approach to the study of Aegean networks.

CONCLUSION

By the 8th century, many coastal sites in the Greek world were systematically involved in trading and other networks. Symptomatic of this pattern of increased connectivity is the intensification in the circulation of ceramics. Not all sites, however, were equally engaged in the networks in question and the discrepancy can be reflected on their archaeological record, particularly on the relative quantity and range of the imported pottery they attracted. In the past, studies centered on individual sites typically exaggerated their connectivity, as

97 Tiverios art. cit. (n. 44, 2008) 125.98 Kotsonas art. cit. 164221, 238.99 Osborne art. cit. (n. 5) 25960; Hall art. cit. (n. 6) 110.100 %DUWRQN%XFKQHU DUW FLW Q ( &VDSR A. W. JohnstonD. Geagan, The Iron Age inscriptions, in: J. W. Shaw M. C. Shaw (eds.), Kommos IV. The Greek Sanctuary (2000) 10134.

101 Kotsonas art. cit. 22930.102 Dietler art. cit. (n. 7).103 Organic residue analysis has been conducted by M. Roumpou on the transport amphorae, and a preliminary report was presented to the conference on Methone mentioned above (n. 91).


shown here with the case of Zagora. To compensate for this, I have argued for the study of connectivity in a comparative perspective. This line of research can generate a much more nuanced understanding of the scale and complexity of networks of interaction, and help distinguish between colonies and trading stations on the one hand, and other (indigenous) sites on the other, as I hope to have shown for Methone and Zagora.

In the late 8th century Methone attracted considerable quantities of ceramics (and to a lesser extent other imports) from sites in the Thermaic Gulf, many other Aegean regions, and even Phoenicia. The assemblage does not only include fine wares, but also scores of transport amphorae. The imported ceramics and the trademarks rendered on a considerable part of them suggest that Methone was a major node in interregional networks of the time. A comparable glance at the relevant evidence from late 8th-century Zagora in the Cyclades, but also from Sindos in the Thermaic Gulf, confirms the considerably greater scale and complexity of the networks involving Methone. I find that this notable difference between Methone on the one hand and Zagora and Sindos on the other, is indicative of the different historical role of these sites. The high connectivity of Methone goes hand-in-hand with a range of evidence for the Euboean colonization of the site. On the contrary, such evidence is largely missing from Zagora and Sindos and this renders their proposed identification with colonies or trading stations very dubious.

Unlike Methone, many Aegean sites developed strong ties with communities which were mostly lying within their own region, and only weak interregional ties. Zagora, with its fairly strong ties with Euboea, Attica, and Corinth, and weak ties with the east Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean is a case in point. The types of networks in which Zagora was involved, together with the dearth of transport amphorae and trademarks, speak against the characterization of the site as a Euboean colony or trading station. Zagora should rather be appreciated as a typical example of the many small- to medium-sized sites, which dotted the Aegean coastlines of the 8th century. These sites facilitated connectivity and trade, and at the same time sprung and flourished because of them. The challenge, however, of gaining a better understanding of these phenomena and fully grasping the role of Zagora in Aegean networks falls upon the research team working on the third volume of the Zagora series.

Plate 28 Antonis Kotsonas

3. The cup of Akesandros, an inscribed late-8th-century Euboean skyphos from Methone (photo by the author). 1:2.

1. The promontory of Zagora, 2012 (photo by the author).

2. Methone in the Thermaic Gulf (photo by the author).

offrpint bumpfoffprint cover 25Untitled-100_first pages 25

19_Kotsonas25_plates 25

Τι κάνει μια ευβοϊκή αποικίαMeditarch25_Kotsonas.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Τι κάνει μια ευβοϊκή αποικίαMeditarch25_Kotsonas.pdf