Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Le Péloponnèse d’Épaminondas à Hadrien

 | 
Catherine Grandjean

Première partie. Du Péloponnèse “macédonien” à la province d’Achaïe

The Peloponnese in Hellenistic and Early Roman Imperial times: the evidence from survey and the wider Aegean context

John Bintliff

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Cf. Walker & Cameron 1989.
  • 2 Cf. Alcock et al. 2001.

1The nature of life in the heartland of Classical Greece, the southeast Mainland, during Hellenistic and especially Roman times, has become a matter of controversy and heightened research, as this Conference reminds us. It was not so long ago when a rather positive image of these periods was created by the overemphasis on fine art and architecture. The rich endowment of heritage cities by Hellenistic monarchs, Roman emperors and wealthy elites was frequently illustrated and analysed1, as the reconstructed view (fig. 1) of the rather cluttered Athenian Agora by Imperial times makes clear. Pausanias’ 2nd century AD guidebook to Greece’s historic sights for the well-educated foreign traveller2 also dwells on the almost Disneyland attraction of Greek Antiquity to be visited in its homeland.

2Yet at the same time, Pausanias’ description of Greece offers a very different perspective, with his frequent reference to ruined or decayed cities. Strikingly, similar observations occur around 0 BC/AD in the geographic work of Strabo, and even more eloquently in the histories of Polybius, describing the Greek heartland from the late 3rd century BC onwards, where a general depopulation is claimed. Till the early 1980s however, ancient historians were in dispute as to how seriously to take these comments, with many preferring to attribute them to a rhetorical topos, where the decline of Classical Greek power and cultural innovation and the concomitant rise to dominance of Rome were explained through the social and moral decline of the Greek people. One major exception however was the book by Ulrich Kahrstedt, of 1954, Das Wirtschaftliche Gesicht Griechenlands in der Kaiserzeit. This was the first volume to document the archaeological evidence for everyday life in Roman Greece as a whole, and I suspect it is still the only attempt! Kahrstedt discovered ubiquitous signs of large estates and the collapse of ancient towns, but his thesis was treated very sceptically by the experts, on the basis of the often thin data used to document his case.

The Arrival of Regional Field Survey (fig. 2)

  • 3 McDonald & Rapp 1972.

3During the 1960’s, a new form of topographic research arrived in Greece, stimulated by developments in field archaeology in the Near East and North-Central Italy – surface field survey. At first the approach was what we now term ‘extensive survey’, whereby teams used maps, air photos and local farmers’ knowledge to visit locations with much surface archaeology – architectural fragments, rooftiles and potsherds. This form of survey was very successful in finding settlement sites of some size, but gave little sense of the full range of settlements and activities across the ancient landscape. A prime example in the Peloponnese was the University of Minnesota survey of Messenia3, where the final map of Greco-Roman sites is clearly dominated by the larger population foci only, and was not accompanied by any analysis of their changing size and character over this long era. The suggestion made that Messenia probably expanded in demography and prosperity after its independence from Sparta in the early 4th century BC, admittedly derived from the work of an earlier historian, did however set a challenge for later, more intensive, fieldwork to test (the PRAP project, see infra).

  • 4 Bintliff & Snodgrass 1985.

4However, by the time that Messenia was published, in 1972, the first of a new kind of field survey was in operation – what we call ‘intensive’ or field-by-field pedestrian survey, in the Argolid and on Crete. Immediately a totally unexpected density of archaeological sites was revealed, many times that mapped by the earlier extensive approach to the ancient landscape. The contribution that intensive survey could make to the specific issue of change in the Hellenistic and Roman countryside was first made clear in 1985, when the Boeotia Survey in Central Greece, of which I was co-director with Anthony Snodgrass, published a report on its first 4 years of fieldwalking4: in the territories or choras of the ancient cities of Haliartos and Thespiae, around 200 sites of all periods were mapped, most of them Greek or Roman – not far off the total for Greco-Roman times recorded for the whole of Messenia by the Minnesota team a decade earlier. And yet the area covered at that point in Boeotia was less than 0,5% of Messenia. The extraordinary density of villages and farms during Classical Greek times (fig. 3) was in vivid contrast to the decline in activity by Late Hellenistic and Early Imperial times (fig. 4), with many abandoned sites and even more sites with only small scatters of post-Classical activity (pointing to reduced use). Note also that the decline is sharper in the northern chora of Haliartos than around Thespiae in the south. I shall come back to these impoverished sites later, as we have been able to recover far more detail on what may be going on in later times at these locations. Equally dramatic was a widespread revival (fig. 5) in Late Antiquity, or the period ca. 400-600 AD, although again this is variable by district and Haliartos is once more divergently poorer in activity.

