Techniques and craftsmanship in the manufacture of Early iron Age Achaean architectural models
A votive roof from the Nikoleika sanctuary
p. 27-36
Résumés
L’étude des différentes techniques de fabrication des objets en terre cuite apporte un éclairage sur les aspects sociaux de l’artisanat. L’analyse des techniques de fabrication du toit d’une maquette d’un édifice géométrique, mise au jour dans le sanctuaire de Poseidon Heliconios en Achaïe, apporte des éléments de réflexion sur la spécialisation artisanale dans cette région du nord du Péloponnèse.
Dans l’atelier en question, plusieurs techniques semblent avoir été employées pour la réalisation de la maquette : certains éléments ont en effet été réalisés par modelage et d’autres au tour, tandis que les décors sont à la fois peints et imprimés. Dans cet article, nous questionnerons d’une part les facteurs sociaux probables qui sous-tendent le choix de certaines techniques de réalisation du façonnage et du décor, d’autre part, la question du lien avec les peintres et potiers locaux. L’étude de cette maquette amène à des réflexions très intéressantes sur la spécialisation artisanale comme reflet, entre autres, de la diversité sociale.
The study of the combination of the various techniques used for the manufacture of terracotta objects might prove to be quite highlighting as far as the social dimensions of craftsmanship is concerned.
In the light of the above general statement a thorough technical study of the Early Iron Age architectural roof model that have been derived from the sanctuary of Poseidon Heliconios will hopefully show the craftsmen’s specialization in this part of northern Peloponnese.
In the manufacture of the above architectural model a number of techniques seems that had been used, such as hand modelling, inclusion of wheel-made elements, painting and the impressed ware technique. All the above will be explored with the aim to investigate the probable social factors underlying the choice of certain manufacture techniques and styles of decoration.
Furthermore a detailed investigation on the association, the craftsmen who created these models had with the local tradition of pottery making and decoration styles, is absolutely necessary, and it may lead in very interesting conclusions, as far as craftsmanship’s specialization as a reflection, among other issues, of social diversity is concerned.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Achaïe, maquette, modelage, Poseidon Heliconios, spécialisation artisanale, technique au colombin
Keywords : handmade, coil construction technique, model, Achaea, Poseidon Heliconios, craft specialization
Remerciements
I would like to thank Hélène Aurigny and Laura Rohaut for the organization of this engaging conference and their invitation to take part in this. I warmly thank Professor Catherine Morgan for constructive criticism of the manuscript.
Texte intégral
1A thorough approach of the elements that characterize all products of material culture (the material in which they were made, the images that have been illustrated on them and their meaning, when applicable; the technique it was used for their manufacture, as well as their decoration), appear to be more that essential towards the study of their consumption as carriers towards the study of the ideas and values shaping people’s social lives.
2A terracotta architectural roof model from the sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios at Nikoleika (fig. 1),1 offers striking insight into the ritual world of Early Iron Age Achaea. Identified as a votive offering, study of its iconography and excavation context have led to the conclusion that it was made to express the social values of the elite families of the 8th century BC.2
Fig. 1 – The Nikoleika architectural model

(© Anastasia Gadolou).
3In this article, we will explore the various techniques used in the manufacture of this roof, such as hand-modelling, painting, and the impressed ware technique, and investigate the social factors behind their selection and application. Technical study of the model demonstrates the specialist skills of the craftsmen, and allows us to assess the extent to which they can be associated with local traditions of pottery production and decoration. It also helps to map the network connecting the needs of the community, the locale of the orders, the people who placed them, and the purpose of the consumption of this particular object. The results of this investigation permit us to draw certain conclusions about craft specialization as a reflection of social diversity among other factors.3
Key questions include:
- How difficult was it to produce such a model? How many techniques were employed? How many labour-intensive methods were used in its construction?
- In what socio-political milieu were the craftsmen involved working? Were there specific social factors behind the commission of this special form, the selection of manufacturing techniques, and the decorative imagery?
