NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and

Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age,

International Conference, Istanbul, 31 March - 3 April 2011

The Cyclades and the Dodecanese During the Post-Palatial Period:

Heterogeneous Developments of a Homogeneous Culture

Andreas Vlachopoulos & Mercourios Georgiadis

Introduction

The fall of the palaces on the Greek mainland at the end of the LH IIIB phase, and

of the Hittite empire roughly at the same time, introduced new political, social and

economic conditions across the Aegean. In the 12th and early 11th c B.C. (LH IIIC

phase) several islands flourished, resulting in new common pottery styles, more

tombs and an increase in offerings deposited within them. This was attributed either

to newcomers from the Greek mainland fleeing the destroyed palaces, or as an

outcome of a series of major destructions (Desborough 1964; Mee 1988, 57; Iakovidis

1995, 216; Kanta 1998, 40). A mass exodus of people, resulting in their migration to

the Aegean islands en route to Cyprus, has been hypothesized. The cultural highpoint

which the Aegean islands experienced during this period was believed to have been

the outcome of this process. In order to understand this region during the post-

palatial phase, it is necessary to provide a thorough analysis of the broader LH IIIC

period in the southern Aegean islands (Figure 1). Thus the available evidence from

the Cyclades and the Dodecanese will be presented and discussed within their

contemporary contexts. Regional characteristics will be sought in order to determine

the similarities and differences within this area in regard to different types of data,

such as pottery, fortifications, burial practices and settlement patterns. This analysis

will highlight the strong regionalism and differing developments attested in the

southern Aegean islands during the LH IIIC period, phenomena that cannot support

the existence of the 12th c. B.C. “koine” once advocated by scholarship.

I. Thoughts About the Present Definition of the 12th c. B.C. “koine”

Across the Aegean

The “Little Mycenaean Koine”, defined by Desborough (1964, 228), was in fact

a result of common cultural expressions and developments that were found in coastal

and insular locations during the 12th c. B.C. (LH IIIC). Geographically, these

developments are known from Euboea, Attica, the eastern coast of the Peloponnese,

the Cyclades, the Dodecanese, and the north-eastern Aegean islands up to Chios

(Figure 1). The settlement at Xeropolis (Lefkandi) on Euboea, the extensive chamber-

tomb cemetery of Perati in Attica, the cemeteries and the settlements of Naxos, the

cemeteries of Kos and Rhodes and the settlement at Emporio on Chios spatially

defined this cultural koine - a term based on ceramics and minor arts - while the

coastline of Asia Minor, the islands of the east and north Aegean and the Sporades do

not share these features and developments.

The Mycenaean Aegean, however, is not as homogenous as the word “koine”

might suggest. Historically, the conditions of the “Mycenaeanization” of each island

are associated with strong local phenomena, as shown by the rich LH IIIA-C Early

cemetery at Psara with its purely Mycenaean offerings (Philaniotou 2006; Mountjoy

1999, 1156). This is perhaps also suggested by the contemporary evidence from

Hephaestia (Coluccia, this volume) and the Koukonisi islet at Moudros Bay on

Lemnos (Boulotis 2001, 30; personal communication), reflecting strong Mycenaean

influence. The discovery of a Mycenaean settlement at the gulf of Gera in Lesvos

(Archontidou 2006; 2009, 937 fig. 28) and surface LH IIIB-C finds at Imbros

(Guzowska and Yasur-Landau 1999; Andreou and Andreou 2002, 82-3; Matsas

2006, 102 fig. 116) signal a similar phenomenon of the spreading of mainlanders

towards both large and small islands in the remote Aegean, perhaps as stations for

the occupation or peaceful invasion of the north-west coast of Asia Minor. This is a

type of contact that “Epic Mycenaean Archaeology” would prefer to see occur two

centuries later, in the form of the coordinated and aggressive campaign of a “Trojan

War”.

This period is actually very much connected with the historical fate of the key-

post region of the Troad (Aslan; Hnila – Chabot Aslan this volume); it is not clear

however what the relation was between the North-eastern Aegean islands and their

peraia, that is, the mainland coastline opposite them (Ozgünel 1996, 123-46; Maner

this volume). The foundation of Emporio (Hood 1982; Mountjoy 1999, 1147-55) is

traditionally interpreted as a settlement of Mycenaean newcomers from the

Mainland, but even if this is the case, the islands do not necessarily represent the

eastern border of the Mycenaean empire. The selective presence of the Mycenaeans

in the North-eastern Aegean islands seems to depend on the ratio of the benefits of

this advantageous area to the strategies of interests developed by their settlers

(Mountjoy 1999, 1146, 1156).

Troy seems to have been a focal point of such interests, perhaps the centre of

an “East Aegean Koine”, as Mountjoy (1997a; 1997b; 1999, 50; Mommsen et al.

2001) has shown. Important Mycenaean finds of the 12th c. B.C. come from Pitane

(Ozgünel 1996, 136:4; Mountjoy 1997a; 1997b) and Bedemgediği (Mountjoy 2005,

424-5 pl. ΥCVI-IIc; Meriç this volume), on the Ionian coast, the latter providing

evidence of local pictorial pottery production with strong iconographic affinities to

Kos and Kynos, a port-town on the east Greek Mainland coast (Dakoronia 1990;

2006; 2009, 278-80 figs 452-6).

Miletus (Mallwitz 1960, 67-76 pl. 76; Schiering κ.ά 1960, 15-38, 43-53, pl. 6-

18; Schachermeyr 1980, 151; Ozgünel 1996, 130-40; Niemeier 1998) and Iasos

(Schachermeyr 1980, 151 pl. 27d; Benzi 1987, 29-34) are 12th c. B.C. settlements of

pure Mycenaean character, but the known cemeteries from this and earlier periods,

such as Panaztepe (Ersoy 1988, 82; Ozgünel 1996, 43:5-6, 49:16-17), Cömlekçi and

Müskebi (Boysal 1969; 1969a; Ozgünel 1996, 129; Ersoy 1988, 81) in Karia simply

reflect occasional contact or commercial interests with the Mycenaeans of the

Aegean. The coast Asia Minor thus seems to share the same non-uniformity as the

East Aegean islands.

Additionally, there is a significant difference, or rather a differentiation in the

perception, of the current Aegean “koine”. The LM IIIC period on the island of Crete

should now either be considered a dynamic participant in this “koine”, or instead be

considered an independent “Cretan koine”. However, from the point of view of

historical processes, Crete does not appear to claim such autonomy as, during the

120 years of this period, it was characterized by the ceramic homogeneity of the

“Fringed Style”, and its settlements can be classified as “refuge and threatened”, “of

uninterrupted continuity and thriving”, “newly founded”, etc. (Nowicki 2000,

passim; Prent 2005, 105-26).

The issue here is not to define the most accurate or the least derogatory (for

some regions) term. Apart from the geographical facet, the formation of the

components of a “koine” seeks to determine the political and historical aspects of the

demarcated area, in other words the constitution of its societies and their

coordinated route in time. However, examining the few material remains from the

12th c., as well as reports of national-tribal formations that dominated several

centuries later (such as the territories mentioned in the Catalogue of Ships in the

Iliad), these coordinated routes can hardly be traced. According to them, there

should not be any Mycenaean remains in the Cyclades at all.

II. The LH IIIC Cyclades: A Survey

The earlier need of scholarship to view the Cyclades as a homogeneous island

territory of the central Aegean, which historically and culturally depended on the

political formations / estates of Mycenaean Mainland Greece (due mostly to their

absence from the Homeric List of Ships [Polychronakou-Sgouritsa 1988] but also

because of the modern perception of them as a geographical insular entity) can no

longer be considered seriously (Vlachopoulos 1999; Barber 2010, 165-7).

However, even if our knowledge of the LBA Cyclades has matured sufficiently

(Figure 1), and the Mycenaean scholarly profile of the larger islands can be more

securely sketched, ironically very few excavations have been carried out over the past

twenty years and even less data has been published. With the exception of the

Sanctuary at Phykalopi (Renfrew 1985) and the cemeteries of Naxos (Kardara 1977;

Vlachopoulos 2006), no other material from the LH IIIC Cyclades has been fully

published and the major LH IIIC settlements of Grotta, Naxos and Koukounaries,

Paros have been only summarily presented (Vlachopoulos 1999, 2002a; 2002b;

Schillardi 1992; 1995; Koehl 1984).

Nowadays, most of the key-points of Desborough‟s 12th c. B.C. “koine” have been

strengthened by the limited, but useful, surface archaeological material from minor

locations, such as Ellinika on Kimolos and Monolithos on Thera. Elsewhere however,

recent research has presented a quite different, less “koine”, picture for the period of

interest (especially mid-LH IIIC) at sites such as Koukounaries at Paros and

elsewhere, where synchronizations leave this “koine” outside, as it is evident during

that time at Siphnos (Ayios Andreas and Tis Baronas to Froudi) and perhaps at

Tenos.

II.1. Topography and Chronology of LH IIIC Settlements, Cult Places

and Cemeteries

One could claim that Mycenaean culture and influence began to appear across

the Aegean at the time when the first tholos tombs in the islands were built. Indeed,

this Helladic type of tomb is found in the Cyclades (Naxos-Chosti, Mykonos-

Aggelika, Tenos-Ayia Thekla), the Dodecanese (city of Kos) and the East Aegean

islands (Psara-Archontiki) only after the LH IIIA period, that is the 14th c. B.C.

