Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Euboica

 | 
Bruno D'Agostino
, 
Michel Bats

Excavation at Ancient Mende

Sophia Moschonissioti

Texte intégral

  • 2 Thucydides, IV, 123, 1.
  • 3 Hammond 1995, p. 315, note 36.
  • 4 Rhomiopoulou 1978, p. 63.

1Ancient Mende was specifically recorded by Thucydides as an Eretrian colony, which was founded in the Pallene, the western-most prong of the Chalcidike peninsula2. However, apart from Strabo’s clear statement that both Eretria and Chalcis were exceptionally enlarged when they sent out colonies to “Macedonia”»3 there is not sufficient literary evidence for the dating of the Eretrian and the Chalcidian colonial settlements in the area of the Chalcidike4.

  • 5 Ibidem, p. 62.
  • 6 Snodgrass 1994, p. 87.

2This confused picture that we have, so far, not only for the colonization of Chalcidike but also «of the early history of all the coastal settlements in Macedonia and Thrace and of movements within the North Aegean from the 12th to the 6th century B. C., is due to the fact that excavations have been very few in number and limited in extent»5. Furthermore, eventhough since 1980, Euboeans were given their own chapter in the early Greek navigation and trading activity and later in the Mediterranean colonization6, only a little discussion had been made, so far, on their northern activity, and that based almost exclusively on later historical and linguistic evidence.

  • 7 D. W. Bradeen, ‘The Chalcidians in Thrace’, in AJPh 73, 1952, pp. 378-380; Tiverios 1989, pp. 57-6 (...)
  • 8 R. M. Cook, ‘Ionia and Greece in the eighth and seventh centuries B. C.’, in JHS 66, 1946, p. 71.
  • 9 Knoepfler 1985, pp. 99-115.

3Several scholars, therefore, suggested that this northern Euboean venture, which occurred first in Chalcidike and somewhat later in Thrace, was contemporary with the colonization of the West. Other scholars, doubting on the two simultaneous and of such great scale operations undertaken by Chalcis and Eretria, dated the Euboean episode a little earlier7 or later8 than the western one. This later view has been supported by more adherents, although Knoepfler9 comparing Olynthian and Euboean calendars and also the Chalcidian and Etrusco-Latin numbering systems, dated the Euboean establishment in Chalcidike either during the Geometric or even earlier during the Protogeometric period.

  • 10 Hammond 1995, pp. 307-311.
  • 11 Herodotus, VII, 185. 2, VIII. 127.
  • 12 Thucydides, I. 57. 5.
  • 13 Stephanus of Byzantium, s. v. ‘Απολλωνία’.
  • 14 Polybius, IX, 28, 2.
  • 15 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.
  • 16 E. Harrison, ‘Chalkidike’, in CQ 6, pp. 93-103 and 165-178.
  • 17 M. Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidie. XJntersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalkidischen Halb (...)

4On the other hand there is some rather confusing literary evidence on this matter10. There is a clear distinction between «the Chalcidian race» (το Χαλϰιδιϰόν γένος) and the inhabitants of the coastal colonies of Chalcis, twice recorded by Herodotus11. There are also problematic ethnic denotations of the Thraceward “Chalcidians” and “Ionians”, made by Thucydides12 and Demosthenes13 respectively, as well as a «confederation of Greeks founded by Athens and Chalcis» in the same area, recorded by Polybius14. Several scholars, relying on this evidence, have been led to the conclusion that the tradition of the northern Euboean colonization was in part based on confusion in names between the Euboean city of Chalcis and «the Chalcidian race»15. According to some this race was a little known indigenous Macedonian tribe16. Others recognized in it an Ionic origin and dated its settlement in Chalcidike during the end of the Mycenaean period, as a part of the migrations to Southern Greece, the Aegean and Asia Minor17.

  • 18 Preliminary reports for the results of the excavation at Mende see in Vokotopoulou 1987, pp. 279-2 (...)
  • 19 A. Cambitoglou - J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘Excavations at Torone, 1986: A Preliminary Report’, in Medit (...)
  • 20 J. Carington-Smith - I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ανασκαφή στον Κούκο Συκιάς’, in AEMTh 2, 1988, pp. 357-370; (...)

5Systematic excavation at Mende, carried out by the 16th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, under the supervision of I. Vokotopoulou, from 1986 through to 199418, together with the Greek-Australian excavations at Torone19 and Koukos20, on the Sithonian prong of the peninsula, yielded highly important documentation and has reawaken interest on the Euboean colonizing activities in the area of Chalcidike.

  • 21 W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece 3, London 1835 (republished in 1967), pp. 156-157.
  • 22 Thucydides, IV, 129.
  • 23 Livius, I, 44, 11 and I, 31, 45.

6The site of ancient Mende was identified by Leake21. His identification was further confirmed by topographical evidence given by Thucydides22 and Livius23, the survival of the attic placename “Poseidonium” mentioned by Thucydides, which have though been replaced by the ionic-type “Poseidi”, on the nearby cape, and also by the archaeological evidence.

7The city, which measures approximately 1200m by 600m, is located on the top of a hill and its slopes extending to the sea.

Fig. 1. Storage pits at Vigla.

  • 24 The limited length of this paper permits me to give only a brief account of the excavation and the (...)

8During systematic excavation in the area of the ancient city four sectors have been investigated24

  1. The acropolis known as “Vigla”, extended on the northeast top of the hill.
  2. The “Proasteion”, mentioned by Thucydides, which occupied the south sea-side area of the city.
  3. The seaside cemetery, which was revealed on the beach of the hotel Mende, in the southeastern part of the site, and
  4. The sanctuary, located at the flat-sand cape of Poseidi, 4km west of Mende.
  • 25 Vokotopoulou 1987, pp. 280-281 and p. 288, fig. 1.

9On the area of Vigla25, where only a few architectural remains were found, probably due to intense cultivation and erosion, numerous storage pits of various shapes have been brought to light (fig. 1). Some were lined with clay, while others had a conical bottom to fit to the bases of the pithoi.

10These storing constructions, which were turned into deposit pits during the mid-7th century B. C., produced, among others, a great number of mud-bricks, loom-weights, animal bones, as well as pottery ranging from 12th to 7th century B. C.

  • 26 M. Popham - El. Milburn, ‘The Late Helladic IIIC pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi). A Summary’, in B (...)