- Does the Nikoleika model represent craft specialization, and if so, what were its social, political, and economic ramifications?
1. Description and technical characteristics
4This unique terracotta roof model, one of the most remarkable votives from the sanctuary of Poseidon Helikonios at ancient Helike, formed part of a larger votive deposit sealed under the late 8th century temple. It was found in several fragments (ΑΜΑ 2170a, 2313a, 2018, 2170b, 2313b and 2018 b, 2313c, d, e and 1993) and is dated to the last decades of the 8th century (c. 720-700 BC) by comparison with pottery from the area of Achaea, and especially the impressed ware workshop.4
5The roof is pitched,5 preserving the ridge; the sloping sides and curved back terminate at a flat base. A rebate on the lower surface suggests that the roof was probably fitted onto a separately constructed model of the lower part of the building (now missing). The preserved height of the fragments ranges from 0,065m to 0,092m. Reconstruction of the decorative scheme from the preserved sections allows us to estimate the length of the model at 0,55m and its height at 0,25m with walls of 0,02m thick.
6The fabric is light red (2.5 YR 7/6) to yellowish red (5 YR 7/6), fine grained with minimal inclusions. It is consistent with the known categories used in Late Geometric Achaean workshops,6 as are the black glaze and pinkish buff (5 YR 8/2) slip. These macroscopic observations, combined with the use of the impressed ware technique7 for complementary zig-zag motifs, confirm that the Nikoleika model is an Achaean product of the 8th century BC. The local origin of the clay is further confirmed by raw materials sampled from Aigeira in western Achaea, a site with the geomorphological characteristics typical of the clay soils of the area. These samples were processed in all the stages documented in traditional pottery manufacture in order to obtain clay suitable for pottery making.8
7The inclusions observed in the fabric of the model could have been intended to add the strength advantageous when building an object of this kind: a pitched roof must have been more difficult to handle (manually or on the wheel) than an ordinary vase. It is important to keep in mind that the Nikoleika model is a built object not a vase. The base was left unworked, as is demonstrated by the varying thickness and small bumps observed on its inner and outer surface (fig. 2). A tool trace on the inner surface of the roof may have been made by a small wooden stick used by the craftsman while trying to adjust the roof to the base.
Fig. 2 – The base of the model

(© Anastasia Gadolou).
8The decision to decorate the model in the impressed technique added an extra difficulty to the manufacturing process, as the model needed to be thick enough to take the stamp without damaging the interior surface. If the walls were too thin, stamping into the soft clay would have left traces on the inner surface (as seen on an oenochoe sherd with impressed horses from the Nikoleika sanctuary site (fig. 3a and 3b) or even damaged it. A small wooden or probably terracotta tool (fig. 4) was used to stamp motifs, equally spaced, into the soft clay before firing. The appearance of the impressed vertical zigzags is different on the long sides and the curved back of the model. The smooth surface of the long sides facilitated the work of the craftsman, resulting in identically shaped motifs, while the curve of the back added extra difficulty, leaving the zigzags unevenly sized.
Fig. 3 – Traces after stamping on the inner surface of an oenochoe from the Nikoleika sanctuary site

(© Anastasia Gadolou).
Fig. 4 – Tools used for stamping

(by Th. Kotsigiannis).
9Macroscopic observation of the model led us to believe that it was probably wheel-made apart from the base, which was handmade for reasons noted above. But we wanted to test this hypothesis. Unfortunately, Achaea has not as yet produced archaeological evidence of our period for pottery production methods; no kilns, partially finished products or wasters, specialist tools, or related buildings have been found. In order to understand the production methods used, we therefore turned to experimental archaeology and sought the advice of three modern specialists in pottery manufacture. First, a traditional potter, Charalambos Fountas, who has worked for over thirty years in the manufacture of wheel-made ancient Greek vase shapes (he has thrown over 5000 vases on the wheel). He suggested that the model was wheel made. Second, a modern ceramist, Antigoni Pantazi, who studied pottery at the University of Cardiff; she proposed that the model was handmade and coil-built. Third, a painter, Thomas Kotsigiannis, who has worked on the decoration of ancient ceramics for over twenty five years and who made useful observations about the combination of methods of decoration and the construction of the model.
