Ilieva « G 2-3 WARE » AND THE NON-GREEK POPULATIONS ON THE NORTH Aegean

7/27/2019 Ilieva G 2-3 WARE AND THE NON-GREEK POPULATIONS ON THE NORTH Aegean

1/16

/ GREEKS AND THRACIANS

,, 26-27 2008

Greeks and Thraciansin Coastal and Inland Thrace

During the Years Before and After the Great Colonization

Proceedings of the International Symposium,

Thasos, 26-27 September 2008

/ Edited by . / and Jacques Y. Perreault

2009


2/16

&217(176

-DFTXHV


3/16

$UWKXU0OOHU'RPLQLTXH0XOOLH]

135

7RQ\.R]HOM0DQXHOD:XUFK.R]HOM

817521d21'(5287($17,48($7+$626$8&$3$.527,5,35(6'(*/


4/16

109

G 2-3 WARE AND THE NON-GREEKPOPULATIONS ON THE NORTH

AEGEAN COAST (SOME PRELIMINARY NOTES ON ITS DISTRIBUTION

PATTERN AND CONTEXTUAL CHARACTERISTICS)

Petya Ilieva

A distinct group of high quality Early Archaic (in terms of chronology) pottery known after

its technical labeling as G 2-3 Ware, which has been found in several island and continentalcoastal sites of the North / North-Eastern Aegean basin, has become a point of reference indiscussions on the communication network already in existence in the area in the late 8 th / early

7th

c.1

The distribution pattern of that ceramic group in relation to its finding contexts andaccompanying archaeological material is a focal point in the present discussion (fig. 1).

I have tentatively grouped the sites of provenance for G 2-3 Ware into two main cultural

areas, according to the nature of the pre-/non-Greek2

archaeological record and its affiliation to

the native stratum of the population: North Aegean (Thracian) and North-East Aegean (North-

West Anatolian). These culturally defined areas are already in existence in the Early Iron Age

and multiple markers of their non-Greek inhabitants are still detectable in the Archaic Period,

after the establishment of Greek communities in coastal sites of that region. The conventional

dating of the G 2-3 Ware in the first half of the 7th c.3 implies that for the sites of the North

Aegean (or South Thracian depending on the viewpoint) cultural sphere the presence of the G 2-

3 Ware relates, first of all, to the discussion on the pre-/ para-colonial contacts of the native

Thracian population and the initial arrival of the Greek settlers. For those of the North-East

Aegean (North-West Anatolian), where the establishment of Greek communities predates the

appearance of G 2-3 Ware (excluding Lemnos which stands alone), and where the Greek

presence was neither singular nor necessary dominant4

its existence relates mainly todiscussions regarding the Early Archaic development of the local societies and their cultural and

trade exchange with neighboring areas.

1All dates are BC unless otherwise stated.

2I anticipate the term pre-Greek as having a more chronological implication, relating to the phase preceding the

establishment of Greek communities while non-Greek implies the same native stratum but in coexistence with

Greek settlers in colonial context.3

The early 7th

c. date of G 2-3 Ware suggested in earlier studies has recently been supported by its appearance in acontext belonging to a stratigraphic sequence in Troia, cf. Aslan 2002, 81-129.4

Fisher 2000, 154.


5/16

110

"!"/ GREEKS AND THRACIANS

The North Aegean (Thracian) cultural area

Samothrace

Two sites on the island are known to have produced partially preserved vessels andfragments of G 2-3 Ware group: the Sanctuary of the Great Gods5 and the ancient town,6 both on

the North coast of the island.

A votive deposit found in a bothros in the Sanctuary of the Great Gods consisting mainly

of G 2-3 Ware represents the earliest datable archaeological evidence for cult activity at the site.

The group of fine vessels which indicates a dedicator/s preference to the kantharos shape,comes, however, along with local Thrace-related hand-made pottery and a few Gray Ware

fragments. The fill of that structure represents a black layer with strong indications of burningand includes a considerable amount of animal bones, mainly lambs, and pigs as well. I have

already argued elsewhere for the pre-colonial character of that deposit interpreting the presenceof G 2-3 Ware as an indication for the taste of luxuries of the native Thracians for whom it was a

high priced dedication, as well as a sign of their contacts with the immediately neighboring areasof the North-East Aegean.