11The majority of the late-mycenaean, sub-mycenaean and protogeometric pottery that come to light at Vigla recalls contemporary examples from the area of Lefkandi26, while a number of Eretrian-type vases was also found among geometric pottery, together with Ionian and local products.

Fig. 2. The outer wall of house Θ at Proasteion

Fig. 3. One of the circular pavings at the lower level of house H.

  • 27 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 282; Vokotopoulou 1988, pp. 331-334; Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 409-414; Vokotop (...)

12The second sector is located at the northeast seaside area of “Proasteion”27.

13Excavation there yielded successive building phases dated from the 9th to the 4th century B. C., in an uninterrupted stratigraphical sequence measuring 5,50m in height.

  • 28 Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 405, fig. 1.

14The earliest phase, which dates from the middle of the 9th to the second quarter of the 8th century B. C., produced totally six superimposed floors, made of hard earth mixed with gravel28. However, due to the small available excavation area (one square meter approximately) none has been related to. architectural remains.

  • 29 Vokotopoulou 1988, p. 339, fig. 3b; V. R. d’A. Desborough - R. V. Nicholls - M. R. Popham, ‘An Eub (...)

15The oldest structural remains found in the trench were three sea-pebble walls connected with house Θ, dated to the middle of the 8th century B. C. (fig. 2). The floor was made of hard earth mixed with clay and gravel, where the leg of a zoomorphic vase or figurine, recalling the centaur of Lefkandi was found29.

Fig. 4. Proasteion. Two stone pavings at the lower level of house H..

Fig. 5. Protogeometric pottery from Proasteion.

  • 30 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 405, fig. 12.
  • 31 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 406, fig. 4.

16In the interior of house H, dated to the late 8th or the early 7th century B. C., a circular stone paved area, 1,80m in diameter, along its western wall was excavated30, while two similar constructions stood on the floor, on a level about 30cm deeper than the later find31. One of them was located almost below the superimposed structure, and it was found resting on the northern wall and on two big sea-stones related, though, to the older house (figg. 3-4).

  • 32 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 421, figs. 10-11.
  • 33 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 420-421, figs. 8-9.

17Houses Η and ΣΤ, dated to the middle of the 7th century B. C., were destroyed by fire during the end of the century, while they were still in use32. A more recent fire further destroyed houses E and Δ dated to the late 7th or the early 6th century B. C. Store rooms and clay fireplaces have been found in their interior33.

  • 34 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 420, fig. 7.
  • 35 Vokotopoulou 1988, pp. 340-341, figs. 4-7; Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 419, figs. 1-3.

18House Β34 was dated to the second quarter of the 6th century, while a wide avenue was constructed there during the end of the 5th century. The late surface of the avenue, dated to the 4th century B. C., and also the house A, consisting of at least four rooms, belong to the last phase of the settlement35.

  • 36 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 400, figs. 2 and 4; M. R. Popham - L. H. Sackett - P. G. Themelis, ‘Lefkand (...)
  • 37 R. Hägg, ‘Funerary Meals in the Geometric Necropolis at Asine’, in The Greek Renaissance of the Ei (...)

19The function of Mende’s pavings, which have been compared with similar structures located against the outer walls of houses at Lefkandi36, remains puzzling, since a very small area of house Η has been excavated and nothing inside or around these pavings suggested any possible use. They were constructed of one layer of, more or less, large stones, with a rubble and earth fill inside, having though a rather rough and sloping surface. Due to their position and context they have been connected mainly with some domestic activities. The type of construction and their location, however, does not support an interpretation as presses or drying-beds for grapes and figs, or even as tables or benches, while, the absence of slots and of a clay or wooden covering, also excludes their use as foundation for granaries, as proposed for the Lefkandi parallels. Moreover, neither the absence of nearby burnt soil and ashes indicates them as ovens, not their location can connect them to any ritual or funerary practices, as proposed for several contemporary examples37.

Fig. 6. Protogeometric pottery from Proasteion.

Fig. 7. Geometric pottery from Proasteion

20Dealing now with pottery belonging to the various phases of the settlement in “Proasteion” we could summarize the following:

  • 38 W. A Heurtley - T. C. Skeat, ‘The Tholos Tombs of Marmariane’ in BSA 31, 1930-31, p. 28, fig. 12; (...)

21The Sub-Protogeometric phase at “Proasteion” (figs. 5-6) is marked for its similarities partly with the material from the Early Iron Age cemetery at Torone, and partly with the material found in the Toumba building at Lefkandi. There was a number of local large vases decorated with concentric circles, undecorated and pendent semicircle Eretrian skyphoi, as well as skyphoi and kantharoi of fine Thessalian clay, decorated with cross or double hatched triangles38.

  • 39 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 407, fig. 9.

22Geometric pottery found at “Proasteion” (fig. 7) followed mostly the earlier tradition, since in the area of Chalcidike no geometric ware of “attic-type” ever developed. The earliest pottery of this phase was also represented by yellow-slipped Eretrian skyphoi, decorated with concentric circles on the rim and kantharoi with pendent double-hatched triangles39.

  • 40 R. Eilmann, ‘Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’, in AM 58, 1933, Beil. XX; W. Technau (...)
  • 41 Tiverios 1989, pp. 32-37.

23Mid-7th century yielded a great quantity of skyphoi similar to those found below the second Ekatompedon in Samos40, local and Ionian pottery and also shreds of the Islands linear ware41, while the phase of the second quarter of the 6th century produced a great quantity of local “Chalcidian” as well as imported Attic, Ionic and Corinthian pottery.

  • 42 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 414-415; Vokotopoulou 1994a, pp. 92-97, figs. 16-20; Vokotopoulou -Moschone (...)

24Excavation at the seaside cemetery of the city revealed almost exclusively burials of babies, infants, and small children42. During excavation 241 burials were found, dated from the late 8th or early7th to the late 6th century B. C. Among them burials in pots predominated (fig. 8), while cremation burials were not found.

Fig. 8. Burials in pots at the seaside cemetery.

Fig. 9. Pithamphora with floral motives from the cemetery.

  • 43 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 423, fig. 14.
  • 44 Zapheiropoulos 1983, pp. 165-166.

25A 30% of the burial pots, mainly amphorae, pithoi, pithamphorae, hydriae and kraters, had incised or painted decoration. Six of the pithamphorae have a tall conical foot and simple incised geometric decoration43. This shape and decoration is also met in contemporary Eretrian, Attic and Cycladic44 equivalents.