10Charalambos Fountas put almost four kilogrammes of clay on the wheel, worked it hard to expel all the air, and raised an oval shaped object without a base in twenty minutes. The result was a heavy, wet object, with walls 0,015m thick, which had to be left for forty eight hours in order to dry partially. Then the long sides were manipulated so as to meet at the top, creating by hand the ridge of the pitched roof. There followed a long procedure (lasting three hours) to achieve the desired shape and the smooth inner surface. The experts concluded that the object would be ready, decoration and firing included, after a month (fig. 5).
Fig. 5 – a, b, c: Raising the roof model in the wheel

(by Ch. Fountas).
11Antigoni Pantazi used the coil construction technique to make the roof model (fig. 6). She smoothed out an oval plate of clay and made the base on which the coils were to be stacked. Then she used her fingers to roll out soft clay into long sticks (which could be made as thick as necessary), and started layering the coils on top of each other, ensuring that they were joined securely by scoring and slipping them together. It took her one and a half hours to get the model of the pitched roof ready (measuring 0.40m in length and 0,155m high). It was left to dry for thirty six hours and was then ready for the application of the slip (by Thomas Kotsigiannis); Twenty four hours later, the surface was ready for the impressed motifs to be stamped, and for the painted decoration to be applied (fig. 7).
Fig. 6 – Using the coil construction technique to built the roof model

(by Ant. Pantazi).
Fig. 7 – a, b, c: Application of the slip and stamping of the motifs

(by Thomas Kotsigiannis).
12So was the Nikoleika model wheel-made, handmade, or a combination of both? We noted the following factors:
- In order for the impressed motifs to be stamped with the least possible damage of the wet clay, the wall needed to be at least 0,02m thick;
- The thicker the walls, the more clay was needed for it to be properly raised on the wheel;
- More clay increases the time necessary to dry and finish the construction.
- With a handmade object, the potter can estimate and control the required thickness and, while building the object, simultaneously smooth the inner surface.
- The inner surface of the original model bore no traces of the wheel and was quite smooth, probably due to the use of a wooden tool.
13These led us to conclude that the Nikoleika roof model was handmade. We then turned to the decoration and firing techniques in order to decide if the craftsman who made the model was a specialist, and if so, what this might mean from a socio-political perspective.
2. Decoration
14The decoration was both painted, and stamped in the impressed ware technique. The potter/painter first applied a slip lighter in composition and color than the clay, over all the inner and outer surfaces of the model. The use of a slip on the outer surface is essential to make a smooth surface for the drawing. On both sides, the figured scenes, a chariot race, two seated male figures between a tripod, and the symbolic abduction of an elite maiden (fig.1a and 1c),9 are depicted on slightly unequal, though symmetrically executed, reserved zones (side A. deep: 0,04m, side B: 0,055m) defined by two parallel black-glazed bands (0,02 to 0,025 m wide). Above the upper black bands is a zone of impressed vertical zigzags (0,015 m deep). A similar zone was also stamped below the scenes. Black glaze is preserved on both parts of the ridge. The use of the impressed technique for the complementary motifs, and the fact that these motifs had some depth, created a three-dimensional effect. Two brushes were probably used, one quite thick for the execution of the black glazed zones and one thinner for the figure drawing.
15The different traces of colour observed in various parts of the decoration, as well as the breakdown of the black colour of the drawing in certain places, demonstrate uneven firing of no high quality.