(Figure 1). Local peculiarities in their architecture and the different times of their

construction (across at least two centuries) reflect the existence of local ruling classes

in the islands, an elite that needed to express its superiority through monumentality,

even if the character of the finds in these tombs is far from royal.

The LH IIIC Early phase is poorly documented in the Cyclades, possibly

because of its short duration (Mountjoy 1999, 863). However, it is adequately

represented during the last period of use of the LH IIIB tholos tomb at Ayia Thekla

on Tenos (Despinis 1979; Philaniotou 2006). During this period a mansion was

founded on the naturally fortified rock hill of Koukounaries which overlooks the bay

of Naoussa, which lies opposite the Naxian coast but it is invisible from Grotta, above

strong built terraces which also functioned as a defensive wall, according to the

excavator (Schilardi 1984; 1992; 1995). The building (Mountjoy 2008, 474 fig. 42.8)

was destroyed by fire a short time after its foundation in the LH IIIC Middle

developed phase. An organised attack by a hostile group, which has been proposed by

the excavator D. Schilardi, does not explain why valuable artifacts (such as ivories

and bronzes) were found in the ruins along with dead people and animals; this

scenario is more similar to a severe earthquake than a hostile event. A short-lived

and modest reoccupation of Koukounaries is also dated to the LH IIIC Late phase.

No chamber tomb cemetery is reported from the site; however the three rectangular

built chamber tombs that were found looted may belong to this settlement (Schilardi

1987, 236-40; Mountjoy 1999, 932; Papadimitriou 2001, 138-40 fig. 63).

Recent study of the Bronze Age ceramic material from Kastro, Paroikia did not

produce any Mycenaean finds (Vlachopoulos forthcoming; contra Desborough 1964,

148), disproving that Paros‟ historical capital was the major diachronical center of

the island.

The Mycenaean town of Grotta was founded on the north coast of Naxos town,

above a very disturbed habitation horizon of Late Neolithic-Middle Cycladic date

(Hadjianastasiou 1989). This flourishing settlement existed throughout LH IIIA and

dramatically declined in LH IIIB period (Cosmopoulos 2004). However, the lack of

stratigraphy and the difficult conditions under which the excavations of the late

1950‟s and the 1960‟s-70‟s were conducted did not allow further documentation

which might shed light on the diachronic use of this prosperous community. Grotta

thrived during the LBA thanks to its two adjoining ports, which communicated

through a man-made channel which cut off the Palatia promontory from the coast.

The (then) islet of Palatia, as pottery from beneath the archaic temple of Apollo

showed, was never abandoned and may have functioned as a natural protection

against the strong north winds as well as other threats from the open sea.

The foundation of Grotta in the early 14th c. B.C. may have initiated an era of

direct collaboration between the island and the mainland. The prevalence of

mainland type, good quality pottery of that period on Grotta (Cosmopoulos 1998;

2004) portrays the internationalization of Naxos, belying the need for a tyrant or for

an operation aimed at occupying the island. Several examples of grey wheel-made

Minyan ware found isolated from the main (non-stratified) bulk of pottery from

Grotta reflects an earlier, MBA /MH influence on the island around the middle of the

second millennium (it should be noted that Minyan pottery has not been reported

elsewhere except the island of Kea).

Sometime in the LH IIIC Early phase another settlement was built at Grotta,

directly above the LH IIIA-B settlement but following a different orientation and a

less sophisticated town-planning system. This settlement was protected by a

fortification wall with a stone-built foundation and a mud-brick superstructure

(Lambrinoudakis & Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou 2001, 160 figs. 2, 3; Vlachopoulos

2008, 481 fig. 43.5), a type documented nowhere else in the Cyclades (Vlachopoulos

1999), although there are possible parallels at Thebes, Cyprus and the East

(Aravantinos 1988; Lambrinoudakis & Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou 2001). The wall

reached the harbour installations, which today are submerged along the northern

coast of Grotta. Its excavated section bordered independent workshop zones of the

settlement, where local pictorial pottery was produced and possibly displayed and

sold (Vlachopoulos 1999c). The strong Cycladic tradition of naturalism is the most

important feature of Naxian pottery, including human figures and octopus, fish,

birds, quadrupeds and floral motifs in its pictorial repertoire. Attica, Crete and the

Dodecanese (Kos and possibly Rhodes) are among the island‟s best importers of

decorated pottery, particularly stirrup jars, whereas Naxian pottery seems to have a

rather passive role in 12th c. B.C. Aegean trade, with only one possible export to

Kimolos (Vlachopoulos 1996, 337-47).

Grotta‟s Town II thrived for 120 years, through LH IIIC Middle and Late period,

and its pottery (“Grotta phase pottery”) displayed local characteristics as well as

some artistic novelties (Vlachopoulos 2003a, b). The cemeteries of Naxos, which

expanded into the adjacent hills of Aplomata and Kamini, were used from the LH

IIIC Middle Advanced period, in concordance with the Grotta II settlement. The dead

were accompanied by rich funerary offerings such as pictorial pottery, bronze

weapons, jewellery (mostly made of gold), seals (heirlooms from the 14th-13th c. B.C.)

and tools which suggest activities such as horse keeping, fishing and weaving

(Kardara 1977; Vlachopoulos 2006).

Very little of Naxos‟ Mycenaean past is preserved in the countryside. LH IIIC and

PG decorated pottery was collected from the lower terraces of the Genissis hill,

located 5 km east of the Naxos town, at the valley of Eggares (Vlachopoulos 1996, 79

fig. 1), which probably belonged to the long-living agricultural community of this

fertile zone. Some Late Mycenaean pottery (kylikes, skyphoi, conical cups) weas

found in the foundation level of the Geometric-Archaic temple at Yria, which lies in

the heart of Livadi, the island‟s major fertile plain (Lambrinoudakis 1992, 205 fig. 5,

p. 215; Vlachopoulos 1999, 81). The thorough excavation of the sanctuary brought to

light an “undisturbed” Mycenaean (LH IIIA2-C) phase connected with open-air cult

activity documented by a stone lekane and sherds of large amphorae and hydriae

around it, clay beads and unfired astragals (Simantoni-Bournia 2002, 270). The

sanctuary at Yria (possibly dedicated to the worship of Dionysos) testify to

“conscious cult continuity from Mycenaean to Geometric times” (Lambrinoudakis

1992, 215).

On the east coast of the island, a destroyed (farm?) house was excavated in 1968

at the site of Karvounolakkoi; in the floor there was a cist tomb for a child (?) burial

(Vlachopoulos 1996, 79 fig. 8-10). A vaulted rectangular built tomb was excavated

close to this site at Lygaridia, where a LH IIIC feeding bottle was found

(Vlachopoulos 1996, 79, 83 fig. 11 pl. 121). Systematic excavation of the Zas Cave, in

the mountainous core of Naxos, did not yield any clear Mycenaean phase, except for

a very few LH IIIA-B(?) sherds which show temporary use of the cave (Zachos pers.

comm.).

Thus, during Mycenaean times, the island of Naxos demonstrated strong

topographic correlations with the sites of later –PG– habitation and cult. Grotta was

used as an organized cist-tomb cemetery in PG times, which gradually transformed

into a cult place in honour of the ancestors; its nuclear settlement should therefore

lie very close, most probably on the hill of Kastro.

On Siphnos, two major settlements are known so far. The acropolis of Ayios

Andreas occupies a hill overlooking the east coast of the island. Its fortified

settlement was founded in LH IIIB (Televantou 2001, 208) and inhabited until LH

IIIC Early, as shown by the pottery published to date (Mountjoy 1999, 887-8;

Televantou 2000, 116). No Close Style or any other evidence of LH IIIC Middle and

Late pottery has been found, while a continuous habitation into the PG has been

suggested for the site. Rectangular buildings have been preserved on the surface of

the steep rocky, naturally defended, acropolis of „tis Baronas to Froudi‟, above the

protected coast of Vathy (Papadopoulou 2009, 989-90 fig. 42-4), and homogeneous

LH IIIC Middle advanced and Late pottery indicate a date in the mid-late 12th and

early 11th c. B.C. (Vlachopoulos 2008, 490 fig. 43.22;). Buildings lie on the west and

south sloping terraces of the settlement, and a central road seems to function as the

major axis of its town-planning. A “periteichisma” (wall enclosure) has been

suggested around these houses (Papadopoulou 2009, 989). Most of the pottery is

monochrome black-glazed, with the bell-shaped skyphos FS 284 comprising the

majority of the surface sherds. The two settlements belong to diametrically opposite

models of habitation, with the latter apparently of defensive character and much

later in date. „Tis Baronas to Froudi‟ is the only known LH IIIC known site in the

Cyclades that meets the criteria of a „refugee‟ settlement; that is, a naturally protected

remote site with restricted access, ample views of the sea with a safe anchorage,

access to water and enough territory for cultivation and animal husbandry. The

historical events that lie behind the foundation of the site are hard to know; however,

one cannot exclude the possibility that this settlement was founded by the

inhabitants of Ayios Andreas, who moved there for protection from systematic raids

or attacks.

Monolithos seems to have been an important settlement of the south Cyclades in

the Last Mycenaean period, establishing the vital role that Thera played in the intra-

Aegean exchange routes (Vlachopoulos 2007; 2008, 479-80 figs. 43.1-3). The

settlement extends to the foothills of an isolated crag, the only rocky promontory on

the east coast of post-eruption Thera. Surface pottery of very good quality dates

mostly to LH IIIC, with very few sherds dating to LH IIIB2, suggesting a flourishing

settlement (Doumas and Warren 1979). The pictorial pottery has strong parallels

with Melos and Naxos, the East Aegean and other centres of the post-palatial world.