7My reasons for believing in that scenario versus interpreting it as a

marker for the arrival of Aeolian settlers,8 as it has been already suggested, are:

i) there is no other archaeological record from the island (finds, domestic and cult

structures, graves) chronologically comparable to and synchronous with the structure with G 2-3

Ware, indicating a permanent Greek presence in Samothrace in the first half of 7th

c.;

ii) the earliest datable archaic finds from the South Necropolis and the Sanctuary of the

Great Gods indicate a date in the late 7th/ early 6th c. for the establishment of the Greek settlers

on the island when the pottery assemblage changes and Greek style ceramics become dominant;

iii) the earliest datable graffiti appear in the Sanctuary in the 6th c. on Greek style ceramics

and seemingly reflect the arrival of the Greek settlers who introduced a foreign (for the local

cultural background) custom of dedication in a pre-Greek cult place;

iv) the earliest Greek style pottery that appears outside the Sanctuary of the great Gods, inthe open-air Sanctuary at Mandal Panaya in the South part of the island, is also of 6 th century

date.The G 2-3 Ware from the pit deposit forms a homogeneous group of Early Archaic

imported ceramics apparently destined for cult use in the local context, as the selective repertoireof shapes and the accompanying archaeological record suggest.

Far more limited in number are the fragments of G 2-3 style found in the ancient town in

Samothrace. As they come from a trial trench with disturbed fill a detailed account on their

context is not possible at present. It is worth to note, however, that these fragments originate

from the place where the later, Hellenistic temple of the city patron-goddess Athena,

9

stood.

5Lehmann 1952, 19-44; Moore in Lehmann, Spittle 1982, 315-394. For recent discussion on the Samothracian G 2-

3 Ware, cf. Graham 2002, 221-260, Matsas 2004, 227-257, Ilieva 2005, 343-357; 2007, 212-227.6

Karadima 1995, 487-497.7

Ilieva 2005, 343-357; 2007, 212-227; Ilieva, in press.8

This is how it has been interpreted by the excavation team, cf. Lehmann 1952, 19-44; Moore in Lehmann, Spittle

1982, 315-394. An earlier wave of Aeolian colonists followed by 6th

c. Samian settlers is advocated in Matsas 2004,

227-257.9

Apart from the foundation trenches and the leveling of the bedrock for the building, no other remains of the temple

are preserved today. Most probably it was used as a source of building material during Byzantine times and for thenearby Gattilusi tower. A small church of Ay Giorgis is known to have existed on the site, but no building remains

of it are preserved today.


6/16

111

G 2-3 WARE AND THENON-GREEKPOPULATIONS ON THENORTH AEGEAN COAST

Thasos

Compared to other sites where G 2-3 Ware has been imported (i.e. excluding the

production centers Troy and Lemnos), Thasos appears to be the one where the most considerable

amount of that pottery group, representing a variety of shapes closer to that known from Troyand Lemnos, has been discovered to date. It comes from three different contexts: the so-called

Bernards trench in the ancient town (fig. 4),10 the deepest strata of the Artemision11 and a

single vase found in an EIA grave in Kastri cemetery in the south part of the island.12

An apsidal building and the ceramic assemblage from stratum W13 of the Bernards trench

is central to the ongoing discussion on the nature of that earliest settlement and its relation to theParian colonization. The pottery assemblage that represents different groups of mainly north

Aegean origin, including local hand-made vases, Grey and G 2-3 Wares suggests a date in thesecond half of 8thc. to first half of 7th c. for that settlement phase. Its pre-colonial character has

been repeatedly advocated in recent years14

but the chronology of the G 2-3 Ware in the first halfof 7th c. and probably slightly later than the mid-7th c. complicates the matter as it could be taken

as an indication of a para- instead of pre-colonial phase of the settlement, if the arrival of the firstParian settlers is to be dated to the second quarter of 7

thc.

15Raising the onset of G 2-3 Ware to

the late 8th c., also suggested in recent studies,16 provides a gap for the stratum W to be pre-

colonial and to date the Parian colonization to before mid-7th

c. It seems more probably,

however, that it is mainly an early 7th c. pottery and, on the other hand, abundant Cycladic

pottery appears from mid-7th

c. on. What is of importance for the present discussion is the

stratigraphical and contextual relationship of G 2-3 Ware to a pre-colonial (in cultural terms)

settlement phase which shows the native Thracians as part of a North Aegean communication

network prior, and probably slightly overlapping in its final stage, to the arrival of the Greek

apoikists.