  • 45 Vokotopoulou 1994a, p. 96, fig. 19.
  • 46 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 423, fig. 15; Vokotopoulou - Moschonesioti 1990, p. 419, figs. 7-8.
  • 47 I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ανασϰαφή στο Πολύχρονο Χαλϰιδιϰής’, in AEMTh 2, 1989, pp. 317-323; Vokotopoulou (...)
  • 48 D. M. Robinson, ‘Vases found in 1934 and 1938’ in Excavationvations at Olynthus XIII, Baltimore 19 (...)
  • 49 E. Yiouri 1972, p. 6-14, pls. 3-6; Vokotopoulou 1990a, pp. 85-86.
  • 50 J. Boehlau-Κ Schefold, Larissa am Hermos. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1902-1936, vol. III, Ber (...)
  • 51 H. Walter, ‘Frûhe Samische Gefässe’ in Samos V, Bonn 1968.
  • 52 A. Lembesi, ‘Γραμμιϰός νησιώτιϰος αμφορεύς εϰ Θήρας’, in ArchDelt 22, 1967, A’, pp. 112-132; Zaphe (...)
  • 53 K. Kourouniotis, ‘Αγγεία Ερέτρίας’, in ArchEph 1903, pp. 1-38, fig. 10; J. Boardman,’Pottery from (...)

26Some pithoi decorated with geometric motives follow local tradition45. The rest of the decorated vases have painted geometric and floral motives (fig. 9) representing the earliest as yet example of “Chalcidian” ware46, also known from later finds in Chalcidike (Polychrono47, Akanthos, Olynthus48 and Pyrgadikia49). Although geometric motives also follow the local tradition, the shape of the vases and the arrangement of floral decoration recalls influences from the Eastern-Ionian area (mainly Aeolis50 and Samos51 as well as from the Islands linear ware52 and the Eretrian pottery53.

  • 54 Vokotopoulou-Moschonesioti 1990, pp. 421-423, figs. 10-17.

27Among the few burial offerings there were middle and late protocorinthian aryballoi, cups (kylikes) and feeding bottles with linear decoration known from earlier Eretrian vases, as well as cups with plain slip or waved bands, recalling Eastern-Ionian influence54.

  • 55 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 416-417; Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 401-403; Vokotopoulou 1991, pp. 303-310; V (...)
  • 56 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44, note 9 and p. 308.

28Excavation on the flat-sand cape Poseidi, 4km west of Mende, brought to light the boundaries of the sanctuary of Mende55, which may have been the “extraurban” sanctuary of the city56 (figg. 10-11).

Fig. 10. The excavated area from the sanctuary at Poseidi.

Fig. 11. The excavated area of the sanctuary at Proasteion.

Fig. 12. Building A from the south.

Fig. 13. Buildings Β and Δ.

29Among the buildings excavated there, building A (fig. 12), which dates to the beginning of the 5th century B. C., has the plan of a temple with a porch and a cella, measuring 23,20m long and 8, 35m wide. The walls were constructed of two series of facing stones, filled with smaller ones, while the diminution in width of the south narrow side indicates probably the existence of a colonnade.

  • 57 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 410, fig. 16.

30A deposit pit, dated to the late 6th century, was located below the foundation. It yielded several sherds mostly from Attic and Ionic cups (kylikes)57, with incised votive inscriptions on the rim, which helped identification of the archaic sanctuary of Poseidon. The habit of inscribed votive offerings in this sanctuary, however, was abandoned from the5th century B. C. onwards.

  • 58 Vokotopoulou 1991, p. 316, figs. 10-12.

31Building B58, dated to the late 6th century B. C. (fig. 13), is rectangular-shaped, 20m long and 16m wide. The foundation was constructed of big stones laterally placed, and has no inner face. It was covered by a dense layer of hellenistic tiles, the presence of which can not be explained in relation to the building.

32Since the foundation of building A incorporated the east side of this building but without destroying it, we can assume that the two buildings were used simultaneously for some time. The rectangular small building Δ was added to its northeast side during the second half of 4th century B. C.

Fig. 14. The foundation of the earliest phase of building Γ.

Fig. 15. Ash-altar and deposit pits at the interior of building ΣΤ.

  • 59 Vokotopoulou 1991, p. 313, figs. 1-6.

33Building Γ59 is an oval construction, parallel to building A, 25,20m long and 7m wide, which yielded a first phase dating to the second quarter of the 6th century and a second phase dating to the late 3rd century B. C.

34The Archaic phase produced a lateral wall to the south, and a floor made of hard yellowish clay. This building seems to have been destroyed during the 5th century B. C. During the Hellenistic phase a plastered floor was added, which covered the lateral south wall of the earlier building and constituted a low platform, 0,60m wide and 0,10m high, along its narrow sides.

35The foundation of the south-curved end proved to belong to an even earlier apsidal building, with its apse at the south, constructed during the late 7th or early 6th century B. C. (fig. 14).

  • 60 Vokotopoulou 1992, pp. 443-446, figs. 1-7; Vokotopoulou 1993, pp. 401-406, figs. 1-12.

36Building ΣΤ60 is a long rectangular structure, 14,27m long and 5,42m wide (fig. 15), found in contact with the apse at the south extremity of building Γ.

37It has its entrance from the open south side and an apse at the north, while no evidence for internal division was traced. The walls, with sea-pebble foundation, consist of series of more or less carefully aligned sets of facing stones and pebbles, with a filling of small stones in between them and ending to a standing slab. Above the stone socle the walls were probably built of mudbricks.

38The floor was made of hard earth mixed with clay, where 5 post-holes have been as yet found, along the inner and the outer faces of the exterior walls. Two round pieces of yellow plaster, located to the north-south axis of the building and towards the center, were probably also used to support the wooden beams which held the superstructure. Two circular sockets, found inside the two long walls and towards the entrance, were also created there for the same purpose.

39Successive layers of sacrificial remains connected with the cult practice were found in the interior of the building and around the entrance. These remains, amassed, created a raised ash-altar 1,85m high, dated from the Late-Mycenaean to the 5th century B. C.

40The earlier layer consisted of numerous ashes, burnt fat earth, a great quantity of animal bones, sea shells and shreds of drinking vases. It occupied almost the size of the building and was retained by a surrounding wall. The protogeometric layer with analogous composition, spread in its central area and towards the entrance, while a number of deposit pits (bothroi) were investigated at the north part of the building.