This location seems to have been one of the nodal points of the South Cyclades

between the 13th and 12th c. B.C., connected to a dense commercial network within

the Aegean and beyond.

The sanctuaries at Ayia Irini on Kea (Caskey 1984; Mountjoy 1999, 864; 2008,

475-6) and Phylakopi on Melos (Renfrew 1985; Mountjoy 1999, 889; 2008, 474)

continued in use during the LH IIIC period, when they developed into traditional cult

places, but there is no evidence of any contemporary use of their settlements.

II.2 Synchronisms in the Cyclades during the Post-Palatial Period

The LH IIIC Early phase is documented at Ayia Thekla by several examples of

Helladic type Linear Style (Despinis 1979; Philaniotou 2006; Mountjoy 1999, 930)

and scant material from Amorgos (Mountjoy 1999, 964 fig. 393.9-10). The mansion

at Koukounaries (Schilardi 1992, 634; 1995, 484, 488) was destroyed in LH IIIC

Middle developed (Vlachopoulos 2008, 480), as shown by the pottery that has been

published so far (Koehl 1984; Mountjoy 1999, 932–7, fig. 381). The decoration is

linear and demonstrates Helladic inspiration, if not manufacture, as do the very few

pictorial sherds. The limited reoccupation of Koukounaries is dated to LH IIIC Late,

and its pottery shows strong similarities to the „Grotta Phase‟ (Koehl 1984, 204 fig.

10b; Deger-Jalkotzy 1998, 108; Mountjoy 1999, 937). A reoccupation is also attested

for Ayios Andreas (Televantou 2001; Mountjoy 2008, 474), where most important is

the date of the fortification wall and the continuity.

Amorgos and Kimolos have yielded only surface finds, or what was left from

looted chamber tombs. A sherd from a tomb at Xylokeratidi on Amorgos depicts a

highly stylized ship of LH IIIC Middle-Late date, but it is not yet possible to

determine where the vase was made (Marangou 2002, 20 fig. 30). Vases of the same

date from Amorgos show an Argive origin and have parallels in Attica (Mountjoy

1999, 964). Mycenaean domestic pottery recently found in rescue excavations of the

nearby settlement at Katapola (Marangou, pers. comm.) can be safely connected with

the settlement of this cemetery. Pottery from the looted cemetery of Ellinika on

Kimolos (Polychronakou-Sgouritsa 1994–5, 10) dates to LH IIIC Middle advanced

and some sherds display similarities to the „Grotta Phase‟ Naxian workshop

(Vlachopoulos 2008, 490 fig. 43.23), especially a stirrup jar fragment of the Octopus

style.

It has been shown elsewhere that in the Cyclades the stratified pottery of

Koukounaries, Phylakopi and Ayia Irini belongs to different phases of LH IIIC

(Vlachopoulos 1999; 2008), and nowhere, except Naxos, have sufficient examples of

the Octopus and Close styles been found, which would allow for chronological

inferences about the emergence and diffusion of these styles in the Cyclades to be

drawn. The LH IIIC Middle and Late „Grotta Phase‟ pottery of Naxos, with its distinct

Close and Pictorial style, has parallels on both the Greek mainland and Crete, but not

in the Cyclades (Vlachopoulos 2003; 2008), whereas the few intra-Cycladic

similarities mostly rely on the monochrome or linear wares that monopolize the last

decades of the post-palatial period. From the historical point of view, it is important

to emphasize that the LH IIIC pottery material of Naxos does not facilitate

chronological synchronisms, especially with its neighbouring islands.

The study of pottery from Delos has shown that the settlement was not occupied

during the LH IIIC period (A. Farnoux, pers. comm.). Pottery from Kea and Melos

displayed mainly Helladic and local features. Kea belonged geographically and

culturally to the sphere of influence of Attica and Euboea, whereas Melos showed

mainland influence as well as significant local peculiarities. The influence of the

Greek mainland seems more intense in the little-known pottery from Koukounaries

on Paros, and the number of imports greater; however some Minoan elements can be

observed (Koehl 1984).

The Pictorial style appears with variable frequency and quality. On Paros and

Melos, examples of pictorial pottery are few and not distinctive, and only a few

sherds from Kimolos show notable similarities with Naxos and the Dodecanese

(Vlachopoulos 2008, 490). The Close style of mainland Greece does not seem to have

been adopted by the islands, who instead used more idiosyncratic creations.

Consequently, in the Cyclades, there is no uniform picture among the islands during

the LH IIIC period. The pottery suggests not only a lack of chronological and stylistic

synchronisms between the assemblages, but that each island was also open to

different influences. Overall, the heterogeneous picture of the central Aegean during

LH IIIC is at odds with the picture of the „Small Mycenaean Koine‟ proposed by

Desborough in the 1960s, a term that can no longer be applied to the diverse picture

which is emerging for each island in the Cyclades.

During the 13th and 12th c., new walls were constructed in many Cycladic

settlements, or older ones were extended and reinforced. As shown elsewhere, the

walled settlements of Grotta, Ayia Irini, Koukounaries, Phylakopi and Ayios Andreas

on Siphnos differ in their location as well as in the method of wall construction and

the dates of their building (Vlachopoulos 1999a, 82; 2003a; Barber 2010, 167). The

acropolis of Ayios Andreas was founded in LH IIIB and was inhabited until LH IIIC

Early, as shown by the pottery published to date (Televantou 2000; 2001; Mountjoy

2008, 474). Recent excavations at Xombourgo, Tenos connect the foundation of the

massive defensive wall -dated “between the late LBA and the PG period (Kourou

2002, 255)- with several Submycenaean sherds (Kourou pers. comm.). These facts

refute the possibility that these works were part of a wider defence plan for the

islands in the face of a common threat, and certainly the lack of contemporaneity

argues against the theory of a simultaneous establishment of „refugee‟ settlements in

the Cyclades (Vlachopoulos 1999, 83; Barber 2010, 167). On Siphnos, however, the

naturally defended acropolis at „tis Baronas to Froudi‟ dates to the advanced LH IIIC

phase (Papadopoulou 2009, 209; Vlachopoulos 2008, 490-1), and it may have been

founded by people who temporarily moved there from elsewhere on the island in

search of a secure site, since the settlement seems to have been abandoned soon

afterwards.

Although there were no doubt concerns for security, the lack of evidence for

violent and simultaneous catastrophes in the settlements of the Cyclades suggests

that LH IIIC was a peaceful period for the Aegean, and no common external threat

existed. However, the iconography of some LH IIIC pictorial vases from Grotta -

following the fashion of their Mainland originals - portray males in procession or in

duel (Vlachopoulos 2003, 498, 511 fig. 21; 2009; Papadopoulos 2009, 73 fig. 9.5),

suggesting a „heroic‟ repertoire that might reflect war activities. The same conclusion

could be drawn from the three so-called „warrior burials‟ of the Naxian cemeteries.

These richly furnished male burials at Kamini (Tomb A and a pyra next to Tomb

Γ) and Aplomata (Tomb A) with Naue II swords, spearheads and other bronze, silver

and gold kterismata parallel typical examples of the so-called Warrior Graves of the

LH IIIC Aegean (Deger-Jalkotzy 2006). Σhe exceptional open-air interment of a

richly buried “warrior” into a thick ash layer of animal sacrifices at Kamini (Pyra

next to Tomb Γ) adds weight to the argument that the gradual formulation of burial

rites in honour of distinguished members of the local elite developed in the mid-late

12th c. B.C. Such funerary rituals possibly concluded with communal meals and

dances, as a unique representation on a strainer hydria suggests (Vlachopoulos 1996,

99-100, 189-96 fig. 39.e, dr. 24, col. pl. 8). Strainer jugs and hydrias were found in

shallow pits around the chamber tombs of the Kamini mound, pointing to the regular

enactment of open-air libations during or after the burials (Vlachopoulos 1996, 99).

There is little doubt that rituals for the distinguished deceased of Naxian society

demonstrate the pronounced role of an elite-class which emerged gradually during

the LH IIIC period. The interment of its members, accompanied by impressive

armoury and other insignia dignitatis, might however reflect demonstration of the

dead‟s social status rather than actual war activity or a generalized spirit of hostility.

After the fall of the mainland palaces, and apparently due to the influx of

newcomers to the islands, the 12th c. B.C. Aegean communities that gradually

developed were searching for a new political system among the hierarchies of the

local clans. Naxos, being prosperous and self-sufficient, seems to have developed a

local ruling class, the members of which shared principles and qualities that are to be

encountered some generations later as the heroic ethos of the Homeric epos.

The harbour-city of Grotta, equipped with a minimal but functioning town-

planning system and with its workshops systematically operating along the

fortification wall, must have been a major node of sea-faring activity in the 12th c.

B.C. Aegean. The major settlement of Naxos, with the adjoining chamber tomb

clusters of Aplomata and Kamini, which can be associated with two local elite clans,

are the best example of the “Mycenaean city-state model” of the LH IIIC period in the

Aegean.

III. The LH IIIC Dodecanese

Most of the available evidence for the Dodecanese is related to the burial

tradition, which was conspicuous during the entire LH IIB-LH IIIC period. The

number of cemeteries and tombs allows a broader analysis, as well as a diachronic

overview of the continuity or discontinuity of the local mortuary practices from the

palatial to the post-palatial Mycenaean period (Figure 1).

During the LH IIIC period in the Dodecanese, the two largest cemeteries, Ialysos

on Rhodes and Eleona and Langada on Kos, became even larger. More tombs were

used and consequently more pots and small finds were deposited in them.