Some G 2-3 Ware sherds emerged from the deepest levels of the Artemision where no

stratigraphical sequence exists and they have provoked quite different interpretations. N. Weill17

believes that the phase represented by the G 2-3 Ware in the Artemision is contemporary withthe habitation levels in Bernards sounding and indicate an early 7th c. date for the establishment

of the colony and the Artemision. Based on the abundance of G 2-3 Ware in Bernards trenchversus its limited presence in the Artemision, Graham18 rejects the idea of contemporaneity. M.

Tiverios19

equates the earliest phase of the Artemision and at least part of the habitation phase inBernards trench with the initial arrival of the Parian Greeks before mid-7 th c. While the presence

of G 2-3 Ware appears to bridge the earliest levels of the Artemision with the pre-colonial

10Bernard 1964, 77-164.

11

Weill 1985, 56-57; discussion in Graham 2001, 375-378.12 Koukouli 1992, 572-575.13

It has been proved recently that this stratum is not homogeneous and consists of more stratigraphic units; cf. Kohl

et al. 2002, 58-72; for re-examination of the ceramic assemblage, cf. Gimatzidis 2002, 73-81.14

See Graham 2001, 366-378; Koukouli 1993, 681; Kohl et al. 2002, 70; Gimatzidis 2002, 74, 78; Tiverios 2006,

78.15

Based on the appearance of abundant Cycladic pottery, Graham 2001, 366-378 dates the Parian arrival on Thasos

to the mid-7th

c. A Parian colonisation prior to the mid-7th

c. is supported in Martin 1980, 1435-1445, 1983, 171-

177; Pouilloux 1982, 91-101; Grandjean 1988, 439, 465-466; Weill 1985, 1990, 491-492; Koukouli 1992, 717-722;

and recently Tiverios 2006, 78 who suggests a chronological overlap of at least some part of G 2-3 Ware with the

arrival of the Parian Greeks.16

Koukouli 1992, 717-722. For possible dating of the beginning of G 2-3 Ware in late 8th

c., cf. Messineo 2001,

123; Gimatzidis 2002, 77; Aslan 2002, 86-87.17

Weill,1990, 491-492.18Graham 2001, 377.

19Tiverios 2006, 78.


7/16

112


habitation stratum in Bernards sounding I wonder why it should be taken for granted that the

beginning of cult activity at the site of the Artemision is necessarily related to the Greek settlers.

An earlier use as a native Thracian cult place immediately prior and/or parallel to the initial stage

of Parian arrival could equally be imagined. My reason for such hypothesis is based on the

contextual and distribution pattern of G 2-3 Ware: it appears often in association withcontemporary cult structures or in sites where in a later phase a Greek sanctuary has been

erected.

An EIA grave from the cemetery at Kastri in the south part of Thasos has produced a G 2-3

Ware jug along with local hand-made vases and metal finds.20 The non-Greek, Thracian

character of the necropolis is without doubt and gives additional support to the observation thatthe Thracians living in North Aegean island and coastal sites used that pottery, probably as a

kind of luxury.

Neapolis

A deposit of G 2-3 Ware coming together with local handmade pottery and sherds of northAegean subprotogeometric style was found at the site of the Parthenos Sanctuary in Neapolis

(fig. 3).21 It appears to represent a phase of activity that precedes the appearance of Cycladic

pottery in the Sanctuary dated to the last quarter of 7th

c.22

The co-existence of these three

ceramic groups strongly resembles the situation in stratum W in Bernards trench on Thasos, and

its pre-colonial character has already been suggested.23

Eion

A trial sounding at the top of Profitis Ilias Hill identified as the acropolis of ancient Eion

revealed a stratum containing G 2-3 Ware, local hand-made ceramics, fragments of north Aegean

subprotogeometric amphorae and Olynthos pottery group.24 The cultural characteristics of that

stratum do not seem to differ considerably from those known from Bernards trench on Thasosand the Parthenos Sanctuary in Neapolis and a stratigraphic relationship between these,

seemingly contemporary, strata has been proposed.25

A historical connection to that phase withthe earliest colonising attempts in the lower Strymon valley has also been suggested 26 but the

nature of the archaeological material implies a pre-colonial phase immediately preceding thepermanent Greek establishment in the area rather than the presence of Parian settlers on the

continental coast at such an early date.The existence of that stratum, detected at present on Thasos and the opposite coastal sites

of Neapolis and Eion, seems to reflect a late 8th to early 7th c. development of the coastal

Thracian tribe(s) and their pre-colonial contacts with the area around the Thermaic Gulf and theNorth-Eastern Aegean where a permanent Greek establishment is already a fact.