  • 5 Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988.

5We made direct links between these data and the historical picture of post-Classical depopulation given by the ancient sources. It still remained possible however, that the rural peasantry had left the countryside in post-Classical times to dwell in expanding towns, as a result of a rise in great estates – a thesis derived also from ancient authors. By 1988 we had been able to test this hypothesis, at least for Boeotia, and published the preliminary results5 of complete surface survey of the two cities of Haliartos and Thespiae, and the dependent komopolis of Askra, whilst in 1989-1990 a control survey of the northern Boeotian city of Hyettos gave further evidence for the fate of Classical cities in Hellenistic and Roman times. The Thespiae city, some 100 hectares at its maximum, serves as a model for the other town sites: in Late Hellenistic-Early Roman times it lost 60% of its occupied surface and the city remained as such till Late Antiquity.

  • 6 Jameson et al. 1994.
  • 7 Mee & Forbes 1997.
  • 8 Wright et al. 1990.
  • 9 Wells & Runnels 1996.
  • 10 Forsen & Forsen 2003.

6Comparable results for the rural sector emerged from the S.W. Argolid Survey (fig. 6)6, with progressive settlement number decline in Hellenistic through to Middle Roman times, and where, although no urban survey was included, excavation pointed to the abandonment of the town of Halieis in Hellenistic times. On the Methana Survey7, likewise, rural site numbers and the three urban sites of the peninsula showed a steady decline from the Classical period (fig. 7), over later Hellenistic (fig. 8) and Imperial Roman (fig. 9) times. Both the Argolid and Methana showed once more a significant recovery in Late Roman times, though a rural not urban phenomenon. Decline through Hellenistic to Middle Imperial times in rural settlement numbers is also noted in the preliminary reports of the Nemea Valley Survey8 (fig. 10) of the mid-1980s. In the Berbati Valley Survey adjacent to the Plain of Argos9, survey demonstrates a drastic collapse of rural settlement in Late Hellenistic times, leading to a Roman and Late Roman landscape consisting of a large estate-centre with satellite sites associated with it (fig. 11). In the recent volume of Swedish survey from the Asea chora in southern Arcadia10, the extent of the polis-centre itself reflects contracting population from Classical (fig. 12) through Hellenistic (fig. 13) and into, in this case, Late Roman times (fig. 14). As in other cases in the Peloponnese and elsewhere, Asea even loses its city status in Late Hellenistic times. The rural survey results are difficult to evaluate, but it is claimed that site numbers decline in the Late Hellenistic era, then over Early to Late Roman times a new pattern of a small number of villas with many associated satellite sites emerges, whilst villages are flourishing through to the Early Imperial period, then decline.

  • 11 Cavanagh et al. 2002.

7The Laconia Survey11 offers the most thoughtful and best documented of the regional surveys of the last few years, and not surprisingly a more nuanced picture emerges. Thus the burst of rural colonisation of late Archaic and Early Classical times (87 sites, fig. 15, is followed by a dramatic decline in later Classical times (to 46) (fig. 16). However then the Hellenistic countryside recovers (75 sites, fig. 17), although there are claimed signs of site decline in the later part of that era, and certainly the Early to Late Roman period is a clear fall in activity (51, fig. 18), all the more striking when we see that that era is about as long as the combined length of the three preceding periods.

  • 12 Tartaron et al. in press.

8Finally, the very recent E. Korinthia Survey12 reports a late Archaic to Classical site takeoff, followed by collapse in Hellenistic and Early Roman times, leading to a Late Roman recovery.

  • 13 Davis et al. 1997.