Furthermore, a significant number of abandoned LH IIIA chamber tombs, as well as

two tholos tombs from Kos, were re-used in the LH IIIC phase (Benzi 1982, 325-33;

1992, 225, 227; Cavanagh and Mee 1978, 36-8; Georgiadis 2003, 68-9, 71, 74; 2009a,

98; Bosnakis 2006, 341 fig. 525). These changes were considered the main evidence

in support of the hypothesis of fleeing migrants from the Greek mainland. This could

explain the process of hellenization on Cyprus, where some of the mainland migrants

finally settled, and date it to the 12th c. B.C. It could also provide an ethnic identity or

provenance for the Philistines in Syria-Palestine and even confirm the Homeric

tradition of the Nostoi of the epic heroes.

This narrative is very appealing as it could potentially answer many issues, but

the way population movement occured (Georgiadis 2004, 62-6; 2009a, 97-8), and

the character of the LH IIIC evidence in the Dodecanese is far more complicated

(Georgiadis 2003, 113-4). A major hindrance to the migration hypothesis is the

continuity of older burial traditions with no significant change from the regionalism

already seen in the LH IIIA-B phase. The main characteristics of this regionalism are

the shared orientation of chamber tombs within cemeteries (Georgiadis 2003, 108;

Gallou and Georgiadis 2006; 2006-7), the increasingly frequent and in some cases

dominant practice of secondary treatment of the bodies, and the accompanied

offerings and rituals (Georgiadis 2003, 107-9). Thus, it appears that an ancestor

status was ascribed to the deceased, with special importance and reverence given to

the local landscape. This was an amalgamation of introduced mainland social and

burial practices and regional ideas and beliefs, producing new locally meaningful

symbolisms (Georgiadis 2003, 111). At the same time, variations and regional

characteristics were also present, especially between Rhodes and Kos. This can be

seen in the landscape focus (such as the importance of plains and streams on Rhodes

versus that of plains and the sea on Kos), the burial offerings which accompanied the

deceased, as well as the construction of tholos tombs on Kos and their absence on

Rhodes.

In almost all cases, the LH IIIC cemeteries were already in use during the LH

IIIA-B period. The orientation of the tombs remained unaltered, as did the practices

and rituals, which were the same as in the palatial phase (Georgiadis 2003, 114).

Thus, the burial tradition in the Dodecanese retained the same regional

characteristics and symbolic significance as before. Although there were some new

trends in the type of pots deposited as offerings, such as the decrease in the use of

drinking vessels in comparison to the previous periods, overall there are no

important changes (Georgiadis 2003, 89, 91, 93, 94). The appearance of pits within

chamber tombs is a phenomenon attested in only a few cases at Ialysos in the

Dodecanese, following a LH IIIC pattern, which has parallels at Perati (Georgiadis

2003, 78; 2009a, 95; Iakovidis 1970, 14-5). The most significant new element was

the adoption of cremation, with eight or nine examples at Ialysos and one at Eleona

and Langada. Nonetheless, this is not a new phenomenon in this region, as sporadic

cremations were already recovered in the LH IIIA2 phase; rather it argues for the

intensification of an older practice (Georgiadis 2003, 77, 79, 81-2; 2009a, 95).

III.1. Pottery

Chemical analysis of pots from Ialysos and Pylona revealed different

manufacturing trends during the LH IIIA-B and LH IIIC phases. In the earlier period

the vast majority of pots deposited in the tombs had a mainland provenance, mainly

from the Argolid, and very few were locally produced (Jones 1986, 501-8; Jones and

Mee 1978; Karantzali and Ponting 2000, 232; Ponting and Karantzali 2001, 107;

Karantzali 2009, 273-4). However, recent analysis of LH IIIA-B pottery from the

settlement of Trianda, to which the Ialysos cemetery belongs, revealed that everyday

pots were locally produced and fewer were imported (Karantzali 2003, 517; 2009,

358, 363-4; Marketou et al. 2006, 31-2, 48-50). This situation can also be seen at

Serrayia (Jones 1986, 508-9), suggesting a similar pattern in the production and

consumption of pottery at settlements in the Dodecanese. It appears that on Rhodes

the better quality imported wares from the mainland were purposefully used and

perhaps even reserved, primarily in a mortuary context. For the latter period the

analyses from the Rhodian cemeteries have shown that the vast majority pots were

locally or regionally produced (Jones 1986, 501-8; Jones and Mee 1978; Karantzali

and Ponting 2000, 232; Ponting and Karantzali 2001, 107). Thus in the post-palatial

period only a few pots were imported and deposited within the tombs, in contrast to

LH IIIA-B practices.

Rhodes developed its own distinct workshop during the LH IIIC Early-Middle

phase, when Cretan elements, mainly motifs, were used (Mountjoy 1999, 985-8, fig.

400). The most diagnostic shape and decoration was the Octopus style stirrup jar,

which was both locally produced and imported. The Close style has also been

recovered from the later phase of LH IIIC middle, imported from the Argolid. At the

same time, two such examples from cemeteries in southern Rhodes were produced in

local fabric, suggesting a local imitation of this style (Mountjoy 1998, 37; 1999, 989).

The LH IIIC late pottery on Rhodes appears infrequently across the island. In the

northern Dodecanese a common pottery tradition developed at Kos, Kalymnos and

Astypalaia from the LH IIIC Early phase (Benzi 1993; Mountjoy 1998, 37; 1999,

1078, 1139). This style continued into the LH IIIC middle period, when its influence

reached as far north as Chios. A Pictorial style was developed, with motifs including

birds, fish, goats and humans recovered on amphoroid kraters, ring-based kraters,

kalathoi, stirrups jars, strainer jugs and deep bowls (Mountjoy 1999, 1080, 1126-7,

fig. 441). Octopus stirrup jars were also recovered in limited numbers at Eleona and

Langada, as well as Kalymnos, where they were both imported, mainly from Crete, as

well as locally produced (Mountjoy 1999, 1115-6, 1134). The LH IIIC late phase is

represented only at Kos, in the northern Dodecanese, by a few pots. Synchronisms,

interactions, common elements and ideas are shared between the two regions,

suggesting the close contact of these workshops, despite their distinct character.

III.2. Regionalism: continuity and change

Cemeteries

The regional differences already shown in the palatial period in the Dodecanese

continued in the LH IIIC phase, and new ones also appeared (Figure 1). On Kos,

there was a decrease in the number of cemeteries used, whilst in the main cemetery

of the island, i.e. Eleona and Langada, more tombs were used and more pots and

small finds were placed in them. However, the trend in the increase of tombs and

offerings in this cemetery develops steadily from LH IIIA. Moreover, the

concentration of the LH IIIC cemeteries around Kos town could point towards

nucleation in the eastern part of the island, where the main settlement was

surrounded by smaller peripheral ones. Rhodes provides a more varied picture, with

two trends showing a definite geographical differentiation, roughly north and south.

In the south, during the LH IIIB and C phases, the number of cemeteries, tombs and

pots deposited in them remained more or less the same. The overall image from

south Rhodes is one of stability and continuity with an increased local pottery

production. In the north however there was a clear decrease in the number of

cemeteries used between the LH IIIB and C phases. Nonetheless, Ialysos grew larger

than ever before, with more tombs used and far more offerings placed within them.

This cemetery stands out both for the quantity of the burial goods, and for the wealth

of the small finds. This development has been related to the nucleation of settlements

in this part of the island. Some settlements-cemeteries were abandoned, possibly

suggesting the movement of the population towards larger settlements like Ialysos.

This could explain the appearance of a greater number of tombs, as well as the LH

IIIC re-use of older LH IIIA2 ones. Thus, an internal, regional and small-distance

migration could be proposed in order to explain the increased use of this cemetery.

Settlement Patterns

The LH IIIC settlement pattern in the Dodecanese remained fragmentary, as it

had been during the previous LH phases. Across this region only a few settlements

are known, whose identification is based on a handful of diagnostic LH III surface

sherds. Our analysis is based on the continuity or discontinuity of the cemeteries

whose related settlements would be expected to be in a radius of c. 1 km. On

Karpathos the lack of LH IIIC evidence is surprising considering the mortuary

tradition known from this island. This is especially true for Pigadia, which appears to

be the main settlement of the island, , where a number of tombs and vessels have

been recovered. Furthermore, the unsystematic survey conducted by Melas (1985)

has identified a number of MBA and LBA sites, but none belong to the LH IIIC

phase. The only known settlement from this period was found at Poli on Kasos, a hill

site located in a strategic area in the interior of the island, which was already

established in the LH IIIB phase (Melas 1985, 49-50, 83). Even Trianda on Rhodes,

the settlement to which the Ialysos cemetery belongs, does not provide any LH IIIC

evidence. The LH III strata of this site are very disturbed, but no sherds appear to

post-date the LH IIIB phase (Benzi 1988; Karantzali 2003; 2009). There are two

possible interpretations of this scenario, in two different chronological periods. The

first is that site was destroyed by either a single sudden or many smaller repeated

alluvial activities sometime after the LH IIIC occupation, which destroyed the later

remains and which could explain the lack of substantial architectural features. The

second is that the destruction took place in a late phase of LH IIIB and after this

event the settlement relocated to an area close by. This version could explain the total

lack of any LH IIIC sherds, which would be expected to survive to some extent

despite the destruction, and the continuity in use of Ialysos. The image of the LH IIIC

settlement pattern on Rhodes is based entirely on the available cemetery data. On

Astypalaia, the coastal cemetery was no longer in use by the LH IIIC phase, while the

inland cemetery continued to be used during the LH IIIC Early period (Mountjoy

1999, 1138). The samples from this island are few and the assessment of Astypalaia

can be very limited. On Kalymnos, sites at Perakastro, the Ayia Varvara cave and the

Vathy cave continued to be used in LH IIIC with no hiatus (Benzi 1993; Hope

Simpson 1981, 202; Hope Simpson and Lazenby 1962, 172; Levi 1925-6, 281; Maiuri

1928, 107; Sampson 1987, 123 pl. 28). The first is a settlement site, but the same

cannot be said for the two caves, which may have had periodic use, and whose

character remains unclear.