41The layers of the beginning of the 8th and of the 7th century B. C. were also retained by surrounding walls at the east, while, during the 5th century B. C. a rectangular structure was built on the stone walls of the apsidal building for the same purpose.

42The fact that the protogeometric building was founded upon the late-mycenaean surrounding wall, without its floor destroying the previous cult layer, proves that the building enclosed this layer (fig. 16). However, we should not accept any function of that building as enclosure, since evidence supports the existence of a superstructure.

43Layers of similar successive sacrificial remains, dated from the Late-Mycenaean to the Hellenistic period, also extended, in the open area south of the building ΣΤ (fig. 17). In this same area the foundation of a late classical altar was investigated; a votive marble inscription dedicated to Poseidon, which confirms continuity of his worship in the sanctuary, was attached to the disturbed facade of this altar.

  • 61 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 404; Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44.

44It is worth noting that eleven constructions made of two attached roof-tiles were also located there dating to the4th century B. C. They were stuck into the sand, forming a pipe and they followed an almost elliptical arrangement. These clay channels, enabling the libations to penetrate deep into the earth illustrate the chthonic nature of the cult and prove that Poseidon was worshipped here not only as a divinity of the seafarers but also as the god of earthquakes61.

45Excavation of the sanctuary at Poseidi indicated that it was in use from the Late-Mycenaean to the Late Hellenistic period, when it was turned into a ceramic workshop, while a lot of deposit pits were made during the Roman period.

Fig. 16. Part of the late-mycenaean and protogeometric sacrificial area inside building ΣΤ.

Fig. 17. The sacrificial area and the classical altar south of building ΣΤ.

  • 62 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 308.

46Building ΣΤ is among the earliest cult buildings in Greece62. Its significant dimensions, the total absence of interval divisions, the open front, the care for the construction, its prominent location and its position inside the later sanctuary, in combination with the presence and context of the ash-altar and the deposit pits, were the criteria for the identification of the cult function of the building.

47Although almost all the periods were represented at the sanctuary, a thick layer of aeolic sand, found below the 8th century stratum, indicates abandonment of the area during the 9th century, also confirmed by evidence from the interior of the protogeometric building. The fact that in its interior no layer of aeolic sand was revealed, leads to the conclusion that the apsidal building was still standing during this period. The character of this abandonment is not yet clear, but this evidence cannot be connected, as yet, with the data from the settlement at Proasteion.

48Dealing now with pottery belonging in the various phases of the sanctuary in Poseidi we could note that:

  • 63 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 410, figs. 5-6.

49In the deeper late-mycenaean layer, hand-made vases predominated, while their production seems to end only during the 7th century. These were mainly middle-sized open vases, already known from the Toumba building at Lefkandi and also found in Torone and Toumba in Thessaloniki, as well as a quantity of drinking vessels similar to those found in Kalapodi, Kastanas near Axios and also in Lefkandi63.

  • 64 R. C. S. Felsch, ‘Kalapodi: Bericht über die Grabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos und de (...)
  • 65 A brief history of the controversy on the definition of the term Sub-Mycenaean is provided by W. C (...)

50It is significant that, this layer also yielded sufficient quantity of mycenaean-type skyphoi, together though, with hand-made vases (mainly amphorae) decorated with the typical PG motif of compass-made concentric circles. This evidence, in combination with analogous finds from other excavations, mainly the Thessalian Kalapodi64, Kastanas and also Toumba in Thessaloniki, lead us to reconsider not only the dating terms of both pottery styles and the case of the “Sub-Mycenaean” phase, in general65 but also the terminus post quern of the settlement at Mende.

51In the protogeometric layers (figs. 18-19) there was also a quantity of hand-made and wheel-made skyphoi and small craters, amphorae decorated with concentric circles, skyphoi slipped only in the inner surface and also small-shaped vases, very similar to those from Lefkandi.

  • 66 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 409, figs. 2-3.

52Geometric pottery found at Poseidi follows the earlier tradition66. The most frequent pottery in the late 7th century layers is of the “Chalcidian ware”, while during the6th century imported “Attic”, “Ionian” and “Corinthian” predominated.

  • 67 See paper of K. Soueref, ‘Eubei lungo la costa della Grecia settentrionale. Nuovi elementi’, in th (...)
  • 68 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 281; Vokotopoulou 1994b; Vokotopoulou 1994a, pp. 91-92; Ch. Koukouli-Chryssa (...)

53The unexpectedly early and intense Euboean presence in the area of Mende proved by pottery and architectural evidence, in combination with Euboean pottery found in the Early Iron Age Torone and Koukos and in several sites of central Macedonia (Asseros, Toumba in Thessaloniki67, etc.) and also cult practices similar to those from Lefkandi, revealed from Koukos cemetery, led the excavator I. Vokotopoulou to the conclusion that this strong Euboean influence could be an adequate evidence for an earlier dating of the colonization of the area, and probably connected with Lefkandi68.

  • 69 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.

54Several scholars, based on this evidence, also support the pre-colonization northern Euboean activity. Among them A. M. Snodgrass69, who, dealing especially with the case of Mende, suggests that «there must have been a substantial chronological overlap between Ionic migration and Northern Euboean colonization».

Fig. 18. Protogeometric pottery from Poseidi.

Fig. 19. Protogeometric pottery from Poseidi.

  • 70 M. R. Popham, ‘Precolonization: early Greek contact with the East’, in The Archaeology of Greek Co (...)

55M. R. Popham70 also supports this early Euboean activity in the Northern Aegean, based not only on eretrian imports found in Chalcidike, but also on Macedonian imports from Lefkandi, as well as on the distribution of the Eretrian pendent semicircle skyphoi in Vergina, Dion, Thessaloniki, and eastwards in Thasos and Troy.

  • 71 Hammond 1995, p. 315.

56On the other hand N. Hammond, putting together literary and archaeological evidence, is convinced that the results of these recent excavations accords with the literary tradition of the Aeolian and Ionian migrations. According to his opinion, Aeolian migration, which started at c. 1120 and their first stage of movement was to Thrace, must have included the Chalcidian coastal area; the first colonial settlements in Chalcidike, however, were founded at Mende and Torone. «In particular, the historicity of Plutarch’s account of the Eretrians who settled at Methone c. 730 is vindicated by the excavation of the cemetery at Mende, a colony of Eretria founded before 700»71.