9The overall picture for the Peloponnese, then, confirms the Boeotia scenario, with a general reduction in site numbers over the long-term from Classical Greek through later Hellenistic to Early Imperial times, and frequent accompanying evidence for matching contraction at urban sites. Only at Phlius, part of the Nemea Valley Survey, did Susan Alcock (1991) argue for an expansion of the city (fig. 19) in Roman times, linking this to the contemporary decline in rural sites of the region. Also sending a contrary signal was the extensive but still detailed survey of Petropoulos and Rizakis (1994) (fig. 20) in the Patras lowland of Achaea, where the settlement numbers are 11 Classical, 34 Hellenistic, 64 Early Imperial, followed by a decline in Late Antiquity. But this time Patras itself grows in parallel with rural expansion. Nonetheless in detail there is more fluctuation and peasant dislocation – a series of rural abandonments occurs around the turn of the Christian millennium, and Patras town is refounded as a Roman colony. The takeoff of the region is also noteworthy for being post-Classical, placing Achaea in a different growth model to much of the Peloponnese so far discussed. Finally in a resurvey of part of Messenia by the PRAP team13 there is, as predicted from the earlier Messenia Project, a delayed takeoff in rural site numbers till Hellenistic and Early Roman times.

Historical Implications

10Ancient historians have found these archaeological results, dealing far more with the mass of the population and the dynamics of everyday life than with older archaeological approaches stressing the Fine Arts, refreshing and providing a new stimulus for interdisciplinary cooperation, a pathway laid out for exploration in Susan Alcock’s masterly book Graecia Capta of 1993. They would like to know however:

  • What is the exact timing of the decline or growth phenomena?
  • What can be said about the changing size and function of rural sites and of land use intensity, over the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman periods?
  • How closely can we reconstruct population fluctuations in town and country?
  • What explanatory factors can be linked to the clearly remarkable changing fortunes of the Peloponnese cities and their choras? How does the Peloponnese fit into the wider picture of the Aegean as a whole?
  • 14 Cavanagh et al. 2002, Volume 1, Chapter 6.

11But for the discerning historian, there are considerable difficulties in using these survey data. Answering the first three questions demands that survey archaeologists engage in what German scholars would call a Quellenkritik, or source criticism, to see how far their data have sufficient resolution for close dating and socio-economic interpretations. Intensive regional survey was primarily developed by prehistorians, and the standard dating of surface sherds to periods of 3-500 years, and estimates of site size to small, medium or large, seemed till recently adequate achievement added to that of the placing of so many dense site dots on formerly almost empty distribution maps. In fact, it is my opinion that most surveys, even the most recent, produce results which are poorly-suited to addressing historians’ questions with any accuracy. Only Graham Shipley, in the recent Laconia Survey volume14, expressly echoes these doubts.

12Timing: Much of the practical difficulty lies in the way sites have been sampled. The commonest method remains (fig. 21) a set of small collection points for density and dating, from which the site borders are determined. Surface artefacts are collected from these points, and additional sherds can be gathered from the larger quadrats. But usually a very small total number of pieces are brought back from the field for study – of which an even smaller number turn out to be well-dated.

13Settlement Size and Population: The site boundaries are usually only those of the maximum extent, thus not allowing for expansion or contraction of occupation by period – and very many sites turn out to be multiperiod in use.

  • 15 Forsen & Forsen 2003, 270.
  • 16 Forsen & Forsen 2003, 90.

14Let me illustrate these problems from two projects. Firstly the Asea Survey recognizes some new farm foundations for Late Hellenistic times15, one example being site S4816:

15Site S48, Asea Survey

  • Interpretation: a new foundation in Late Hellenistic times
  • Site size 0.32ha, density 16.06 sherds per 100m2, visibility of soil 40%
  • Estimated surface sherd numbers = 1285
  • Sherds in study collection: 4 potsherds (one a bowl of C3rd-C1st BC date) and 5 tile pieces (two Black Gloss, thus Archaic to Hellenistic in date)
  • Close to the site a loomweight of general Classical-Hellenistic type was recovered
  • Case for hypothesis: 1 fine dated sherd/1285

16This may seem an extreme case where the evidence cannot bear the interpretation proposed, but in fact it is the norm. With most survey data therefore, precise dating of settlement growth and decline is not possible. However we can place much more confidence in long-term changes, where for example as often, hints of site decline during Hellenistic times may be followed by an absence of Roman finds at the majority of settlements. A neat example comes from the Laconia Survey, where the dramatic drop in rural activity in Roman times follows a full landscape in Classical and Hellenistic times (fig. 22). Note that site size is a critical variable to be sure of, as we cited earlier a serious slump in site numbers in Late Classical times – whereas here we see that occupied area barely changes! But further caution is needed. We have already commented on chronological sampling weaknesses, let us turn to exactly this aspect-the estimation of settlement size, and its real uncertainties. The Argolid Project calculated changing population numbers for its region (fig. 23) in Greco-Roman times, based on the size of sites. However since a large proportion were multiperiod in use, and only one value – maximum site size – was used for all phases at each site, we must be very sceptical about the figures displayed here, although at a gross level the larger contrasts are probably valid.