3. Discussion
16Taking into account the technical characteristics of the object observed macroscopically as well as the experimental methodology applied we conclude that the manufacture of the architectural roof model from Nikoleika is characterized by high labour investment on techniques previous found on separate kinds of objects. The impressed ware technique was an innovation of the Achaean potters and was applied in small scale objects such as small votive vases, various kind of models, and figurines , having been derived from sanctuary as well as cemetery sites.10 The coil construction technique was very well known in Early Iron Age Achaea as is evident from the production of large pithoi, representing a substantial investment of skill and labour that required of course specialized manufacture, exclusively used for inhumations.11 The same technique should also have been used for the manufacture of the two large Achaean kraters, recently published.12 Like pithoi, kraters were quite complex objects to be put together. They cannot be made from one piece of clay, but must be made from separate parts. So, the application on a roof model of a technique, very well known to pithoi and krater makers with the impressed ware decoration, known very well to small scale objects’ potters and painters drives us to the conclusion that a collaboration between almost two skilled craftsmen was essential in order the client’s request to be executed in precise manner. From the result, it seems that the intention of the person who commissioned the model was primarily to acquire an outstanding votive object, quite different from those usually offered at Achaean sanctuaries. In other words, he/she ordered an object meant to be talked about. This is reflected in complex narrative scenes which belong to the sphere of cult iconography, express aristocratic values, and possibly depict critical stages in the life of the ‘heroic’ male through his involvement in acts which symbolise masculine domination. These scenes have already been published and analysed in detail by the present author, so just a brief summary is given here. Two charioteers facing right on side A move towards the scene on side B, where two identical nude male figures, seated on stools on either side of a tripod (on the handles of which rest two birds), and framed by two one-horse chariots. On the curved back of the model, a female figure, wearing a long belted skirt, bends forward (the upper part of her torso and head are missing). Behind her is a standing male figure with his hand on her back, and in front of her, the head of yet another male figure, looking in her direction. The latter is probably connected with the chariot represented further to the right.
17The craftsman carried out the decoration carefully and tidy, and elaborated it by using the impressed ware technique for the complementary motifs, rather than just drawing any motif, which would have certainly been much easier. The use of the impressed technique and the three-dimensional effect created by the depth, were probably intended to show certain architectural characteristics.
18Five more 8th century architectural models have been found at the Achaean sanctuaries of Nikoleika and Ano Mazaraki. These are all locally made and all are decorated with the impressed ware technique.13 This may suggest that one or more craftsmen specialized in the manufacture of architectural models, and that these craftsmen normally worked closely with specialists in impressed decoration. The particularity of the Nikoleika model therefore lies in the addition of the painted scenes and the more complex co-ordination of design, manufacture, and decoration in two techniques.
19What socio-political milieu created the working environment of the craftsmen involved in this particular production? The roof model from Nikoleika is a manipulated object par excellence, valued primarily for its symbolism and not its utilitarian function. As it has been emphasized elsewhere, it reflects the existence of an aristocracy which sought both to honour the deity worshipped in the sanctuary and to declare its own prominence and authority. The figure scenes define the character of the object and thus the relationship of the dedicator to the sanctuary. The chariot race, chariot riders, the presentation of a tripod (a gift exchanged among heroes in Homer and a symbol of power among local rulers, valued as both prize and votive), and the symbolic abduction of the elite maiden, combine to symbolise the aristocratic elite as guardians of the political, social, religious, and economic values of the community.14
20Both the archaeological context of the model and its figural decoration indicate that it was an object of special significance. Its iconography likely expressed the social identity of the person who ordered and dedicated it with the intention of honouring the god. The fact that it formed part of a votive deposit deliberately sealed under the later temple – a deposit which also incorporated the mud-brick altar - led us to argue that its burial (and preservation intact) served to symbolise the former state of religious activity on the sanctuary, organised and executed by the powerful oikos or oikoi of the region. Consequently, at least those models dedicated in Peloponnesian sanctuaries may be seen as symbolic representations of the oikoi of the Early Iron Age elites.15