  • 72 Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 151-181.

57Furthermore, J. Papadopoulos72, one of the excavators of Torone, proving that the majority of the so-called Euboean imports are local imitations and further doubting the Euboean origin of the architectural practices in Mende and the burial practices at Torone and Koukos, diminishes the Eretrian presence in the area comparing it with contemporary Attic, Cycladic, Ionian and other influences. Although he accepts the later, documented, Eretrian colonization of Mende and Dikaia, he considers that in the case of Torone there must have been a southern, Ionian, involvement, occurred during the period of transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Ages, or even earlier.

58After this brief presentation of the archaeological evidence from the excavation at Mende and of the debate on the Euboean Northern colonization among scholars, I will try to proceed to the analysis and reconsideration of the evidence related to the Euboean pre-colonization presence in Mende:

a) Imported Euboean pottery

  • 73 Ibidem, p. 162.
  • 74 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 281, note 6.

59It is a fact that among the great quantity of the so-called Euboean pottery at Mende, dated from Late/Sub-Mycenaean to Geometric Period, only a small amount could be suggested as imported. Recent chemical analysis of 36 shreds of hand-made and wheel-made vases, was carried out in the laboratories of the Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Although 15 of the samples had been considered as Euboean imports the analysis proved that only 2 could be connected in clay composition with pottery from Lefkandi73. However, we should not ignore the fact that, the majority of this pottery recalls so much successfully the Euboean examples, not only in shape and decoration, but also in clay and technique74, so that only the clay analysis could identify its origin. Although we agree that an Euboean pot found in Mende is not necessarily carried there by an Euboean, we assume however that such an imitation does imply relations developed between these two sites.

  • 75 Vokotopoulou 1990a, p. 86.

60Moreover, although the substantial body of the material recovered from the excavation is not fully conserved and studied, we could point out this influence of Euboean pottery, more or less strong, is observed at Mende ever since the Late/Sub-Mycenaean period. This influence continued without any significant change up to the end of the Geometric period, while it seemed to decline, from the beginning of the 7th century onwards. Influence of the Cyclades and Corinth, as well as Attica, Ionia and Aeolis, also observed in several Mediterranean sites, in the same period, could be the cause for Eretrian retreat75.

61Furthermore, this early presence, of Euboean-type pottery is not only observed in Mende, but also in various sites of Chalcidike and Central Macedonia. However, in order to understand the exact meaning of this distribution, we should first study the patterns of production and the circulation of this group of pottery, while comparing it with various mycenaean-type and local handmade products coming from the same areas.

b) Characteristics of the settlement

  • 76 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.

62As A. M. Snodgrass, confirmed, referring to the results of the excavation at Mende, Torone and Koukos, «we are not dealing with just a mere dispersion of pottery, as in the case of the Levant, but for durable settlements, planted on a continental coast, with many intrusive features along side»76. The excavation at Mende further confirmed that there was a significant continuation in the use of the settlement. The earlier phase of the habitation, with evidence of rather wide storing procedures, was identified in the area of Vigla, ranging from the Late/Sub- Mycenaean period to the7th century B. C., while successive phases of the occupation have also been revealed in the area of Proasteion, from the9th to the4th century B. C.

63This evidence alone allows us to reconsider the tradition of the later Eretrian colonization of the city, since an uninterrupted continuation in the use of a settlement implies uniformity of population rather than a sudden change of it, caused by the arrival of new settlers.

c) Architectural features

  • 77 Papadopoulos 1996, p. 164.

64Apsidal buildings are already known in the Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia and are also met throughout the Early Iron Age Aegean and beyond77. However, although according to A. Mazarakis-Ainian, the use of the apsidal and oval plans in post geometric cult have largely been abandoned, building Γ at Poseidi, constructed during the late 7th or early 6th century B. C. in contact with building ΣΤ, had an apsidal plan which, even later, was transferred to an oval plan.

  • 78 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44.
  • 79 Mazarakis-Ainian 1989, pp. 269-288.

65This fact reflects the continuity of an architectural-cultural tradition rooted there during the Proto-geometric period78 and can be used as evidence that the way of living of the population at Mende remained unchanged ever since. Moreover, according to the same scholar «a polis used to return to its primitive architectural forms each time it wished to emphasize its ties with the past»79.

d) Religious practices

66The most significant evidence for the uniformity of population at Mende, however, is the continuous use of the sanctuary at Poseidi. An altar-bothros in the open, which was apparently in use from the Late/ Sub-Mycenaean period, was surrounded by the apsidal building ΣΤ during the10th century B. C.

67Religious ceremonies, including sacrifices and banquets, continued in exactly the same area inside the building until the 5th century B. C., while sacrifices were held in the open in front of it, from that early period till the end of the use of the sanctuary.

68Although the sanctuary was abandoned, for unknown reasons, from the beginning of the 9th century to the beginning of the 8th century B. C., the ritual practices, however, continued in exactly the same area eversince.

  • 80 S. Andreou-M. Fotiadis - K. Kotsakis, ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age (...)

69It is also worth pointing out that the building ΣΤ «is the only specialized site with indications of ritual known, so far, from the Late-Mycenaean Northern Greece»80. This evidence, although too early to be estimated, implies a significant differentiation from contemporary Macedonian settlements, which could be explained by the difference in origin of the population of Mende.

70Taking into consideration all the above stated evidence coming from the excavation at Mende, we may conclude that:

71The results of the excavation at Mende have proved that a permanent settlement had been located there ever since the Late/Sub-Mycenaean period. The continuous occupation of the same area, the uninterrupted use of the sanctuary and also the unchanged architectural and ritual practices and ideology characterize this settlement.

72This evidence in combination with the literary sources recording Mende as an Eretrian colony, the early and intense Euboean presence, proved by the imported Euboean pottery and its satisfactory imitations, as well as by some rather common architectural practices, can be used as arguments suggesting that this early settlement at Mende had been founded by Euboea.

73Consequently, in case we accept that all this evidence does not successfully support an earlier Euboean settlement at Mende, we will also have to reconsider the reference made by Thucydides for the later Eretrian colonization of the city.

74It is presumable, though, that Euboeans have been settled at Mende from this early period and somewhat later, probable during the 8th century B. C., Mende obtained the characteristics of a colony and therefore it is thus reported by Thucydides.