  • 17 Lohmann 1993.

17Land Use: The Laconia data just presented show how effective a broad-brush approach can still be, in linking settlement maps to types of soil. Here the early intake of Neogene soft limestone landscape in early Classical times may have led to their exhaustion or erosion, encouraging a greater emphasis on hard limestone-and schist-based soils over the following millennium. But detailed reconstruction of estate sizes and areas in cultivation from archaeology are difficult to evidence, and rarely attempted. Hans Lohmann’s wonderful Atene deme survey in Attica, with its Classical farmstead landscape fossilised and well-preserved up till the time of his survey a generation ago17, could match its extensive farm complexes (fig. 24) to Classical estate boundary walls in a number of cases, but his abandoned landscape is almost unique in the South Aegean survey world. An alternative approach relies on so-called ‘offsite archaeology’, which requires careful mapping of artefact scatters lying between obvious sites and which might shed light on activity in the countryside. This methodology has been investigated by a few projects, but controversy over the significance of non-site sherd finds inhibits a full application. Thus the recent Asea and Laconia Projects collected data on offsite finds, but neither presents the results in the form of distribution maps for their regions, or attempts a detailed analysis of this evidence for human impact. Laconia did however, publish 8 small sectors of walker transect data, but the aim was essentially to assist in the recognition of sites.

Improving our Resolution

18I do not wish to be arrogant enough as to claim that our Boeotia Project from Central Greece has all the answers to these problems with current survey data, so perhaps it is easier to say that our Project has been struggling with these issues for 27 years, resulting in an immense delay between our preliminary articles and the final publications: Volume 1 we hope will appear in late 2006! Another reason for our prolonged project timescale is our combined approach of intensive site gridding, the gathering of large numbers of sherds from sites, and the recording of offsite finds density for the whole study area. In later years we also took large samples of the offsite in the hope that datable land use patterns might be revealed. All these time-consuming practices do give us an almost unprecedented advantage over other survey projects, however, as I shall now demonstrate in the context of the issues central to this Conference.

  • 18 Bintliff & Howard 1999; Bintliff et al. 2006.

19“Let us take one case-study from our Boeotia database: 17 rural sites were found in the inner chora south of Thespiae City (fig. 28)18. They formed one of four elements in this landscape: the others being the City itself, surveyed in some 600 grid units as we saw earlier, offsite pottery carpets, and rural cemeteries marked by small collections of fineware. Gridding of sites and large collections from them allows us to follow the ‘biography’ of rural sites”. In fact the biographies of all 17 sites show dramatic changes in size and function from period to period of their use. Put the whole landscape together and a narrative becomes possible: in high Classical times a full countryside around a giant town, containing rural cemeteries, farms small to large and several hamlets; during Late Hellenistic and Early Roman times a great collapse is observed, with sites abandoned, or shrunken, or reduced to non-residential low-activity areas, paralleled by the City losing 60% of its extent; in Middle Imperial times the City remains shrunken but in two zones of the countryside a new class of villas and villa-hamlets arises; during Late Roman times these new large estate centres reach their peak, with a larger surface area of rural settlements occupied than in Classical Greek times, although the town remains shrunken from its Classical peak. But the finds from these large rural sites persuade us that they have very low populations, their lands worked by dependent labour now residing in the City and a village to the south.

Classical Thespiae City and its Countryside: Four kinds of empirical surface artefact evidence
• 1. The city
• 2. Rural domestic clustered pottery finds
• 3. Offsite ceramic scatters or carpets
• 4. Very low density ceramic fineware locations

