james _wiseman,_konstantinos_zachos]_landscape_archaeology in southern epirus-greece [2003].pdf

LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHERN EPIRUS, GREECE I

HESPERIA SUPPLEMENTS

1* S. Dow, Prytaneis: A Study of the Inscriptions Honoring the Athenian Councillors (1937)

2* R. S. Young, Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh-Century Well in theAgora (1939) 3* G. P. Stevens, The Setting of the Periclean Parthenon (1940) 4* H. A. Thompson, The Tholos of Athens and Its Predecessors (1940) 5* W. B. Dinsmoor, Observations on the Hephaisteion (1941) 6* J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (1941) 7* G. R. Davidson and D. B. Thompson, Small Objectsfrom the Pnyx: I (1943) 8* Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear (1949) 9* J. V. A. Fine, Horoi: Studies in Mortgage, Real Security, and Land Tenure in Ancient

Athens (1951) 10* L. Talcott, B. Philippaki, G. R. Edwards, and V. R. Grace, Small Objectsfrom the

Pnyx: II (1956) 11* J. R. McCredie, FortifedMilitary Camps inAttica (1966) 12* D. J. Geagan, The Athenian Constitution after Sulla (1967) 13 J. H. Oliver, MarcusAurelius:Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East (1970) 14 J. S. Traill, The Political Organization of Attica (1975) 15 S. V. Tracy, The Lettering of an Athenian Mason (1975) 16 M. K. Langdon, A Sanctuary of Zeus on Mount Hymettos (1976) 17 T. L. Shear Jr., Kallias of Sphettos and the Revolt of Athens in 268 B.C. (1978) 18* L. V. Watrous, Lasithi:A History of Settlement on a Highland Plain in Crete (1982) 19 Studies in Attic Epigraphy, History, and Topography Presented to Eugene Vanderpool

(1982) 20 Studies in Athenian Architecture, Sculpture, and Topography Presented to Homer

A. Thompson (1982) 21 J. E. Coleman, Excavations at Pylos in Elis (1986) 22 E. J. Walters, Attic Grave Reliefs That Represent Women in the Dress oflsis (1988) 23 C. Grandjouan, Hellenistic Relief Moldsfrom the Athenian Agora (1989) 24 J. S. Soles, The Prepalatial Cemeteries at Mochlos and Gournia and the House Tombs

of BronzeAge Crete (1992) 25 S. I. Rotroff and J. H. Oakley, Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian

Agora (1992) 26 I. S. Mark, The Sanctuary of Athena Nike in Athens:Architectural Stages and Chro-

nology (1993) 27 N. A. Winter, ed., Proceedings of the International Conference on GreekArchitectural

Terracottas of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, December 12-15, 1991 (1994) 28 D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Studies in Archaic Corinthian Vase Painting (1996) 29 R. S. Stroud, TheAthenian Grain-Tax Law of 374/3 B.C. (1998) 30 J. W. Shaw, A. Van de Moortel, P. M. Day, and V. Kilikoglou, A LMIA Ceramic

Kiln in South-Central Crete. Function and Pottery Production (2001) 31 J. Papadopoulos, Ceramicus Redivivus: The Early Iron Age Potters' Field in theArea

of the ClassicalAthenian Agora (2003) * Out ofprint

Hesperia Supplement 32

LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY IN SOUTHERN EPIRUS, GREECE I

EDITED BY

JAMES WISEMAN AND KONSTANTINOS ZACHOS

The American School of Classical Studies at Athens 2003

Copyright ? 2003 The American School of Classical Studies at Athens

All rights reserved.

Out-of-print Hesperia supplements may be purchased from Swets & Zeitlinger Backsets Department P.O. Box 810 2160 SZ Lisse The Netherlands

E-mail: [email protected]

Cover illustration: The eroded landscape of Kokkinopilos above the Louros River gorge

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Landscape archaeology in southern Epirus, Greece I / edited by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos.

p. cm.-(Hesperia Supplement; 32) Includes bibliographical references (p.). ISBN 0-87661-532-9 (alk. paper) 1. Preveza (Greece)-Antiquities. 2. Excavations (Archaeology)-Greece-

Preveza. 3. Landscape archaeology-Greece-Preveza. 4. Arta (Greece: Nome)- Antiquities. 5. Excavations (Archaeology)-Greece-Arta (Nome) 6. Landscape archaeology-Greece-Arta (Nome) I. Wiseman, James. II. Zachos, Konstantinos L. III. Hesperia (Princeton, NJ.). Supplement; 32. DF9oI.P72L36 2003 938'.2-dc2I 2002044060

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations vii List of Tables xii Preface and Acknowledgments xv