21The socio-political milieu which created the working environment of the craftsmen involved in producing these models was that of the eighth-century oikos, the large noble household with its staff of slaves and commoners, its aristocratic retainers and its allies among relatives and friends. The oikos is envisaged not only as a building but also as an expression of the family-based household, the primary and virtually one of the most important social, economic and organizational units of ancient Greek society.16 Thus the model can be seen as drawing upon an extensive iconographical programme created to enhance the political and religious power of a local ruler who controlled one of the most powerful oikos.17 While no other instance of this programme have yet been found in Achaea, its general terms are delineated in the widely shared iconography of the period, which must have been locally understood for the model to achieve its purpose. The desires of these rulers could give rise to craft specialization as reflected in the production of the Nikoleika model. In Homer, the demiourgoi (those who work for the people) occasionally invited into their households (which were above all, units of consumption), and provided the elite with specialist skills not readily available in the oikos. At Odyssey 17.382-385, the swine-herd Eumaeus, berated for having brought a foreign beggar to the palace banquet, disingenuously countered the charge with a rhetorical question:
22‘For who ever summons a stranger from abroad and brings him along, unless he be one of the craftsmen (technitis), a seer or healer of ills or worker, or even an inspired bard who can charm with his song?’
23Evidently, a local leader who wanted to commission an object requiring labour intensive or technologically sophisticated methods for its production, could support the cost of the necessary craftsmen and facilities.18 The act of commission and investment secured control over the object itself.
Conclusion
24Material culture, the specific source of information, with which archaeologists deal, determines the course of action by its own limitations and specific difficulties, but at the same time opens up a whole set of promising and exciting possibilities for approaching the human past.
25The Nikoleika model as a product of material culture gives us such an opportunity, and the thorough approach of the elements that characterize it, has led us to the decoding of Early Iron Age Achaean’s social life.
26The narrative scenes that have been illustrated on it have exclusively been presented, analysed and interpreted in two articles.19 The presentation and interpretation of its excavation context was the topic of a third article, concluding in very illuminating remarks as far as its significance for the social life of the sanctuary, is concerned.20
27In the present article we have presented how it was made and the techniques that were used for its manufacture, as well as its decoration. It is evident that for its production potters and painters who had the requisite skills were involved. These craftsmen had been trained in the local productions pottery workshops, well attested in the region from the Protogeometric period onwards.21
28From the analysis presented above we may conclude that it was manufactured in ways that reveal distinctive local choices, probably answering the needs and aspirations of a relatively small group of people, the members of an oikos. It evolved variability in productive activities and the product left behind reflected ties between social behaviour and the material record. It is unique, with no parallel at any Early Iron Age Greek sanctuary, due to the combination of the method of manufacture, iconography and depositional context. It was as a prestige item, the circumstances of its production and consumption reflecting elite management of production. This echoes the client’s desire to acquire an object meant to be talked about, full of the symbolism that conveyed his social position, economic power (and ability to commission such an object), and perhaps a claim to political superiority among the oikoi of the region.
29Just as dedications of such prestige objects played an important role in elite legitimation, so the control of their production became a significant part of social life.22 It was the need of the local elites to satisfy their desire for conspicuous consumption, that advanced craft specialization. The local social demands were the driving forces behind the production of such an object, that brought to work together more than one specialized craftsmen who combined different methods of decoration, and applied complicated narrative figurative scenes on it, unique on Achaean pottery production of the Early Iron Age, making it a unique votive object.
Bibliographie
Amandry 1944 : P. Amandry, Petits objets de Delphes, BCH 68-69, 1944, 36-74.
Costin 2015 : C.L. Costin, Craft Specialization, in: P. Whelehan, A. Bolin (éd.), The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, Malden, Wiley-Blackwell, 2015, 1540 p.
Gadolou 2003 : A. Gadolou, Achaian Pottery of the Late Geometric Period: The Impressed Ware Workshop, BSA 98, 2003, 307–329.