20Our model, with a maximal rural and urban population in high Classical times, then a collapse till the gradual emergence of a villa landscape over the Imperial Roman centuries, yet without a corresponding population recovery after the Late Hellenistic decline, can be independently confirmed by the offsite archaeology in this inner chora (fig. 25). Boeotian landscapes are almost unique in possessing in the immediate first few kilometres around town sites a staggering density of non-site potsherds. In this sector we counted the equivalent of 1.37 million sherds. Apart from ploughing dispersal and erosion, which affects the edges of all surface sites, the bulk of this material can only have been deposited at this scale as a result of deliberate spreading of household rubbish over the fields for the purpose of agricultural manuring. The primary source of such vast quantities has to be the City itself. The absolute proof comes from the chronological range of the offsite pottery: Roman and Late Roman have a minimal contribution – although the latter period has the largest rural sites – and almost all this material is of generic Greek Classical date (fig. 26). In the chora of Thespiae, population pressure and a shortage of food was only extreme in Classical Greek times, hence the massive and sustained attempts to boost food production through intensive manuring. In contrast our recent work at ancient Tanagra, finds the same picture of intense rubbish disposal as you approach the City (fig. 27), and indeed the density is twice that found around Thespiae, but this time our first estimates are that the manuring was carried out in both Greek and Roman times. This agrees with the fact that so far our urban survey of the City suggests that although like Thespiae, it shrank between Greek and Roman times, the contraction was relatively minor. In the outer chora of such Boeotian cities (fig. 28), manuring rubbish from the City was not available, so only small manuring areas are found around rural sites, created from their own household and farmyard rubbish (note the colours mark the same density levels as in the inner chora just shown), together with scattering of site finds due to ploughing and weather.

Explanations

21We have seen that in the Peloponnese, and elsewhere in southern Mainland Greece, there is widespread survey evidence for urban and rural decay after a highpoint in Classical and Early Hellenistic times. The timing is less secure than often claimed, and it seems variable by region, and now it seems likely, also variable from city to city and rural site to rural site. But the overall picture is progressive decline, until, often in Middle Roman times, a new rural growth is visible, usually focussing on villa and hamlet sites, and this generally leads to a second peak in the number and size of rural sites in Late Antiquity. But only rarely do town sites recover their size to match this. It is reasonable to associate the new form of rural site with a shift from free peasant ownership, often in family farms, to one dominated by villas of a richer class, whose dependent labour may reside in towns, villages and satellite small farms associated with the villas. On the other hand, in some places signs of rural difficulty can appear even in late Classical times (Laconia, Attica), and Middle to Late Roman recovery is also not universal.

22How do we account for these striking phenomena? Front runners are:

  1. Ecological crisis. For the Argolid, Van Andel et al. (1986) argued for overexploited land in Classical peak population times suffering erosion, but later argued that it was equally likely that the Hellenistic rural abandonment allowed erosion to occur. In Boeotia we do not have such dramatic evidence for erosion, but the extraordinary Classical manuring around Thespiae at peak population levels, the only episode ever recorded here, probably marks a food crisis, and deteriorating soil fertility could account for the subsequent collapse of urban population.
  2. Socioeconomic dislocation. Sue Alcock has stressed (1993) the significance of the fall of the small family farm and the emergence of the larger villa or colonate village (fig. 29) over later Hellenistic and Roman times, as marking the takeover of landownership by an elite sponsored by Hellenistic monarchs and the Romans. Larger estates with less intensive farming and a smaller workforce, in her view, encouraged peasants to flee to the towns or abroad. This could work at Phlius, but most surveyed towns shrink in size or are stagnant in Roman times. But she also rightly draws attention to a new scale of human mobility (fig. 30) made possible by the Romans ignoring old polis boundaries and their creation of fewer and larger administrative centres at greater distances, which could have drawn in peasants from very wide radii.
  3. So far we have neglected the wider Peloponnesian and wider Aegean picture, a subject I treated at length in a paper of 1997. Its starting point (fig. 31) was to investigate if the political decline of the south-east Mainland states, in favour of those in the north and west of Greece, was also traceable in the survey record as an out of phase takeoff in urbanisation and high rural populations. Indeed there is (fig. 32) a remarkable wave-effect in the early takeoff of the southeast and the delayed takeoff of other regions of Greece, especially the less fertile and more mountainous provinces. Apart from the simple equation of fertile lowlands exhibiting faster growth, we can add in Core-Periphery Theory (fig. 33), where the southern coastal lowland states exploited the Greek marginal zones in political, military and economic terms, with the eventual effect of speeding up their development (as for example with the Macedonian kingdom) or occasionally destroying their potential (for the latter Melos, and Messenia till 371 BC are examples). For our purposes we can also apply this model later, but now it is external Hellenistic kingdoms and then Rome which manipulate Greece as a peripheral region, likewise causing variable regional effects - from increased prosperity to disastrous decay. The negative effects in the latter periods seem to be present in much of Old Greece, the positive ones in provinces such as Achaea, or Crete.
  4. I will conclude by reinforcing the result of my wider study of regional developments in the Aegean from 1997: no single explanation is sufficient for the radical changes in town and country in the Peloponnese and further afield across the Hellenistic and Roman eras. Ecological crisis, socio-political transformations, core-periphery effects are all relevant, with each region, city and sometimes even individual farmsites showing the scope for divergent historical trajectories. Nonetheless the out-of-phase cyclical rise and fall of regions is an underlying trend, which suggests a particularly important role for ecological, economic and demographic cycles, appropriately, for a meeting at a French University, pointing us towards applying the Structural History of the Annales School with its theories of the Longue and Moyenne Durée (fig. 34)19.