20Koukouli 1992, 63, pl. 23B, 572-575

21Lazaridis 1961/ 2, 235-238; Koukouli 1992, 774, 1993, 686-687.

22Koukouli 1992, 574

23Koukouli 1993, 687.

24

Koukouli 1992, 574, 1993, 684-685.25Koukouli 1992, 574.

26Koukouli 1993, 685.


8/16

113


Karabournaki (Therme)

A kantharos of probably G 2-3 Ware group is known from the settlement mound at

Karabournaki, Thessaloniki.27 A domestic context for the vase is most probable. The cultural

profile of the settlement reveals a complex mix of native, Thracian and Greek elements anddemographically it seems to represent a multi-ethnic habitation with strong trade-oriented

relationships.28

Lemnos

Ancient written testimonials recognise the Lemnian inhabitants, before the establishment of

the Athenian cleruchy on the island, as Tyrrhenian and the rich archaic material record links theisland with the North-East Aegean cultural area. The appearance of handmade, Thrace-related

EIA pottery in the town of Hephaestia29

complicates the issue and should probably be viewed inthe context of the substantial interaction 30 between Thrace and Anatolia evidenced in the

LBA-EIA levels of Troy and Gordion.31 A clear-cut answer as to whether it indicates acommercial exchange or population influx is not possible. In the case of Lemnos, which was

probably also part of that communication corridor connecting Thrace with the Anatolian plateau

in the EIA, any interpretation should wait for a fuller publication of the excavation results.

The Early Archaic ceramic assemblage of the island reveals a strong presence of G 2-3

Ware and Lemnos appears to be one of its production centers.32

Similarly to its contextual

position in Troy, the discovery sites of G 2-3 Ware on Lemnos support its domestic as well as

cultic usage. It seems to represent the main corpus of Early Archaic fine pottery discovered

along with Gray ware vases in habitation levels in Hephaestia.33

A particularly rich votive deposit in which the Early Archaic ceramics seem to be

consisting mainly of G 2-3 Ware has been revealed in the Kabeirion on the north part of the

island.34 It represents a dump in association with a terrace wall outside the main sanctuary

building and appears in association with the Late Archaic destruction level at the site.35

Aconsiderable amount of the G 2-3 Ware vases from the sanctuary bear votive inscriptions

(graffiti) using Greek characters for a non-Greek language, a feature not paralleled in vessels ofthe same pottery group from other sites up to date.

G 2-3 Ware also appears as part of the grave equipment in the archaic cemetery ofHephaestia along with some Gray ware vases.36

27Tiverios et al. 2001, 259, 262,fig. 6.

28

For the excavation results see the annual reports of Tiverios, Manakidou, Tsiafaki in

.29 Cultraro 2004, 215-223.; Greco et al. 2004, 817, f ig. 7, down row.30

Rose 1998, 420.31

The statement finds support mainly in the appearance of new ceramic groups, the handmade Burnished Ware that

appears in Troia VIIb1 and the handmade Knobbed Ware accompanied by some changes in the Troia VIIb2

assemblages, including molds for tools and weapons paralleled in south-eastern Europe and preference for orthostats

in domestic structures, cf. Blegen et al. 1958, 141-148; Kopenhoefer 1997, 316-347; Rose 2008, 410-411. Variants

of Knobbed Ware are also known from Daskyleion, cf. Bakir-Akbasoglu 1997, 231. Handmade Burnished Ware

appears in Gordion in the EIA levels, cf. Gordion IV, 20-22; Henrickson, Voight 1998, 101; Sams 1992; and in

Kaman Kalehuyuk, cf. Omura 1991.32

See Beschi 1994a,69; 1994b, 35who reports on misfired pieces. The quantity of G 2-3 Ware found on Lemnos

and the diversity of shapes repertoire parallel that of Troy and also support a local manufacture.33

Messineo 2001, 123-154.34

Beschi 1993, 23-50, 1996-97, 24-100, 2003, 303-349, 2005. 58-63.35Beschi 1994a, 69-70, 1994b, 35-36.

36Mustilli 1932-33.