75From the evidence at present available, however, not only from the excavation at Mende but also from the excavations at Eretria and Lefkandi, we can not exactly specify either the origin of these early Euboean settlers, nor the date of that change in the nature and also the development of the settlement.

  • 81 J. D. Muhly, ‘The Crisis Years in the Mediterranean World: Transition or Cultural Disintegration?’ (...)

76As the recent interpretations of the “Dark Ages” in the Aegean and the Mediterranean area, seem to prove, the Late-Mycenaean period was a world of enterprising merchants and traders, exploiting new economic opportunities, new markets and new sources of raw materials81.

  • 82 Hammond 1995, p. 315.

77Moreover, as N. Hammond has suggested, «the discovery that there was sub-mycenaean, protogeometric and geometric pottery in Chalcidike like that of southern Greece, and sometimes having connections with Lefkandi, makes it certain that Chalcidike and Southern Greece were in contact with one another»82.

  • 83 Snodgrass 1994, p. 92.
  • 84 I would like to greatly thank Stelios Andreou for giving me this information and for all his valua (...)

78Whatever kind of explanatory model we adopt in order to define this early Euboean presence in the area of Northern Aegean, centuries before their Western expeditions, we should not ignore the contrast in the length and hazard of the necessary sea-voyage83. The location of the city of Mende specifically, not only close to the Euboean coasts but also on a prominent spot by the Thermaic Gulf, which is also a significally important area for any northern and eastern navigation84, could be the reason for this early Euboean establishment.

79Although, we cannot consider the problem of the Euboean presence and colonizing activity in Chalcidike solved, at least some new aspects have been added. We are expecting that the continuation of the excavation at Mende, will yield even more specific information contributing, thus, to the understanding not only of this early Euboean presence in Chalcidike, but also of relations developed in the Northern Aegean during the Dark Ages.

Annexes

Additional abbreviations

AEMTh = To Αρχαιολογιϰό Ἑργο στη Μαϰεδονία ϰαι Θράϰη. (Thessaloniki).

Egnatia = Εγνατία. Επιστημονιϰή Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφιϰής Σχολής. Τεύχος Τμήματος Ιστορίας ϰαι Αρχαιολογίας. (Thessaloniki).

Hammond 1995 = N. G. L. Hammond, ‘The Chalcidians and Apollonia of the Thraceward Ionians’, in BSA 90, 1995, pp. 307-315.

Knoepfler 1985 D. Knoepfler, ‘The Calendar of Olynthus and the Origin of the Chalcidians in Thrace’, in Greek Colonists and Native Populations. ‘Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology held in Honor of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall’, Sydney 9-14 July 1985, Oxford 1990, pp. 99-115.

Mazarakis-Ainian 1989 = A. Mazarakis-Ainian, ‘Late Bronze Age Apsidal and Oval buildings in Greece and Adjacent Areas’, in BSA 84, 1989, pp. 269-288.

Mazarakis-Ainian 1997 = A. Mazarakis-Ainian, ‘From Ruler’s Duellings to temples: Architecture, Religion and Society in Early Iron Age Greece (1000-700 B. C)’, SIMA CXX, Jonsered 1997.

Papadopoulos 1996 J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘Euboians in Macedonia? A closer Look’, in OJA 15, no. 2, 1996, pp. 151-181.

Rhomiopoulou 1978 = K. Rhomiopoulou, ‘Pottery Evidence from the North Aegean (8th-6th cent. B. C.)’ in Les Céramiques de la Grèce de l’Est et leur diffusion en Occident, ‘Colloques Internationaux du C. N. R. S., Centre Jean Bérard, 6-9 Juillet 1976’, Paris 1978, pp. 62-65.

Snodgrass 1994 = A. M. Snodgrass, ‘The Euboeans in Macedonia: a new precedent for Westward expansion’, in B. d’Agostino - D. Ridgway (a cura di), APOIKIA. I più antichi insediamenti greci in occidente: funzionie modi dell’organizzazione politicae sociale. Scrìtti in onore di G. Buchner, AION Arch-StAnt 1 (N. S.), 1994, pp. 87-93.

Tiverios 1989 = M. Tiverios, Ὁστρακα από τη Σάνη της Πάλληνης Παρατηρήσεις στο εμπόριο των ελληνικών αγγείων ϰαι στον αποιϰισμό της Χαλϰιδιϰής’, in Egnatia 1, 1989, pp. 30-64.

Vokotopoulou 1987 = Ι. Vokotopoulou, Ἁνασϰαφιϰές έρευνες στην Χαλϰιδιϰή’, in AEMTh 1, 1987, pp. 279-293.

Vokotopoulou 1988 = Ι. Vokotopoulou, Ἁνασϰαφή Μένδης’, in AEMTh 2, 1988, pp. 331-345.

Vokotopoulou 1989 = I. Vokotopoulou, Ἁνασϰαφή Μένδης 1989’, in AEMTh 3, 1989, pp. 409-423.

Vokotopoulou 1990a = I. Vokotopoulou,‘Polychrono: A new Archaeological site in Chalkidike’, in ΕΥΜΟΥΣIA, Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Camhitoglou (M. A Suppl. 1), Sydney 1990, pp. 79-86.

Vokotopoulou 1990b = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Μένδη-Ποσείδι 1990’, in AEMTh 4, 1990, pp. 399-410.

Vokotopoulou 1991 = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ποσείδι 1991’, in AEMTh 5, 1991, pp. 303-318.

Vokotopoulou 1992 = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ποσείδι 1992’, in AEMTh 6, 1992, pp. 443-450.

Vokotopoulou 1993 = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ποσείδι 1993’, in AEMTh 7, 1993, pp. 401-412.

Vokotopoulou 1994a = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Anciennes Nécropoles de la Chalcidique’ in Nécropoles et Sociétés Antiques (Grèce, Italie, Languedoc), ‘Actes du Colloque International du Centre des Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Lille III, 2-3 Décembre 1991’, Naples 1994, pp. 79-98.

Vokotopoulou 1994b = I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ποσείδι 1994’, in AEMTh 8, in press.

Vokotopoulou- = I. Vokotopoulou - S. Moschonesioti, Moschonesioti ‘Το παράλιο νεϰροταφείο της Μένδης’, in AEMTh 4, 1990, pp. 411-423.