On Kos, Serrayia is the best-documented LH IIIC site, which has yielded

pottery sherds from the settlement, but there are only limited architectural features

(Morricone 1972-3; Vitale 2006). Recent results from the systematic survey of the

Halasarna area have provided more data regarding this phase (Georgiadis 2005-6, 5,

12; forthcoming a). This region is located on the south coastal side of central Kos, and

the survey revealed that small sites appeared on low hills around the fertile coastal

plain. The identification of at least two of these sites is based on a limited number of

diagnostic sherds, either one or two, suggesting that they probably represent small

installations, such as farmsteads. A third site has been identified and belongs to this

phase, but the recovered sherd could have come from a destroyed tomb. These sites

seem to act as small satellite sites, with ancient Halasarna as their regional centre,

not unlike the contemporary cemetery pattern which developed in eastern Kos.

However, the fact that alluviation processes have covered the Halasarna plain,

affecting our visibility and understanding of the development of the local LH III

settlement pattern, needs to be taken under consideration. Nonetheless, the number

of sites increased in this area during this period, unlike the situation in eastern Kos.

Moreover, preliminary analysis of the pottery from ancient Halasarna argues for the

existence of a LH IIIC phase at this settlement, which was substantial in size, and

would have played a central role in this region.

Although the LH IIIC evidence from most of the islands is limited in many

respects, there seems to be a preference for inland and more protected sites

overcoastal. This observation can be seen at Kasos, and could explain the continuity

of habitation in southern Rhodes, the nucleation of northern Rhodes around larger

sites, as well as the available picture at Astypalaia, the continuity of sites at

Kalymnos, and the patterns which developed in eastern Kos and the Halasarna

region. These areas reveal both continuity and limited changes. This continuity can

be seen in inland areas such as southern Rhodes, Perakastro on Kalymnos and

Armenochori on Astypalaia. New sites and/or developments were recovered from the

rest of the regions discussed above. The overall picture might suggest new political,

social and economic conditions during the LH IIIC period. However, the response

was different according to regional determinants, needs and idiosyncrasies, for

example in southern and northern Rhodes, and Kos. A focus on farming and animal

herding at most of the settlements, leaving a fewer specialized coastal sites to

interact, as well as exchange and circulate products, could have been a new socio-

economic strategy.

An additional factor for this preference in site location could have been a

wider trend of cautionary measures against external and/or internal threats

(Georgiadis forthcoming b). This hypothesis cannot be easily substantiated by the

aforementioned evidence. However, already in the latter half of the LH IIIB period

Hittite records referred to war activities in the coastal south-western Anatolia, while

the Linear B tablets from Pylos indirectly confirmed this (Georgiadis 2009b, 32-33;

forthcoming b). Battle scenes on both land and sea were also depicted on LH IIIC

middle kraters from Koan and other South-eastern Aegean workshops. Related to

this is the fortification wall at Kastro Palaiopyli, also on Kos, which was located in a

mountainous inland area. Its construction could belong to either the LH IIIB or C

phases, since the surface LH III sherds do not provide a clear date. Nevertheless, this

wall would have been in use during the LH IIIC period. The combination of these

elements is sufficient to propose that warfare appeared to be a major concern. It was

described and depicted in records, art, fortification, the new location preferences for

sites and the settlement pattern that developed.

ΙV. Regionalism in the Cyclades and the Dodecanese

Grotta, Trianda-Ialysos and Serrayia became important centres in the post-

palatial phase, larger than ever before (Figure 1). These major settlements of Naxos,

Rhodes and Kos respectively functioned as nexus in the renewed exchange networks

of the LH IIIC period Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. Part of the explanation

for this is the fall of the mainland palaces and the decrease of their active

participation in exchange. The diffusion of power and the political, social and

economic shifts in the Greek mainland allowed smaller polities in the Aegean to

benefit. At the same time, synchronisms, interactions and exchanges became evident

between these sites, while close ties also existed to contemporary Crete and Attica.

There are many similarities in certain pottery styles and decoration, both imported

and locally produced, which suggests a close interaction (Vlachopoulos 1996, ch. 7).

Furthermore, the frequency and similarity of gold and silver items within tombs is

clear between these three sites, to which Perati could also be added. At the same

time, the cape Gelidonya and Iria shipwrecks underline the conditions and the

degree of exchange in this era, no matter which direction the ships were heading

(Bass 1967; Lolos 1999). They highlight the character of the inter-Aegean and intra-

Aegean exchange networks which existed in several areas across the eastern

Mediterranean even after the destruction of the palaces.

Certain objects from burial contexts stand out during this period, providing an

insight into local social structure and exchange. The bronze, silver and gold jewellery

were recovered from LH IIIC tombs in larger numbers than in previous periods

(Georgiadis 2003, 104; Vlachopoulos 2006, ch. 4). Earlier goods which were used as

heirlooms in the LH IIIC tombs of Naxos (such as jewellery, gold-sheet ornaments

and seals) included representations of bulls, lions and cult symbols, which point to

their emblematic function, as the symbolic dimension of these subjects is perhaps

related to the social status or office of the dead (Vlachopoulos 2006, 285-92, 305-16;

2008, 483). Furthermore, certain pottery types, such as Octopus-style stirrup jars,

duck vases and strainer jugs, are not deposited, or are extremely rare, in cemeteries

outside Grotta on Naxos (Vlachopoulos 2006, 99, 110, 126, 131, 150, 163) and Ialysos

on Rhodes (Georgiadis 2003, 96-7; 2009a, 96). Although on Kos the available LH

IIIC cemeteries are limited in number, Eleona and Langada may have had a similar

exclusivity in certain offerings. The presence of Octopus-style stirrup jars at

Perakastro on Kalymnos cannot be assessed due to the lack of any other known

contemporary cemetery on the island. Nonetheless, the exclusivity of precious items

and specific vessel types argues for the limited circulation of certain goods outside

these sites and the concentration of wealth in these large and rich central ports,

illustrating a clear settlement hierarchy. Social stratification also appears to be

expressed within the tombs, suggesting the development of powerful elite which

expressed its wealth through display in the funerary arena. Furthermore, these

characteristics suggest the ability of the elite to control circulation, as well as the

available resources and their production in these islands. Consequently they must

have played a vital role in the exchange networks that were active and maintained

during the LH IIIC period.

The emergence of a single major settlement on each island, operating as a

capital, and demonstrated on the larger of the Cyclades (Naxos) and the Dodecanese

(Rhodes, Kos), is of major historical importance (Vlachopoulos 1999, 80). Whether

we call it “nucleation of settlement” or “synoicism” (a term attributed to the

legendary Attic hero Theseus who founded the city of Athens by unifying the komae

of Attica), this formation demands a powerful political elite that can ensure the

organization of the new “city”, but also presupposes large social consensus among

the former populations of the islands and the newcomers of the 12th c. B.C., if any.

The independent geographical and cultural character of the Aegean islands

would not have favoured the development of collective economic and cultural

systems of Helladic type after the fall of the palaces. The diversity in the material

culture and the lack of synchronisms among the major Aegean centres show that

each island followed its own course, dictated by local historical conditions. Each one

had its own cycle of prosperity during the LH IIIC period and eventually came into

contact with different political systems and forms of power. The conditions of

affluence, prosperity and freedom provided by the dense network of interactions

established the LH IIIC Aegean as an arena for exchange and competition than

military confrontation (Vlachopoulos 2008, 491).

Although there is a clear prosperity on most islands, issues of security seem to

have been important and affected the distribution of sites to some extent. On Kasos,

southern Rhodes, Kos, Kalymnos, Astypalaia and Siphnos most, if not all, of the sites

are located in the hinterland or in defensible areas. The frequency of coastal sites

appears to decrease in comparison to the earlier phase, which can clearly be seen in

northern Rhodes, but at the same time these settlements were larger than before,

such as those at Grotta, Serrayia and Trianda. Fortification walls either continued in

use from previous phases,or were constructed in LH IIIC, and examples have been

recovered at Ayia Irini, Ayios Andreas, Phylakopi, Grotta, Koukounaries and Kastro

Palaiopyli. The size, wealth, and role of Serrayia and Trianda in the LH IIIC maritime

exchange network would be enough to suggest that these walls protected the

settlements.

The depiction of warfare and naval battle scenes in LH IIIC Middle pottery

(Papadopoulos 2009) indicate a concern with these matters, regardless of what form

they may have taken, i.e. organised warfare and/or piratic activities; at the same

time, this iconography echoes the emergence of flamboyant local pottery styles which

created a more „anthropocentric‟ and relaxed repertoire, away from any palatial

formality and uniformity in style.

IV. Conclusions

People do not equate to pots, and their broader socio-cultural context is of

primary importance for understanding the conditions of each period. Although this

belief is widely accepted, in practice it has not always been taken under serious

consideration. This is clearly expressed in earlier scholarship which viewed the

Cyclades and/or the Dodecanese as a homogeneous island territory of the Aegean.