Gadolou 2008 : Α. Gadolou, Η Αχαΐα στους Πρώιμους Ιστορικούς Χρόνους. Κεραμεική Παραγωγή και Έθιμα Ταφής, Athènes, Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού, Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων, (Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου, 101), 2008, 338 p.
Gadolou 2011 : A. Gadolou, A Late Geometric Architectural Model with Figure Decoration from Ancient Helike, Achaea, BSA 106, 2011, 247-273.
Gadolou 2015 : A. Gadolou, Narrative Art and Ritual in the Sanctuary of Poseidon Heliconius in Ancient Helike, Achaia, in: V. Vlachou (éd.), Pots, Workshops and Early Iron Age Society: Function and Role of Ceramics in Early Greece. Proceedings of the International Symposium held at the Université libre de Bruxelles 14-16 November 2013, Bruxelles, CReA – Patrimoine, (Études d’Archéologie 8), 2015, 289 p., 267-277.
Gadolou 2017a : A. Gadolou, The Formation of Religious Landscapes in Achaia during the Early Historical Era (10th-7th centuries BC): Political Structures and Social Identities, in: A. Mazarakis Ainian, A. Alexandridou, X. Charalambidou (éd.), Regional Stories Towards a new Perception of the Early Greek World. Acts of an International Symposium in Honour of Professor Jan Bouzek, Volos 18-21 June 2015, Volos, University of Thessaly Press, 2017, 732 p., 279-291.
Gadolou 2017b : A. Gadolou, ∆ύο κρατήρες Πρώιμων Ιστορικών Χρόνων από την Αχαΐα. Εκφράσεις κοινωνικής διαφοροποίησης και εδραίωσης της συλλογικής ταυτότητας, στη διάρκεια του 8ου αι. π.Χ., in : V. Vlachou, A. Gadolou (éd.), Τέρψις. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology in honour of Nota Kourou, Bruxelles, CReA-Patrimoine, (Études d’archéologie 10), 2017, 289 p., 47-60.
Gadolou 2019 : A. Gadolou, Votives and Symbolisms on the Sea Route from the Northern Peloponnese to Magna Grecia during the 8th century BC, in: E. Greco, A. Rizakis (éd.), Gli Achei in Grecia e in Magna Grecia: nuove scorperte e nuove prospettive. Proceedings of conference held in Aighio 12-13/12/2016. Annuario Supplemento 3, 129-141.
Gadolou 2018 (forthcoming) : A. Gadolou, Architectural models as votive offerings in Peloponnesian sanctuaries: Their meaning and function towards the formation of Early Greek ritual identity, in: Proceedings of the conference Neue Forschungen zu Früen Griechischen Heiligtümern (12.-5. Jh. V. Chr.). Internationales
Symposion zu Ehren von Helmut Kyrieleis anläßlich seines 80. Geburtstages, Abteilung Athen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, 19-21 April 2018.
Mazarakis Ainian 1997 : A. Mazarakis Ainian, From rulers’ dwellings to temples. Architecture, religion and society in Early Iron Age Greece (1100-700 BC), Jonsered, Paul Åströms Förlag, (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, 121), 1997, 424 p.
Pelegrine 1991-92 : P. Pelegrine, Some practical aspects of craft specialization, Word Archaeology 23, 1991-92, 1-11.
Kolia 2011 : E. Kolia, A Sanctuary of the Geometric Period in Ancient Helike, Achaea, BSA 106, 2011, 201-246.
Schauer 1997 : Ch. Schauer, Κεραμική από το Αρχαϊκό ιερό της Αρτέμιδος στους Λουσούς, in : Πρακτικά του Ε’ Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Πελοποννησιακών Σπουδών, Άργος-Ναύπλιον 6-10 Σεπτεμβρίου 1995, Παράρτημα 22, 2, Athènes, Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Receipts Fund, (Παράρτημα 22, 2), 1997, 4 volumes, 1908 p., 257-271.