Yiouri 1972 = E. Yiouri, Ἡ Κεραμειϰή της Χαλϰιδιϰής στον 4 αι. π. Χ’, in ΚΕΡΝΟΣ - Τιμητιϰή Προσφορά στον Καθηγητή Δ. Μπακαλάϰη, Thessaloniki 1972.

Zapheiropoulos 1983 = Ν. Zapheiropoulos,’ “Ευβοϊϰοί” Αμφορείς από τη θήρα’, in ASAtene 61, 1983.

Notes

2 Thucydides, IV, 123, 1.

3 Hammond 1995, p. 315, note 36.

4 Rhomiopoulou 1978, p. 63.

5 Ibidem, p. 62.

6 Snodgrass 1994, p. 87.

7 D. W. Bradeen, ‘The Chalcidians in Thrace’, in AJPh 73, 1952, pp. 378-380; Tiverios 1989, pp. 57-63.

8 R. M. Cook, ‘Ionia and Greece in the eighth and seventh centuries B. C.’, in JHS 66, 1946, p. 71.

9 Knoepfler 1985, pp. 99-115.

10 Hammond 1995, pp. 307-311.

11 Herodotus, VII, 185. 2, VIII. 127.

12 Thucydides, I. 57. 5.

13 Stephanus of Byzantium, s. v. ‘Απολλωνία’.

14 Polybius, IX, 28, 2.

15 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.

16 E. Harrison, ‘Chalkidike’, in CQ 6, pp. 93-103 and 165-178.

17 M. Zahrnt, Olynth und die Chalkidie. XJntersuchungen zur Staatenbildung auf der Chalkidischen Halbinsel im 5 und 4 Jahr. v. Chr., München 1971, pp. 12-27; S. C. Bakhuizen, ‘Chalcis in Euboea, iron and Chalcidians abroad’, Chalcidian Studies 3, in Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society V, Leiden 1976, pp. 14-15 and 18-19.

18 Preliminary reports for the results of the excavation at Mende see in Vokotopoulou 1987, pp. 279-293; Vokotopoulou 1988, pp. 331-345; Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 409-423; Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 399-410; Vokotopoulou 1991, pp. 303-318; Vokotopoulou 1992, pp. 443-450; Vokotopoulou 1993, pp. 401-412; Vokotopoulou 1994b and Vokotopoulou - Moschonesioti 1990, pp. 411-423.

19 A. Cambitoglou - J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘Excavations at Torone, 1986: A Preliminary Report’, in Mediterranean Archaeology 1, 1988, pp. 180-217; ‘Excavations at Torone 1988’, in Mediter- raraneanearanean Archaeology 3, 1990, pp. 93-142;’Excavations at Torone 1989’, in Mediterranean Archaeology 4, 1991, pp. 147-171; ‘Excavations at Torone 1990’, in Mediterranean Archaeology 7, 1994, pp. 141-163.

20 J. Carington-Smith - I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ανασκαφή στον Κούκο Συκιάς’, in AEMTh 2, 1988, pp. 357-370; 3, 1989, pp. 425-438; 4, 1990, pp. 439-454; 6, 1992, pp. 495-502.

21 W. M. Leake, Travels in Northern Greece 3, London 1835 (republished in 1967), pp. 156-157.

22 Thucydides, IV, 129.

23 Livius, I, 44, 11 and I, 31, 45.

24 The limited length of this paper permits me to give only a brief account of the excavation and the finds from the period in question. Any mention of the pottery found at Vigla, Proasteion and Poseidi has been based exclusively on the studies and reports of the excavator.

25 Vokotopoulou 1987, pp. 280-281 and p. 288, fig. 1.

26 M. Popham - El. Milburn, ‘The Late Helladic IIIC pottery of Xeropolis (Lefkandi). A Summary’, in BSA 66, 1971, pp. 333-349.

27 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 282; Vokotopoulou 1988, pp. 331-334; Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 409-414; Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 399-401.

28 Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 405, fig. 1.

29 Vokotopoulou 1988, p. 339, fig. 3b; V. R. d’A. Desborough - R. V. Nicholls - M. R. Popham, ‘An Euboean Centaur’, in BSA 65, 1970, pp. 21-40.

30 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 405, fig. 12.

31 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 406, fig. 4.

32 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 421, figs. 10-11.

33 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 420-421, figs. 8-9.

34 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 420, fig. 7.

35 Vokotopoulou 1988, pp. 340-341, figs. 4-7; Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 419, figs. 1-3.

36 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 400, figs. 2 and 4; M. R. Popham - L. H. Sackett - P. G. Themelis, ‘Lefkandi I - The Early Iron Age’(BSA Suppl. 11), 1980, pp. 24-25, pLs. 5-8; Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 122. I am truly grateful to A. Mazarakis-Ainian, for giving me the text of this paper prior to its publication.

37 R. Hägg, ‘Funerary Meals in the Geometric Necropolis at Asine’, in The Greek Renaissance of the Eight Century B. C.: Tradition and Innovation. ‘Proceedings of the Second International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, June 1-5, 1981’, Stockholm 1983, pp. 189-194.

38 W. A Heurtley - T. C. Skeat, ‘The Tholos Tombs of Marmariane’ in BSA 31, 1930-31, p. 28, fig. 12; Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 408, fig. 10a.

39 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 407, fig. 9.

40 R. Eilmann, ‘Frühe griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’, in AM 58, 1933, Beil. XX; W. Technau,’Griechische Keramik im samischen Heraion’, in AM 54, 1929, Beil V.

41 Tiverios 1989, pp. 32-37.

42 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 414-415; Vokotopoulou 1994a, pp. 92-97, figs. 16-20; Vokotopoulou -Moschonesioti 1990, pp. 411-414.

43 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 423, fig. 14.

44 Zapheiropoulos 1983, pp. 165-166.

45 Vokotopoulou 1994a, p. 96, fig. 19.

46 Vokotopoulou 1989, p. 423, fig. 15; Vokotopoulou - Moschonesioti 1990, p. 419, figs. 7-8.

47 I. Vokotopoulou, ‘Ανασϰαφή στο Πολύχρονο Χαλϰιδιϰής’, in AEMTh 2, 1989, pp. 317-323; Vokotopoulou 1990a, pp. 79-86; Vokotopoulou 1994a, pp. 89-91, figg. 11-15. 1989, pp. 317-323; Vokotopoulou 1990a, pp. 79-86; 1994a, pp. 89-91, figs. 11-15.