Fig. 1. The Athenian Agora by Roman times.

Fig. 2. Total site map for the Minnesota Missenia Survey (UMME) (1972).

Fig. 3. S.W.Boeotia survey resresults: Classical Greek Greek era.

Fig. 4. S.W. Boeotia survey results: the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman Imperial period.

Fig. 5. S.W. Boeotia survey results: the Late Roman era.

Fig. 6. Total site numbers for the S.W Argolid Survey.

Fig. 7. The Methana Survey : the Classical period.

Fig. 8. The Methana Survey : the Hellenistic period.

Fig. 9. The Methana Survey : the Early Roman period.

Fig. 10. Site totals in the Nemea Valley Survey.

(X) uncertain or insignificant presence
Fig. 11. Site Chronology for the Berbati Valley Survey.

Fig. 12. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis centre in Classical Greek times.

Fig. 13. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis Centre in Hellenistic times.

Fig. 14. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis centre in Roman and Late Roman times.

Fig. 15. Late Archaic-Early Classical sites , Laconia Survey (n = 87).

Fig. 16. Late Classical sites, Laconia Survey (n = 46).

Fig. 17. Hellenistic sites, Laconia Survey (n = 75).

Fig. 18. Roman and Late Roman sites, Laconia Survey (n = 51).

Fig. 19. Find numbers at the Polis of Phlius, urban surface survey by the Nemea Valley Proroject.

Fig. 20. Site Numbers for the Patras region of Achaea.

Fig. 21. The standard sampling method for surface site size and date estimates.

Fig. 22. Laconia Survey: Changing total settlement area over time.

Fig. 23. Population estimates by the Agolid Survey: Ancient based on maximum site sizes.

Fig. 24. Atene deme Survey, Attica, Classical farm complexes with estate boundary walls.

Fig. 25. Offsite pottery in the Thespiae ancient city southern hinterland (5.2 sq. km). Sherd density per hectare.

Fig. 26. Offsite pottery of Classical Greek date. From a sample of 3124 sherds collected over the district for dating. Around 80% of this sample belongs to this period.

Fig. 27. Urban impact zone around ancient Tanagra City , Boeotia, measurered in offsite pottery, proroduced in Classical Greek Greek and Roman times. Density in sherds per hectare.

Fig. 28. Farm and village-based rural impact zones or “haloes” in the outer chora of Tanagra, Boeotia, of Greco-Romand Medieval date. Coloured for density as in previous map. Rural sites show as black dots with numbers. Surrouding densities in sherds per hectare.

Fig. 29. Average site sizes from a group of surveys (S. Alcock). Over time, do larger sites mark the decline of family farms and the rise of villa estates?

Fig. 30. Population displacements forced or encouraged by the Roman authorities and relating to new colony foundations.

Fig. 31. Political shifts acrosss Greece in Classical and Hellenistic times, related to the lowland-upland zonation.

Fig. 32. The progressive wave of urbanisation and rural colonisation across the Aegean world from Geometric to Late Roman times, based on intensive and extensive survey data to 1997.

Fig. 33. Ancient Greece: a core-peryphery model.

Fig. 34. Braudel’s model of historical time.

Notes

1 Cf. Walker & Cameron 1989.

2 Cf. Alcock et al. 2001.

3 McDonald & Rapp 1972.

4 Bintliff & Snodgrass 1985.

5 Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988.