9/16

114


North-East Aegean (North-West Anatolian) cultural sphere

Modern studies on the EIA occupation on the North-West Anatolian coast traditionally

attribute the existing material evidence to Greek colonists, based on ancient literary accounts on

the early (post-Bronze age) Greek colonisation of the area. Recently proposed examinations ofthe archaeological record, however, question the tradition of widespread colonisation and stress

that material remains reveal much more complex continually changing blend of Luwian,

Lydian, Phrygian, and Greek.37 Archaeologically detectable presence of the native, Anatolian

stratum of the population during the Archaic Period, beside Greek settlers, can be supported by

numerous elements in the culture of Lesbos, Troad and Aeolis.38

It is in that cultural backgroundof mixing Anatolian and Greek traditions where G 2-3 Ware emerges as an Early Archaic local

response to the ceramic development further south.

Troia

As Troia is one of the manufacture centers for G 2-3 Ware39 its record seems to be farricher, in regard to the quantity and diversity in shape repertoire, compared to sites where the

same pottery group appears as an import. Domestic as well as cult contexts are sources of G 2-3

Ware indicating its multiple usages at the site. The greatest amount of G 2-3 discovered during

different campaigns comes from the mound and supports a domestic function. Of particular

importance is its appearance in stratified levels in square D9 on the southern side of the mound.

It has been noted, however, that the wares and forms deposited in D9 differ somewhat from

those of the contemporary date in the West Sanctuary.40

Different areas in the West Sanctuary, which is the area including what Blegen calls Upper

and Lower sanctuaries, three successive cult buildings at the north end of the complex and the

area of stone-paved circles in between, have produced G 2-3 ware41 suggesting that its use was

not strictly confined to domestic activities but served the cult as well. Worth mentioning is the

proposed identification of the West Sanctuary with the Ilions sanctuary of the SamothracianGods, known from Late Hellenistic epigraphic testimonia,42 where probably coexisted the

worship of Dardanos and Cybele. The Samothracian link goes beyond shared myth and themystery cult to the Great Gods. In both cases an extra-mural sanctuary complex is housing the

cult and G 2-3 Ware appears to be the fine painted ware, along with local traditionally producedceramics,43 associated with the earliest Archaic deposits. In both places, also, the other known

existing sanctuary was that of Athena, situated on the acropolis and in the case of Samothrace G

2-3 Ware was found in association with the Athena sanctuary indicating an activity synchronous

with the 7th c. phase of the sanctuary of the Great Gods.

In stratified deposits in Troy G 2-3 Ware is consistently accompanied by grey and tanwares44 but does not come along with imported fine ceramics. This might be due to its date as

37Rose 2008, 421.

38For a summarising account on early Lesbos see Spencer 1995, 269-306. Troy, cf. Fisher 2000, 154-158; re-

examination of the archaeological record in relation to the ancient statements which support a considerable wave of

Greek settlers in Aeolis and the Troad, see Rose 2008, 399-430.39

For NAA supporting a local production of G 2-3 Ware in Troia, cf. Mommsen et al. 2001, 169-211; For Troian

G 2-3 Ware, Schmidt 1902, 180-183; Boulter in Blegen et al. 1958; Fisher 2000, 78-87; Aslan 2002, 92-93.40

Aslan 2002, 83.41

Boulter in Blegen et al. 1958, 273-275, 277-278; Fisher 2000, 80-84; Aslan 2002, 96.42

Rose 1998, 87-90; Lawall 2003, 81-8443

For Troia it is the Gray Ware and in Samothrace it is the handmade pottery characteristic for the native Thracianinhabitants prior to the Greek arrival.44

Fisher 2000, 82.


10/16

115


some stratified contexts in Troia suggest, where imported archaic fine wares seem to have been

introduced in the last quarter of 7th c. while the local production of G 2-3 Ware has been replaced

by simpler, banded wares at the same time.45

Tenedos

A single G 2-3 Ware globular kantharos is known to date and it comes from a grave

excavated in an EIA (8th-7th c.) cemetery46 on the island. The kantharos was part of the grave

equipment along with Troad-related Gray ware vases and fibulae. The rest of the EIA graves

were also equipped with similar types of Gray ware and fibulae which ultimately position theisland in the cultural orbit of the North West Anatolia.