Furthermore, it has been seen historically and culturally as a dependent periphery of

the political power exercised by the Mycenaean mainland. However, this is an

oversimplified outlook, and, as outlined by the evidence above, cannot be supported.

In fact, thorough analysis of the available data reveals that different social and

economic conditions existed on each island. Although common elements are present,

the regional character is quite evident, suggesting autonomous and independent

„centres‟ of cultural and political power, occasionally with smaller neighbouring

islands comprising their „peripheries‟.

The different types of settlement and/or cemetery development in the Aegean

islands from the LH IIIB to the LH IIIC period strongly suggest a high degree of

regionalism. At Karpathos and Kasos there is a rapid decrease in the number of sites,

while a less conspicuous decrease can be seen on Melos and Astypalaia. Additionally,

there is continuity and relative stability on Kea, Paros, Amorgos, southern Rhodes

and Kalymnos, while in northern Rhodes a nucleation process can be seen, and in

eastern and south-central Kos a nucleation with the appearance of small sites around

a central one is also observed. Re-emergence is attested at Kimolos, Naxos shows a

combination of continuity and re-emergence, and a considerable increase can be

seen on Siphnos. Although these sites do not all have the same longevity, and may be

synchronous only for a limited time and represent only settlements or cemeteries,

this observation emphasizes the distinct regional changes which occurred. It should

be stressed that different contemporary developments are known not only between

neighbouring islands but even within large islands, as exemplified by the different

trajectories of northern and southern Rhodes. These variations in response to the LH

IIIC political, social and economic conditions do not necessarily express the same

concerns and can be interpreted in different ways.

A strong regionalism can thus be seen in the Aegean islands during the LH

IIIC period. This is outlined in pottery production, settlement patterns and burials -

in other words, in all the main categories of data from the 12th c. B.C. However, this

should be seen as political fragmentation rather than cultural or social. These small

insular polities developed in different ways and according to local idiosyncrasies in

order to survive and often prosper within the post-palatial Aegean. They also

participated actively within an extensive inter-Aegean and international exchange

network that continued after the fall of the palatial economies. The LH IIIC period in

the Aegean islands reveals both socio-cultural cohesion (homogeneity) and different

political and historical developments (heterogeneity). This framework will allow for a

better understanding of future in-depth regional analyses conducted in post-palatial

Aegean islands.

IV. Addendum

A final note on the Submycenaean remains could be made since this appears

differently in the Cyclades than in the Dodecanese and the Asia Minor coast.

To the exception of some sherds mentioned at Xombourgo, Tenos, and two

individual, yet problematic, vases from Aplomata, Naxos (Desborough 1964, 151 pl.

15c) and Koukounaries, Paros (Schilardi 1984, 204; Mountjoy 1999, 932; 2008, 476)

no Submycenaean material has ever been reported from the Cyclades (Figure 1).

There are strong restrictions where Submycenaean is a distinct chronological phase

or a pottery style with pronounced local characteristics, wherever it appears.

Submycenaean needs further definition and stratigraphic verification, since this

pottery style has not been found at Grotta where PG pottery is found mixed or

immediately above Late LH IIIC strata. Its appearance in the Cyclades in nowhere

clearly attested so far, for the individual vases ascribed to this style are found out of

stratigraphical context.

As far as the Dodecanese is concerned the LH IIIC Late use of tombs is rather

limited in both Rhodes and Kos. In the following period there are only two regions

that have yielded Submycenaean finds, the Halicarnassus peninsula, just east of Kos,

where hybrid tholos tombs have been recovered (Boysal 1967), and the cemetery of

cist graves at Ayia Agathi in south-eastern Rhodes (Zervaki 2011). Regionalism is still

evident, but during this phase it seems to suggest a significant social divergence. In

the first region the tombs retain the multiple burial character and the emphasis is

still on the family and/or the clan, as was the case all along the LH III period.

However, at Ayia Agathi the cist graves are a new phenomenon for Rhodes, arguing

for a break with the older LH III burial tradition and a new social framework with a

focus to the individual, possibly equally to death and in life. The Submycenaean

practices at the Halicarnassus peninsula do not continue to the later times, while on

Rhodes Ayia Agathi is the prelude of the burial traditions that will follow in the

Protogeometric and Geometric periods.

Cited Works

Andreou, E., and Andreou I. 2002. “Ζ Ίμβπορ ζηην Ππώιμη Δποσή ηος Υαλκού

(B΄Κέπορ).” Αξραηνινγία 82:75-83.

Aravantinos, V. 1988, “Ζ μςκηναϊκή οσύπωζη ηηρ Θαδμείαρ.” Δπεηεξίο Δηαηξείαο

Βνηωηηθώλ Μειεηώλ 1Α:113-36.

Barber, R. 2010. ”Cyclades.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (c.

3000-1000 BC), edited by E. Cline, 160-70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bass, G.F. 1967. Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck. TAPA 57. Philadelphia:

Philadelphia University Press.

Benzi, M. 1987. “I Micenei a Iasos. Studi di Iasos a Caria.” Bolletino d’Arte, Suppl. al

31/32:29-34.

____. 1982 . “Tombe Micenee di Rodi riutilizzate nel TE III C”, SMEA 23, 323-35.

____. 1988. “Mycenaean Pottery Later than LH IIIA:1 from the Italian Excavations

at Trianda on Rhodes.” In Archaeology in the Dodecanese, edited by S.

Dietz, and I. Papachristodoulou, 39-55. Copenhagen: The National Museum

of Denmark. Department of Near Eastern and Classical Antiquities.

____. 1992. Rodi e la Civiltà Micenea. Vol. 1-2, Roma: Gruppo Editoriale

Internazionale.

____. 1993. “The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Vathy Cave, Kalymnos.” In Wace

and Blegen, edited by C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder, 275-88.

Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben.

Bosnakis, D. 2006. “Kos.”, In Archaeology – Aegean Islands, edited by A.G.

Vlachopoulos, 240-51. Athens: Melissa.

Boulotis, C. 2001. “Θοςκονήζι Ιήμνος.” Η Σπκβνιή ηνπ Υπνπξγείνπ Αηγαίνπ ζηελ

Έξεπλα θαη Αλάδεημε ηνπ Αξρηπειάγνπο, edited by Γιεύθςνζη Πολιηιζμού,

30. Αθήνα: Τποςπγείο Αιγαίος.

____. 2009. “Koukonisi on Lemnos: reflections on the Minoan and Minoanising

evidence.” In The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean –

New Evidence. Acts of a Minoan Seminar 22-23 January 2005 in

collaboration with the Danish Institute at Athens and the German

Archaeological Institute at Athens, edited by C.F. Macdonald, E. Hallager,

and W.-D. Niemeier, 175-218. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens

8. Athens: Aarhus University Press.

Caskey, M. 1984. “The Temple at Ayia Irini, Kea: Evidence for the Late Helladic IIIC

Phases.” The Prehistoric Cyclades, edited by J.A. MacGillivray, and R.L.N.

Barber, 241-54 Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univeristy Press.

Cavanagh, W., and C. Mee. 1978. "The Re-use of Earlier Tombs in the LH IIIC

Period." BSA 73:31-44.

Cosmopoulos, M.B. 1998. “Reconstructing Cycladic Pehistory: Naxos in the Early and

Middle Late Bronze Age.” OJA 17:127-48.

____. 2004. H Nάμνο θαη ην Κξεηνκπθελαϊθό Αηγαίν. Σηξωκαηνγξαθία, θεξακηθή,

νηθνλνκηθή νξγάλωζε ηνπ Υζηεξνειιαδηθνύ Ι-ΙΙΙΒ νηθηζκνύ ηεο Γξόηηαο.

Απσαιογνωζία 3. Αθήνα: Athens University Press.

Dakoronia, F. 1990, “War-Ships on Sherds of LH IIIC Kraters from Kynos.”, Tropis

II:117-22.

--------2006. “Mycenaean pictorial style at Kynos, Δast Lokris.” In ,Pictorial pursuits.

Figurative painting on Mycenaean and Geometric pottery. Papers from

two seminars at the Swedish Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001, edited by

E. Rystedt, and B, Wells, 23-9. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

____. 2009. “East Lokris.“ In Archaeology – Euboea and Central Greece, edited by

A. Vlachopoulos, 274-91. Athens: Melissa.

Deger-Jalkotzy, S. 1998. “The Aegean Islands and the Breakdown of the Mycenaean

Palaces around 1200 BC.” In Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-

Crete 16th – 6th cent. BC., edited by V. Karageorghis, and N. Stampolides, 105-

20. Athens: University of Crete and A.G. Leventis Foundation.

____. 2006. “Late Mycenaean Warrior Tombs.” In Ancient Greece from the

Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy, and I.

Lemos, 151-79. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Despinis, G. 1979. “Αναζκαθή Σήνος.” ΠΑΔ:228-35.

Doumas, C., and P. Warren. 1979. “Thera: A Late Cycladic III Settlement at

Monolithos.” AAA 12:232-6.

Ersoy, Y.E. 1988. “Finds from Menemen/Panaztepe in the Menisa Museum.” BSA

83:55-82.

Gallou, C., and M. Georgiadis. 2006. “Ancestor Worship, Tradition and Regional

Variation in Mycenaean Culture.” The Archaeology of Cult and Death, edited by

C. Gallou, and M. Georgiadis, 125-49. Archaeolingua Series Minor 21. Budapest:

Archaeolingua.