6 Jameson et al. 1994.

7 Mee & Forbes 1997.

8 Wright et al. 1990.

9 Wells & Runnels 1996.

10 Forsen & Forsen 2003.

11 Cavanagh et al. 2002.

12 Tartaron et al. in press.

13 Davis et al. 1997.

14 Cavanagh et al. 2002, Volume 1, Chapter 6.

15 Forsen & Forsen 2003, 270.

16 Forsen & Forsen 2003, 90.

17 Lohmann 1993.

18 Bintliff & Howard 1999; Bintliff et al. 2006.

19 Bintliff 1991, 2004.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 1. The Athenian Agora by Roman times.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 283k
Légende Fig. 2. Total site map for the Minnesota Missenia Survey (UMME) (1972).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 238k
Légende Fig. 3. S.W.Boeotia survey resresults: Classical Greek Greek era.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 170k
Légende Fig. 4. S.W. Boeotia survey results: the Late Hellenistic-Early Roman Imperial period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 245k
Légende Fig. 5. S.W. Boeotia survey results: the Late Roman era.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
Légende Fig. 6. Total site numbers for the S.W Argolid Survey.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 100k
Légende Fig. 7. The Methana Survey : the Classical period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 109k
Légende Fig. 8. The Methana Survey : the Hellenistic period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 252k
Légende Fig. 9. The Methana Survey : the Early Roman period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 97k
Légende Fig. 10. Site totals in the Nemea Valley Survey.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 156k
Légende (X) uncertain or insignificant presenceFig. 11. Site Chronology for the Berbati Valley Survey.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 106k
Légende Fig. 12. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis centre in Classical Greek times.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 95k
Légende Fig. 13. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis Centre in Hellenistic times.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 94k
Légende Fig. 14. The minimum extent of the Asea Polis centre in Roman and Late Roman times.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 253k
Légende Fig. 15. Late Archaic-Early Classical sites , Laconia Survey (n = 87).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 135k
Légende Fig. 16. Late Classical sites, Laconia Survey (n = 46).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 280k
Légende Fig. 17. Hellenistic sites, Laconia Survey (n = 75).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-17.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 113k
Légende Fig. 18. Roman and Late Roman sites, Laconia Survey (n = 51).
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-18.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 276k
Légende Fig. 19. Find numbers at the Polis of Phlius, urban surface survey by the Nemea Valley Proroject.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-19.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 147k
Légende Fig. 20. Site Numbers for the Patras region of Achaea.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-20.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Légende Fig. 21. The standard sampling method for surface site size and date estimates.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-21.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 177k
Légende Fig. 22. Laconia Survey: Changing total settlement area over time.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-22.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 247k
Légende Fig. 23. Population estimates by the Agolid Survey: Ancient based on maximum site sizes.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-23.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 145k
Légende Fig. 24. Atene deme Survey, Attica, Classical farm complexes with estate boundary walls.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-24.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 273k
Légende Fig. 25. Offsite pottery in the Thespiae ancient city southern hinterland (5.2 sq. km). Sherd density per hectare.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-25.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 405k
Légende Fig. 26. Offsite pottery of Classical Greek date. From a sample of 3124 sherds collected over the district for dating. Around 80% of this sample belongs to this period.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-26.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 389k
Légende Fig. 27. Urban impact zone around ancient Tanagra City , Boeotia, measurered in offsite pottery, proroduced in Classical Greek Greek and Roman times. Density in sherds per hectare.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-27.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 523k
Légende Fig. 28. Farm and village-based rural impact zones or “haloes” in the outer chora of Tanagra, Boeotia, of Greco-Romand Medieval date. Coloured for density as in previous map. Rural sites show as black dots with numbers. Surrouding densities in sherds per hectare.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-28.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 606k
Légende Fig. 29. Average site sizes from a group of surveys (S. Alcock). Over time, do larger sites mark the decline of family farms and the rise of villa estates?
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-29.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 205k
Légende Fig. 30. Population displacements forced or encouraged by the Roman authorities and relating to new colony foundations.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-30.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 843k
Légende Fig. 31. Political shifts acrosss Greece in Classical and Hellenistic times, related to the lowland-upland zonation.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-31.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 887k
Légende Fig. 32. The progressive wave of urbanisation and rural colonisation across the Aegean world from Geometric to Late Roman times, based on intensive and extensive survey data to 1997.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-32.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 276k
Légende Fig. 33. Ancient Greece: a core-peryphery model.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-33.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 651k
Légende Fig. 34. Braudel’s model of historical time.
URL http://books.openedition.org/ausonius/docannexe/image/1326/img-34.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 334k

© Ausonius Éditions, 2008

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