Lesbos

Some G 2-3 Ware sherds (fig. 2) along with a considerable amount of bucchero, someProtocorinthian fragments and East Greek pottery come from the historic settlement of Antissa

known through Lambs excavations of 1931-33.47 Two apsidal buildings discovered at the

northern foot of the acropolis represent the earliest Iron Age activity at the site.48

The

provenance of the above mentioned ceramics is the second apsidal building which exhibits

Lesbian masonry. Its 8th

c. construction date proposed by Lamb has been lowered to the very

end of the eight century at the earliest.49 Later strata overlaying the building (dated well before

60050) suggest a 7th c. date for the structure. Its functional characteristics are not clear but the

excavator suggests that the two apsidal buildings were housing cult activities. Her reasons, apart

from the apsidal form repeated in the two structures, are the large deposit of fine bucchero

(including phialai) in the early building,51 the considerable presence of imported pottery, the

occurrence of fibulae as well as a burnt area of very hard earth in the second building, that might

have been a hearth or altar. It is worth noting that the bucchero and the imported ceramics52

come from some undisturbed areas inside the second apsidal building. The absence of other

votives, on the other hand, is conspicuous and it could be partly explained with later activities(building or plunderers) at the site detectable in some disturbed sections of the fill containing

Hellenistic ceramics along with Archaic wares, probably from the original deposit.53

45Imported ceramics of different groups such as Wild Goat Style, Rosette bowls, and Ionian cups appear in Phase

5 in the stratigraphy of square D9, dated to 625-600/ 575, cf. Aslan 2002, 88.46

Arslan, Sevinc 2003, 229, fig. 6, n. 1.4.47

Lamb 1930-31, 166-178, 1931-32, 41-67.48

Lamb 1931-32, 41-48. For recent examination of the archaeology of early Lesbos with comment on the Antissa

apsidal buildings, cf. Spencer 1995, 285.49

Spencer 1995, 285. His revision of the chronology of the two apsidal buildings is based on stratigraphic and

ceramic evidence.50

Lamb 1931-2, 44-551

Lamb 1931-2, 4552Apart from the Protocorinthian, the rest of the painted pottery is designated by Lamb as East Greek, 1931-2, 47.

53Lamb 1931-32, 47.


11/16

116


Conclusions

The distribution pattern of G 2-3 Ware indicates that it does not appear in a purely Greek

context. It repeatedly comes from sites and contexts where a strong non-Greek element in the

population can be detected: Thracian on the North Aegean coast, Tyrrhenian on Lemnos andAnatolian in North-West Asia Minor and Lesbos. It also consistently appears accompanied with

local ceramics represented by dominantly Grey Ware in Troia and Lesbos and handmade Thrace-

related pottery in the north Aegean sites (Samothrace, Thasos, Neapolis, and Eion).

Apart from its registered domestic use in centers of manufacture like Troia and Lemnos,

and most probably in the habitation levels revealed in the ancient town of Thasos, where itoccurs in association with an apsidal structure, the contextual position of G 2-3 Ware relates to

cult activities as well. The cases of the Samothracian Sanctuary of the Great Gods, the LemnianKabeirion and the West Sanctuary complex in Troia, identified with the later Sanctuary of the

Samothracian Gods, suggest its role in the Early Archaic cult practices in the North Aegean area.In the case of Antissa the function of the apsidal building is not clear-cut but it may have been a

focus of religious activities as well. In other instances G 2-3 Ware originates from places where aGreek sanctuary has been erected in a later period (i.e. Athena sanctuary in the ancient town of

Samothrace, the Thasian Artemision, the sanctuary of Parthenos on the Neapolis acropolis)

suggesting a possible pre-Greek cult area and continuity after the colonisation.

The single graves on Thasos and Tenedos and the far outnumbering graves on Lemnos

where G 2-3 Ware forms part of the burial equipment additionally support its role as not

restricted to daily needs only.

All this construction might reflect just a state of research and is therefore open to

modifications but it seems to represent a picture emerging from the currently existing evidence.


12/16

117


REFERENCES

Gordion IV. = Sams, G. K. 1994. The Gordion Excavations, 1950-1973, Final

Reports IV: The Early Phrygian Pottery, Philadelphia.

Arslan, Sevinc 2003. Arslan, N., Sevinc, N., Die eisenzeitlichen Graeber von Tenedos ,

IstMitt 53, 223-249.

Aslan 2002. Aslan, C., Ilion before Alexander: Protogeometric, Geometric, and Ar-

chaic pottery from D9 , Studia Troica 12, 81-127.