48 D. M. Robinson, ‘Vases found in 1934 and 1938’ in Excavationvations at Olynthus XIII, Baltimore 1950, pp. 45-52, pls. 1-10; G. Mylonas, ‘Prepersian pottery from Olynthus’, in D. M. Robinson (a cura di), Excavations at Olynthus V, Baltimore 1933, pp. 15-63, pls. 19-44.

49 E. Yiouri 1972, p. 6-14, pls. 3-6; Vokotopoulou 1990a, pp. 85-86.

50 J. Boehlau-Κ Schefold, Larissa am Hermos. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1902-1936, vol. III, Berlin 1942, pls. 13-38; E. Walter-Karydi, ‘Aeolische Kunst 7’, in Studien zur griechischen Vasenmalerei, Beih. 1970, pp. 3-18, pl. 5.

51 H. Walter, ‘Frûhe Samische Gefässe’ in Samos V, Bonn 1968.

52 A. Lembesi, ‘Γραμμιϰός νησιώτιϰος αμφορεύς εϰ Θήρας’, in ArchDelt 22, 1967, A’, pp. 112-132; Zapheiropoulos 1983.

53 K. Kourouniotis, ‘Αγγεία Ερέτρίας’, in ArchEph 1903, pp. 1-38, fig. 10; J. Boardman,’Pottery from Eretria’, in BSA 47, 1952, p. 14, fig. 16.

54 Vokotopoulou-Moschonesioti 1990, pp. 421-423, figs. 10-17.

55 Vokotopoulou 1989, pp. 416-417; Vokotopoulou 1990b, pp. 401-403; Vokotopoulou 1991, pp. 303-310; Vokotopoulou 1992, pp. 443-446; Vokotopoulou 1993, pp. 401-406; Vokotopoulou 1994b.

56 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44, note 9 and p. 308.

57 Vokotopoulou 1990b, p. 410, fig. 16.

58 Vokotopoulou 1991, p. 316, figs. 10-12.

59 Vokotopoulou 1991, p. 313, figs. 1-6.

60 Vokotopoulou 1992, pp. 443-446, figs. 1-7; Vokotopoulou 1993, pp. 401-406, figs. 1-12.

61 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 404; Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44.

62 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 308.

63 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 410, figs. 5-6.

64 R. C. S. Felsch, ‘Kalapodi: Bericht über die Grabungen im Heiligtum der Artemis Elaphebolos und des Apollon von Hyampolis 1978-1982’, in AA 102, 1987, pp. 1-99, esp. 26-35.

65 A brief history of the controversy on the definition of the term Sub-Mycenaean is provided by W. Coulson, The Greek Dark Ages-A Review of the Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research, Athens 1990, p. 12; P. A. Mountjoy, ‘LH IIIC late Versus Submycenaean: The Kerameikos Pompeion Cemetery Reviewed’, in JdI 103, 1988, pp. 2-5; J. K. Papadopoulos, ‘To Kill a Cemetery: The Athenian Kerameikos and the Early Iron Age in the Aegean’, in JMA 6/2, 1993, pp. 175-181.

66 Vokotopoulou 1993, p. 409, figs. 2-3.

67 See paper of K. Soueref, ‘Eubei lungo la costa della Grecia settentrionale. Nuovi elementi’, in this volume.

68 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 281; Vokotopoulou 1994b; Vokotopoulou 1994a, pp. 91-92; Ch. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki - I. Vokotopoulou, ‘The Early Iron Age’, in Greek Civilization·. Macedonia, Kingdom of Alexander the Great, ‘Catalogue for an exhibition presented in Montreal, 7.5 - 19.9.1993’, Athens 1993, p. 131.

69 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.

70 M. R. Popham, ‘Precolonization: early Greek contact with the East’, in The Archaeology of Greek Colonization. Essays dedicated to Sir John Boardman, Oxford 1994, pp. 103-107.

71 Hammond 1995, p. 315.

72 Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 151-181.

73 Ibidem, p. 162.

74 Vokotopoulou 1987, p. 281, note 6.

75 Vokotopoulou 1990a, p. 86.

76 Snodgrass 1994, p. 91.

77 Papadopoulos 1996, p. 164.

78 Mazarakis-Ainian 1997, p. 44.

79 Mazarakis-Ainian 1989, pp. 269-288.

80 S. Andreou-M. Fotiadis - K. Kotsakis, ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece’, in AJA 100, 1996, p. 583.

81 J. D. Muhly, ‘The Crisis Years in the Mediterranean World: Transition or Cultural Disintegration?’ in The Crisis Years: The 12th B. C. from beyond the Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque 1992, pp. 10-26.

82 Hammond 1995, p. 315.

83 Snodgrass 1994, p. 92.

84 I would like to greatly thank Stelios Andreou for giving me this information and for all his valuable help.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. Storage pits at Vigla.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 301k
Légende Fig. 2. The outer wall of house Θ at Proasteion
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 939k
Légende Fig. 3. One of the circular pavings at the lower level of house H.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,4M
Légende Fig. 4. Proasteion. Two stone pavings at the lower level of house H..
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 538k
Légende Fig. 5. Protogeometric pottery from Proasteion.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,6M
Légende Fig. 6. Protogeometric pottery from Proasteion.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 248k
Légende Fig. 7. Geometric pottery from Proasteion
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 239k
Légende Fig. 8. Burials in pots at the seaside cemetery.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 332k
Légende Fig. 9. Pithamphora with floral motives from the cemetery.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 537k
Légende Fig. 10. The excavated area from the sanctuary at Poseidi.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 2,5M
Légende Fig. 11. The excavated area of the sanctuary at Proasteion.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,5M
Légende Fig. 12. Building A from the south.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,7M
Légende Fig. 13. Buildings Β and Δ.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,8M
Légende Fig. 14. The foundation of the earliest phase of building Γ.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,9M
Légende Fig. 15. Ash-altar and deposit pits at the interior of building ΣΤ.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,5M
Légende Fig. 16. Part of the late-mycenaean and protogeometric sacrificial area inside building ΣΤ.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 4,3M
Légende Fig. 17. The sacrificial area and the classical altar south of building ΣΤ.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 3,8M
Légende Fig. 18. Protogeometric pottery from Poseidi.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 621k
Légende Fig. 19. Protogeometric pottery from Poseidi.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pcjb/docannexe/image/661/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 531k

© Publications du Centre Jean Bérard, 1998

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540