Georgiadis, M. 2003. The South-Eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean Period: Islands,

Landscape, Death and Ancestors. BAR International Series 1196. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

____. 2004. “Migration on Rhodes During the Mycenaean Period.” J MA 4(1):34-

48.

____. 2005-6. “A Preliminary Report on the Prehistoric Evidence from the

Halasarna Survey Project, Kos.” Aegean Archaeology 8:1-13.

____. 2009a. “The South-eastern Aegean at the End of the Bronze Age: A

Crossroads of Interaction.” In Forces of Transformation: The End of the

Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, edited by C. Bachhuber, and R.G. Roberts,

92-8. BANEA Monographs 1. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

____. 2009b. “The East Aegean-Western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age: what do

the Tombs Tell us about Identity and Tradition?” In The Past in the Past: the

Significance of Memory and Tradition in the Transmission of Culture, edited

by M. Georgiadis, and C. Gallou, 28-42. BAR International Series 1925. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

____. Forthcoming a. “Σα Πποϊζηοπικά εςπήμαηα.” In Η Δπηθαλεηαθή Έξεπλα ζηελ

Αιάζαξλα, Κω, edited by Γ. Θοκκοπού-Αλεςπά, and Θ. Θοπανιάρ. Athens:

Πανεπιζηήμιο Αθηνών.

____. Forthcoming b. “Warfare in the South-eastern Aegean: the evidence and its

Significance.” In Aegean Bronze Age Warfare, edited by A. Papadopoulos, and

G. Grigoropoulos. Philadelphia: INSTAP Academic Press.

Georgiadis, M., and C. Gallou. 2006-7. “The cemeteries of the Argolid and the South-

Eastern Aegean during the Mycenaean Period: a Landscape Assessment.”

Opuscula Atheniensia 31-2:171-82.

Guzowska, M., and A. Yasur-Landau. 2003. “Before the Aeolians: Prolegomena to the

Study of Interactions with the North-East Aegean Islands in the 13th and 12th

Centuries BC.” Πξαθηηθά Β΄Γηεζλνύο Γηεπηζηεκνληθνύ Σπλεδξίνπ «Η

Πεξηθέξεηα ηνπ Μπθελαϊθνύ Κόζκνπ», Λακία 26-30 Σεπηεκβξίνπ 1999, edited

by N. Θςπαπίζζη-Αποζηολίκα, and M. Παπακωνζηανηίνος, 471-86. Ιαμία:

Έκδοζη ΗΓ΄ΔΠΘΑ.

Hadjianastasiou, O. 1989 “Some Hints of Naxian External Connections in the Earlier

Late Bronze Age.” BSA 84:205-15.

Hood, S. 1982. Excavations in Chios 1938-1955. Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala

(1981, 1982) Vols. I-II. London: British School at Athens.

Iakovidis, S. 1995. “Οι Ασαιοί ζηην Θύππο μαπηςπίερ και θεωπίερ.” In Κύπξνο: Από

ηελ Πξνϊζηνξία ζηνπο Νεόηεξνπο Φξόλνπο, 209-22. Nicosia: A.G Leventis

Foundation.

Jones, R.E. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of Scientific Studies. Athens:

Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 1. Athens: British School at Athens.

Jones, R.E., and C. Mee. 1978. “Spectrographic analyses of Mycenaean pottery from

Ialysos on Rhodes: results and implications.” JFA 5:461-70.

Kanta, A. 1998. “Introduction 16th-11th century BC.” In Eastern Mediterranean:

Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th-6th century BC, edited by N.C. Stampolidis, A.,

Karetsou, and A. Kanta, 30-66. Heraklion: The University of Crete Press.

Karantzali, E. 2001. The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes. BAR

International Series 988. Oxford: Archaeopress

____. 2003. “Κςκηναϊκή εγκαηάζηαζη ζηα Γωδεκάνηζα: η πεπίπηωζη ηηρ Ρόδος.”

In Η Πεξηθέξεηα ηνπ Μπθελαϊθνύ Κόζκνπ Β, edited by Λ. Θςπαπίζζη-

Αποζηολίκα, and Κ. Παπακωνζηανηίνος 513-33. Lamia: Έκδοζη ΗΓ΄ΔΠΘΑ .

____. 2009. “Local and imported Late Bronze Age III Pottery from Ialysos, Rhodes:

Tradition and Innovations.” In Γώξνλ: Τηκεηηθό Τόκνο γηα ηνλ Καζεγεηή Σπύξν

Ιαθωβίδε, edited by D. Danielidou 355-82. Athens: ειπά Κονογπαθιών 6, Αθήνα:

Ακαδημία Αθηνών, Θένηπον Δπεύνηρ ηηρ Απσαιόηηηορ.

Karantzali, E., and M.J. Ponting. 2000. “ICP-AES analysis of some Mycenaean Vases

from the Cemetery at Pylona, Rhodes.” BSA 95:219-38.

Kardara, C. 1977. Aπιώκαηα Νάμνπ. Κηλεηά επξήκαηα ηάθωλ Α θαη Β. Αθήνα:

Vivliothiki tis en Athinais Archaeologikis Etaireias.

Koehl, R. 1984. “Observations on a Deposit of LH IIIC Pottery from the

Koukounaries Acropolis on Paros.” In The Prehistoric Cyclades.

Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology, edited by J.A.

MacGillivray, and R.L.N. Barber 201-18. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press.

Kourou, N. 2002. “Tenos, Xombourgo. From a Refuge Place to an Extensive Fortified

Settlement.” In Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological

Discoveries in Greece, Oxford, Somerville College, 23-27 March 2001, edited

by Κ. Stamatopoulou and D. Geroulanou 2002, 258-68 Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Lambrinoudakis, V. 1992. “Έξι σπόνια αναζκαθικήρ έπεςναρ ζηα Ύπια Λάξος.” ΑΔ

131:201-16.

Lambrinoudakis, V. and O. Philaniotou-Hadjianastasiou. 2001. “The Town of Naxos

at the End of the Late Bronze Age: the Mycenaean Fortification Wall.” In

Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c.

1200 BC., edited by V. Karageorghis, and C.E. Morris, 157-69. Nicosia:

Trinity College Dublin and Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation.

Lolos, Y.G. 1999. “The Cargo of Pottery from the Point Iria Wreck: Character and

Implications.” In The Point Iria Wreck: Interconnections in the

Mediterraneasn ca 1200 BC, edited by W. Phelps, Y. Lolos, and Y. Vichos,

43-58. Athens: Hellenic Institute of Marine Archaeology.

Mallwitz, A. 1959-60. “Die Ausgrabungen beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957. IV Zur

Mykenischen Befestigung von Milet.“ IstMitt 9-10:67-76.

Marketou, Κ., E. Karantzali, H. Mommsen, N. Zacharias, V. Kilikoglou, and A.

Schwedt. 2006. ”Pottery Wares from the Prehistoric Settlement at Ialysos

(trianda) in Rhodes.” BSA 101:1-55.

Matsas, D. 2006. “Imbros.” In Archaeology – Aegean islands, Athens, edited by

A.G. Vlachopoulos, 100-3. Athens: Melissa.

Mee, C. 1982. Rhodes in the Bronze Age: An Archaeological Survey. Warminster:

Aris and Phillips.

____. 1988. “The LH IIIB period in the Dodecanese.” In Archaeology in the

Dodecanese, edited by S. Dietz, and I. Papachristodoulou, 56-8. Copenhagen:

The National Museum of Denmark. Department of Near Eastern and Classical

Antiquities.

Melas, E.M. 1985. The Islands of Karpathos, Saros and Kasos in the Neolithic and

Bronze Age. SIMA 68. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.

Mommsen, H.,D. Hertel, and P.A. Mountjoy 2001. “Neutron Activation Analysis of

the Pottery from Troy in the Berlin Schliemann Collection.” ΑΑ:169-211.

Morricone, L. 1972-73. “Coo. Scavi e scoperte nel 'Serraglio e' in localita minori

(1935-1943)”, Annuario 34-5:139-396.

Mountjoy, P.A. 1997a. “Local Mycenaean Pottery at Troia.” Studia Troica 7:259-67.

____. 1997b. “A Trojan Mycenaean Pictorial Crater.” Studia Troica 7:269-74.

____. 1998. ”The East Aegean– West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age:

Mycenaeans and the kingdom of Ahhiyawa.” AnatSt 48:33-68.

____ 1999. Regional Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westf.: Deutsches

Archäologisches Institut, Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH.

____. 2008. “The Cyclades during the Mycenaean Period.” In Οξίδωλ. Symbolism,

Interactions, Centrality. Recent Work on the Prehistory of the Cyclades.

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge

25-28.3.2004, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas, and C. Renfrew,

467-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Niemeier, W.-D. 1998. "The Mycenaeans in Western Anatolia and the Problem of the

Sea Peoples." In Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early

Tenth Centuries B.C.E., Proceedings of the International Symposium in

Jerusalem in Honour of Trude Dothan, April 3-7, 1995, edited by S. Gitin, A.

Mazar, and E. Stern, 17-65. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Nowicki, K. 2000. Defensible sites in Crete, c. 1200-800 B.C. (LM IIIB/IIIC through

Early Geometric). Aegaeum 21, Liège: Université de Liège.

Ozgünel, C. 1996. Mykenische Keramik in Anatolien. Asia Minor Studies 23.

Münster: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GMBH.