Bakir-Akbasoglu

1997. Bakir-Akbasoglu, T., Phryger in Daskyleion . In: Gusmani, R.,

Salvini, M., and Vannicelli, P. (eds.)Frigi e frigio, Rome, 229-238.

Bernard1964. Bernard, P., Cramiques de la premire moiti du VIIe sicle Thasos

,BCH, 88-1, 77-146.

Beschi 1993. Beschi, L., I Tirreni di Lemno alla luce dei recenti dati di scavo ,

Magna Grecia Etruschi Fenici, Napoli, 23-50.Beschi 1994a. Beschi, L., !#!'%!% .

In: , , 65-76.

Beschi 1994b. Beschi, L., !&%!% , ! 50, 31-

37.

Beschi 1996-97. Beschi, L., Cabirio di Lemno: testimonianze letterarie ed epigra-

fiche,ASAA LXXIV-LXXV, 7-192.

Beschi 2003. Beschi, L., Ceramiche arcaiche di Lemno: alcuni problemi , ASAA

LXXXI, 303-349.

Beschi 2005. Beschi, L., La ceramica subgeometrica di Troia VIII e di Lemnos ,

In: AEMNESTOS. Miscellanea di scritti in memoria di Mauro

Cristofani, Prospettiva II Suppl., 58-63.

Blegen et al. 1958. Blegen, C., Boulter, C., Caskey, J., Rawson, M., Troy, Settlement VIIa,VIIb and VIII. Vol. IV. Princeton.

Cultraro 2004. Cultraro, M., The Northern Aegean in the Early Iron Age: AnAssessment of the Present Picture, In: Stampolidis, N., Giannikouri, A.

(eds.) $#$!. , 215-223.

Fisher 2000. Fisher, S., Ceramics and Culture: the Archaic Finewares of Ilion, PhD

dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

Gimatzidis 2002. Gimatzidis, S., )&" "#: ) " !-

")!(%%"!$")&" , 17, 74-81.

Graham 2001. Graham, A. J., Thasian Controversies . In: Collected Papers onGreek Colonization. Mnemosyne suppl., Brill, 365-402.

Graham 2002. Graham, A. J., The Colonization of Samothrace , Hesperia, 71, 3,

231-260.Grandjean 1988. Grandjean Y., Recherches sur lhabitat thasien lpoque grecque,

EtThas XII, Paris.

Greco et al. 2004. Greco, E. et al., Hephaestia 2004 ,ASAA LXXXII, s. III, 4, t. II, 814-

817.

Henrickson,

Voight 1998. Henrickson, R., Voight, M., The Early Iron Age at Gordion: the

Evidence from the Yassihoyuk Stratigraphic Sequence . In: Tuna, N.,

Akture, Z., Lynch, M. (eds.) Thracians and Phrygians: Problems ofParallelism, Ankara 79-106.


13/16

118

/ GREEKS AND THRACIANS

Ilieva 2005. Ilieva, P., Greek Colonization of Samothrace: Problems of the

Investigations and Interpretations . In: Stephanos Archaeologicos in

honorem Proff. L. Getov, Sofia, 343-357.

Ilieva 2007. Ilieva, P., Thracian-Greek/#"1'. on the shore of the Aegean . In:

Iakovidou, A., (ed.) Thrace in the Graeco-Roman world. Proceedings ofthe 10th International Congress of Thracology, Athens, 212-226.

Ilieva **** Ilieva, P., Samothrace: Samo or Thrace? In: Hodos, T. and Hales,

Sh. (eds.), Visual Culture and Social Identity in the Ancient

Mediterranean, in press.

Karadima 1995. Karadima, Ch., -0',),$'(.-$".%-3*'('%,-&-(%, 1995 , 9, 487-497.

Kohl et al. 2002. Kohl, M., Mller, A., Sanidas, G., Sgourou M., 4,('2. %.,/: % 4*+% 1* -0',),$'(3* ,*1* , 16,

58-72.

Kopenhoefer 1997. Kopenhoefer, D., Troia VII: Versuch einer Zusammenschau ein-

schliesslich der Ergebnisse des Jahres 1995 , Studia Troica 7, 295-353.Koukouli 1992. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., $#)#$#%. "$# #&

##*$, Athens.

Koukouli 1993. Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Ch., 4-3'%4,0!,/'!-,/%**-

,)'(!(,*" ,Ancient Macedonia, Vol. 1, 679-733.

Lamb 1930/31. Lamb, W., Antissa ,ABSA 31, 166-178.