Shennan 1982 : S. Shennan, Ideology, change and the European Early Bronze Age, in: I. Hodder (éd.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982, 188 p., 155-162.
Notes de bas de page
1Kolia 2011, for a full presentation of the excavation of the sanctuary site and the apsidal temple.
2Gadolou 2011; Gadolou 2015; Gadolou 2019.
3Costin 2015, 1-5 for the meaning of the term craft specialization.
4Gadolou 2011, 252-253.
5Roofs were most commonly pitched during the Early Iron Age, Mazarakis Ainian 1997, 364.
6On the technical characteristics of the clays used in Achaean Geometric workshops, see Gadolou 2008, 278-281.
7Examples of the Achaean impressed technique are found in graves and sanctuaries in Achaea, one sherd comes from Delphi, Amandry 1944, 37, fig. 3, and a few more from the sanctuary of Artemis Hemera at Lousoi in Arcadia, Schauer 1997. Building models are an especially popular product of this workshop: Gadolou 2003; Gadolou 2017a, fig. 2, 3.
8Further a petrographic analysis is going to be applied in these samples and juxtaposed with Early Iron Age pottery samples from Achaea in order to have more precise results. This analysis is going to be carried out in Fitsch laboratory in the British School of Athens.
9The model is published in Gadolou 2011 and 2015; see also Gadolou 2019 and Gadolou 2018 forthcoming.
10Gadolou 2003.
11Gadolou 2008, 32-39 for a catalogue of the funerary sites in Early Iron Age Achaea; ibid. 196-197 for the Achaean funerary pithoi.
12Gadolou 2017b, 47-60. These are the first vases of this size that have been derived from the region.
13Gadolou 2018 (forthcoming) for a detailed presentation of the models.
14Gadolou 2011; Gadolou 2015.
15Gadolou 2018 (forthcoming).
16Gadolou 2018 (forthcoming) with further bibliography on the subject.
17For discussion of social identity of the local rulers, see Gadolou 2011, 265-267 with further bibliography.
18Peregrine 1991-92, 1-11 for further exploration of the relationship between advances in craft specialization and the emergence of powerful elites.
19Gadolou 2011 and 2015.
20Gadolou 2018 (forthcoming).
21For the evolution of Early Iron Age Achaean pottery production see Gadolou 2008, 90-197, 254-322.
22Shennan 1982, 156.
Auteur
-
Anastasia Gadolou
Department of Prehistoric and Classical, Archaeological Sites, Monuments and Archaeological Works, Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, agadolou[at]culture.gr
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Peupler et habiter l’Italie et le monde romain
Stéphane Bourdin, Julien Dubouloz et Emmanuelle Rosso (dir.)
2014
Archéologie au présent
Les découvertes de l’archéologie préventive dans les médias
Catherine Dureuil-Bourachau
2015
Sarta Tecta
De l’entretien à la conservation des édifices. Antiquité, Moyen Âge, début de la période moderne
Charles Davoine, Maxime L’Héritier et Ambre Péron d’Harcourt (dir.)
2019
Gérer l’eau en Méditerranée au premier millénaire avant J.-C.
Sophie Bouffier, Oscar Belvedere et Stefano Vassalo (dir.)
2019
Le village de la Capelière en Camargue
Du début du ve siècle avant notre ère à l’Antiquité tardive
Corinne Landuré, Patrice Arcelin et Gilles Arnaud-Fasseta (dir.)
2019
Les métaux précieux en Méditerranée médiévale
Exploitations, transformations, circulations
Nicolas Minvielle Larousse, Marie-Christine Bailly-Maitre et Giovanna Bianchi (dir.)
2019
L’Homme et l’Animal au Maghreb, de la Préhistoire au Moyen Âge
Explorations d’une relation complexe
Véronique Blanc-Bijon, Jean-Pierre Bracco, Marie-Brigitte Carre et al. (dir.)
2021