Papadimitriou, N. 2001. Built Chamber Tombs of Middle and Late Bronze Age Date

in Mainland Greece and the Islands, BAR International Series 925. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

Papadopoulos, A. 2009. “Warriors, Hunters and Ships in LB IIIC Aegean. Changes in

the iconography of warfare?” In Forces of Transformation: The End of the

Bronze Age in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of an international

symposium held at St. John’s College, University of Oxford 25-26th March

2006, edited by Ch. Bachhuber, and R.G. Roberts, 69-77. Themes from the

Ancient Near East, BANEA Publication Series 1. Oxford:Oxbow Books.

Philaniotou, O. 2006. Psara. A port-of-call on the Periphery of the Mycenaean

World. Psara: Greek Ministry of Culture.

Polychronakou-Sgouritsa, N. 1988. “Οι Θςκλάδερ καηά ηη μςκηναϊκή πεπίοδο.

Τποθέζειρ για ηην αποςζία ηοςρ από ηον Ληών Θαηάλογο.” ΑΑΑ 21:129-36.

____. 1994–5. “H Θίμωλορ ζηη μςκηναϊκή πεπίοδο.” ΑΓ 49-50(Α):1-12.

Ponting, M.J., and E. Karantzali. 2001. “ICP-AES Analysis of some Mycenaean Vases

from the Pylona Cemetery.” The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes,

edited by E. Karantzali, 105-13. BAR International Series 988. Oxford:

Archaeopress.

Prent, M. 2005. Cretan Sanctuaries and Cults. Continuity and Change from Late

Minoan IIIC to the Archaic Period. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World

154. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

Renfrew, A.C. ed. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult, the Sanctuary at Phylakopi.

London: British School at Athens.

Schachermeyr, F. 1980, Die Ägäische Frühzeit, Band 4: Griechenland im Zeitalter

der Wanderungen vom Ende der mykenischen Ära bis auf die Dorier.

Mykenische Studien. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für mykenische

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylakopi

Forschung 8. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften.

Schiering, W. 1959-60. “Die Ausgrabungen beim Athena-Tempel in Milet 1957 I.

Südabschnitt.” IstMitt 9-10:4-30.

Schilardi, D.U. 1984. ”The LHIIIC Period at the Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros.” In

The Prehistoric Cyclades. Contributions to a Workshop on Cycladic

Chronology, edited by J.A. MacGillivray, and R.L.N. Barber, 184-205.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

____. 1987. “Αναζκαθή Πάπος.” ΠΑΔ :217-40.

____. 1992. “Paros and the Cyclades after the Fall of the Mycenaean Palaces.” In

Mykenaika. Actes du IXe Colloque international sur les texts mycéniens et

égéens, Athens 1990, edited by J-P. Olivier, 621-39. BCH Supplement 25.

Paris: Diffusion de Boccard.

____. 1995. “Παπαηηπήζειρ για ηην ακπόπολη ηων Θοςκοςναπιών και ηην

Κςκηναϊκή Πάπο καηά ηον 12ο αι. π.Υ.” Δπεηεξίο Δηαηξείαο Κπθιαδηθώλ

Μειεηώλ 14:481-506.

Simantoni-Bournia, E. 2002. “The Early Phases of the Hyria Sanctuary on Naxos. An

Overview of the Pottery.” In Excavating Classical Culture: Recent

Archaeological Discoveries in Greece, Oxford, Somerville College, 23-27

March 2001, edited by M. Stamatopoulou, and M. Geroulanou, 269-80.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Televantou, C. 2000. “Ζ ακπόπολη ηος Αγίος Ανδπέα ίθνος.” In Πξαθηηθά Α

Γηεζλνύο Σηθλαϊθνύ Σπλεδξίνπ. Σίθλνο 25-28 Ινπλίνπ 1998, edited by T.

Εεπβοςδάκηρ, 115-46. Αθήνα: Δηαιπεία ιθναϊκών Κελεηών.

____. 2001. “Ayios Andreas on Siphnos: a Late Cycladic III Fortified Acr0polis.” In

Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c.

1200 BC., edited by V. Karageorghis, and C.E. Morris, 191-213. Nicosia:

Trinity College Dublin and Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation.

Vitale, S. 2006. ”L‟ insediamente di „Serrraglio‟ durante il tardo Bronzo. Riesame dei

principali contesti portati alla luce da Luigi Morricone tra il 1935 ed il 1946.”

Annuario 83:71-94.

Vlachopoulos, A. 1997-8. “Naxos and the Cyclades during the Late Helladic IIIC

period.” BICS 42:237-8.

____. 1999a. “Ζ Nάξορ καηά ηην Τζηεποελλαδική ΗΗΗΓ πεπίοδο. Ζ θςζιογνωμία και

ο σαπακηήπαρ ενόρ ακμαίος νηζιωηικού κένηπος.” In Πξαθηηθά ηνπ Α´

δηεζλνύο Γηεπηζηεκνληθνύ Σπλεδξίνπ: H πεξηθέξεηα ηνπ Mπθελαϊθνύ

Kόζκνπ. Λακία, Σεπηέκβξηνο 1994, edited by Φ. Γακοπώνια et. al., 303-14.

Ιαμία: Έκδοζη ΗΓ΄ΔΠΘΑ.

____. 1999b. “Cultural, Social and Political Organisation in the Cyclades during the

Late Helladic IIIC Period, In ”Eliten in der Bronzezeit. Ergebnisse zweier

Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum,

Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Mainz 1997, edited by I.

Kilian-Dirlmeier, and M. Egg, 79-86. Mainz: Verlag der Römisch-

Germanischen Zentralmuseums in Kommission bei Dr. Rudolf Habelt

GmbH.

____. 1999c. “O κπαηήπαρ ηηρ Γπόηηαρ: ζςμβολή ζηη μελέηη ηηρ Yζηεποελλαδικήρ IIIΓ

εικονιζηικήρ κεπαμεικήρ ηηρ Λάξος.” In Φωο Kπθιαδηθόλ. Tηκεηηθόο Tόκνο γηα

ηνλ Nηθόιαν Zαθεηξόπνπιν, edited by N. ηαμπολίδηρ, 74-95. Aθήνα: Ίδπςμα

N.Π. Γοςλανδπή - Mοςζείο Kςκλαδικήρ Tέσνηρ.

____. 2003a. “Ο Τζηεποελλαδικόρ ΗΗΗΓ οικιζμόρ ηηρ Γπόηηαρ Λάξος. ηο Θένηπο ή ηην

Πεπιθέπεια ηος Κςκηναϊκού Αιγαίος;” In H πεξηθέξεηα ηνπ Mπθελαϊθνύ

Kόζκνπ. Πξαθηηθά ηνπ B´ Γηεζλνύο Γηεπηζηεκνληθνύ Σπλεδξίνπ, Λακία,

Σεπηέκβξηνο 1999 , edited by Λ. Θςπαπίζζη-Αποζηολίκα, and Κ.

Παπακωνζηανηίνος, 493-522. Ιαμία: : Έκδοζη ΗΓ΄ΔΠΘΑ.

____. 2003b. “The Late Helladic IIIC „Grotta Phase‟ of Naxos. Its Synchronisms in the

Aegean and its Non-Synchronisms in the Cyclades.” In Τhe Beginnings of the

Dark Ages of Greece: LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms, Proceedings of

the International Workshop. Wien 2001, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy, and M.

Zavadil, 217-28. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften.

____. 2006. H Yζηεξνειιαδηθή IIIΓ πεξίνδνο ζηε Nάμν: Tα ηαθηθά ζύλνια θαη νη

ζπζρεηηζκνί ηνπο κε ην Aηγαίν. Tόμορ Α. ειπά Γημοζιεςμάηων πεπιοδικού

Aξραηνγλωζία απ. 4. Αθήνα: Πανεπιζηήμιο Αθηνών, Φιλοζοθική σολή.

____. 2007. “Monolithos. A Mycenaean Installation on Thera.” Als 5:105-11.

____. 2008. “A Late Mycenaean Journey from Thera to Naxos: Cyclades in the 12th

century B.C.” In Οξίδωλ. Symbolism, Interactions, Centrality. Recent Work on

the Prehistory of the Cyclades. McDonald Institute for Archaeological

Research, University of Cambridge 25-28.3.2004, edited by N. Brodie, J.

Doole, G. Gavalas, C. Renfrew, 479-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

____. Forthcoming. “Bronze Age pottery from Kastro, Paroikia on Paros and its

historical implication.” In Ππακηικά ηος 4ος Θςκλαδολογικού ςνεδπίος, Σήνορ

2012 Athens: Δηαιπεία Θςκλαδολογικών Κελεηών.

____. Forthcoming b. H Yζηεξνειιαδηθή IIIΓ πεξίνδνο ζηε Nάμν: Tα ηαθηθά ζύλνια

θαη νη ζπζρεηηζκνί ηνπο κε ην Aηγαίν. Σόμορ Β, ειπά Γημοζιεςμάηων

πεπιοδικού Aξραηνγλωζία απ. 7. Αθήνα: Πανεπιζηήμιο Αθηνών, Φιλοζοθική

σολή.

Zervaki, F. 2011. “Λεκποηαθείο ηηρ ΤΔ ΗΗΗ Γ–Τπομςκηναϊκήρ πεπιόδος ζηην Αγία Αγάθη

ηηρ Ρόδος.” The Dark Ages Revisited, International Conference in Memory of

W. D. E. Coulson, University of Thessaly, Volos, 14-17 June 2007, edited by A.

Mazarakis-Ainian, 769-84. Volos: University of Thessaly Press.

Figure 1. LH IIIC sites in the Aegean discussed in the text