Lamb 1931/32. Lamb, W., Antissa ,ABSA 32, 41-67.

Lawall 2003. Lawall, M., In the Sanctuary of the Samothracian Gods. Myth,

politics and mystery cult at Ilion. In: Cosmopoulos, M. (ed.), Greek

Mysteries. The Archaeology and Ritual of Ancient Greek Secret Cults.

London and N.Y., 79-111.

Lehmann 1952. Lehmann, K., Samothrace: fifth preliminary report ,Hesperia 21, 19-

44, pl. 3-11.

Lehmann,

Spittle 1982. Lehmann, Ph., Spittle, D.. (eds.), Samothrace. Vol. 5. The Temenos.Princeton.

Martin 1980. Martin, R., Relations entre mtropoles et colonies: aspects institu-tionnels . In: !%'$". Miscellanea di studi classici in onore di

Eugenio Manni, Rome, 1435-45.

Matsas 2004. Matsas, D., ,&-(% % 4-3'% 4,0! ,/ '!-,/ . In:

Stampolidis, N., Giannikoyri, A., (eds.) ##",$+ ,#'

#&$#&. &!*, 227-257.Messineo 2001. Messineo, G., Efestia. Scavi Adriani 1928-1930. Monografie della

Scuola Archeologica di Atene e della missioni Italiane in Oriente XIII.

Padova.

Moore 1982. Moore, M., Ceramics . In: Lehmann, Ph., Spittle, D., (eds.)

Samothrace. Vol. 5. The Temenos. Princeton, 315-394.Mommsen et al. 2001. Mommsen, H., Hertel, D., Mountjoy, P., Neutron activation nalysis

of the pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann collection ,AA, 169-

211.

Mustilli 1932/33. Mustilli, D., La necropoli tirrenica di Efestia ,ASAA, XV-XVI.

Omura 1991. Omura, S., 1990 yili Kamankalehoyuk kazilari , Kazi Sonuclari

Toplantasi 13, 319-336.


14/16

119


Pouilloux 1982. Pouilloux, J., La foundation de Thasos: archologie, littrature et

critique historique . In: Rayonnement grec: hommages Charles

Delvoye, Brussels, 91-101.

Rose 2008. Rose, Ch. B., Separating fact from fiction in the Aiolian migration ,

Hesperia 77, 399-430.Sams 1992. Sams, G. K., Observations on Western Anatolia . In: Ward, W.A.,

Joukowsky, M.S., (eds.), The Crisis Years The 12 th c. B.C.: From

Beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque, 56-60.

Schmidt 1902. Schmidt, H., Schliemans Sammlung Trojanischer Altertuemer. Berlin.

Spencer 1995. Spencer, N., Early Lesbos between East and West: a Grey Area ofAegean Archaeology ,ABSA 90, 269-306.

Tiverios 2006. Tiverios, ., &435- &35-:*3.. In:'#&$('. -(1, 73-85.

Tiverios et al. 2001. Tiverios, M., Manakidou, E., Tsiafaki, D., 1/./'5'46153

4


15/16

120

"G 2-3"

(

)

Petya Ilieva

$%!# %(##!%"!" G 2-3

#)'# !$!!# #"")!$#

&!# / !'#. ' ")" )!$")#

! % )!( ( !$( )% "

$"" &))#&$: )!$#&!## (!)

)!$ " !#" ". ! G 2-3 #

"#!& &$#)#'

#%" #' )& &) !, #!%" ! ! !#

$!)!"!. #$)!#"!)!$"%, &)#!&! !' !, #)))!&!')!&)" " !" #$ " $!" " " %

%)%.


16/16


Fig. 1: Distribution map of G 2-3 Ware with place names mentioned in the text.

Fig. 3: G 2-3 Ware sherd from Neapolis, Parthenos

sanctuary. Archaeological museum Kavala,

n. A5080.

Fig. 2: . G 2-3 Ware sherd from Antissa,apsidal building. Archaeologicalmuseum Mytilene, n. 9739.

Fig. 4: . G 2-3 Ware sherd from Thasos, Bernards

Trench , Archaeological museum Thasos,

n.60.111.

Ilieva « G 2-3 WARE » AND THE NON-GREEK POPULATIONS ON THE NORTH Aegean

Documents

Transcript of Ilieva « G 2-3 WARE » AND THE NON-GREEK POPULATIONS ON THE NORTH Aegean