Chapter 1 THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT: CONCEPT, AIMS, AND ORGANIZATION

by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos 1

Chapter2 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY: SAMPLING STRATEGIES AND FIELD METHODS

by Thomas F. Tartaron 23

Chapter 3 THE EARLY STONE AGE OF THE NOMOS OF PREVEZA: LANDSCAPE AND SETTLEMENT

by Curtis N. Runnels and Tjeerd H. van Andel 47

Chapter 4 EARLY UPPER PALAEOLITHIC SPILAION: AN ARTIFACT-RICH SURFACE SITE

by Curtis N. Runnels, Evangelia Karimali, and Brenda Cullen 135

Chapter 5 THE COASTAL EVOLUTION OF THE AMBRACIAN EMBAYMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTINGS

by Zhichun Jing and George (Rip) Rapp 157

VI CONTENTS

Chapter 6 THE LOWER ACHERON RIVER VALLEY: ANCIENT ACCOUNTS AND THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE

by Mark R. Besonen, George (Rip) Rapp, and Zhichun Jing 199

Chapter 7 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS

by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos 265

References 269 Index 283

ILLUSTRATIONS

Illustrations are by members of the project except where noted.

1.1. Map of Epirus and adjacent regions 2 1.2. Map of survey zone with selected toponyms 3

1.3. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the northern part of the survey zone 14

1.4. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the southern part of the survey zone 14

1.5. The eroded landscape of Kokkinopilos 16

1.6. Aerial view of the fortified town site at Kastro Rogon 18

1.7. Aerial view of the water channel and aqueduct bridges across the Louros River 19

2.1. Map of southwestern Epirus 29

2.2. Archaeological survey tract form 36 2.3. Examples of spatial relationships between tracts and

site/scatters 41 2.4. General view of the site at Grammeno (SS92-6) 44 3.1. Map of Epirus and surrounding areas 49 3.2. Tectonics of northwestern Greece and the Ionian Sea 55 3.3. Possibly active (Late Quaternary) tectonic features

of western Epirus 56 3.4. Present tectonic activity in western Epirus as indicated by

fresh striae on fault planes 56 3.5. Simplified bedrock map of western Epirus 57 3.6. Formation of a doline (sinkhole) 58 3.7. Diagram of the genesis of loutses and poljes on a karstic

peneplain 59 3.8. Poljes and loutses in western Epirus 60

ILLUSTRATIONS

3.9. View ofValtos Kalodiki 63

3.10. The eponymous loutsa on the raised peneplain south of the lower Acheron valley 63

3.11. The polje of Cheimadio 63 3.12. Red sediments and paleosols 64-65

3.13. Terra rossa redeposited in fan complex 66

3.14. Typical grain-size frequency diagrams of terra rossa redeposited in poljes and loutses 67

3.15. The raised polje of Kokkinopilos 71 3.16. Badland erosion at Kokkinopilos 72

3.17. Cross section through the incised polje deposits of Kokkinopilos 73

3.18. Morphi polje outcrop with paleosols forming hard, protruding benches 74

3.19. Composite profile of Ayia loutsa 74

3.20. Stratified lower section of the Ayia loutsa looking west; detail of Mousterian artifacts in situ 75

3.21. The Adriatic Sea during the last glacial maximum 76

3.22. Global sea-level variations for the past 140,000 years 77

3.23. The emerged coastal plain off Epirus at six key moments 79

3.24. Two sea-level rise curves for the deglaciation interval of late OIS 2 79

3.25. Locations of raised paleoshore deposits of the last interglacial in coastal Epirus 81

3.26. Cumulative grain-size distributions of coastal sediments of the last interglacial and early Holocene 81

3.27. The raised Tyrrhenian beach at Tsarlambas 82

3.28. Climate and vegetation changes during the last two glacial- interglacial cycles 84

3.29. Maturity stages and approximate ages of the Mediterranean paleosol chronosequence 87

3.30. Relationship between paleosol maturity, terra rossa deposition rate, and Palaeolithic stone tool age in poljes and loutses 94

3.31. Palaeolithic site/scatters in the Thesprotiko valley 99

3.32. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic site/scatters in the Acheron valley 100

3.33. View of a stone cluster at Alonaki 101

VIII

ILLUSTRATIONS

3.34. Early Palaeolithic artifacts from Alonaki 102

3.35. Early Palaeolithic choppers from Alonaki 102

3.36. Early Palaeolithic core-choppers from Alonaki 103

3.37. Early Palaeolithic core from Alonaki 103

3.38. Early Palaeolithic biface (handaxe) from Ormos Odysseos 104 3.39. Interglacial sand dune (SS92-25) at Ormos Odysseos 104 3.40. Ormos Odysseos, biface findspot (W94-20) 104 3.41. Early Palaeolithic biface or bifacial core from Ayios Thomas 105

3.42. The Palaeolithic site of Ayia and its setting 109

3.43. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia 110 3.44. Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian) artifacts from Ayia 110 3.45. Palaeolithic findspots in the vicinity of Kastrosykia 111

3.46. Anavatis site/scatter 94-13, looking northeast 111

3.47. View of Rodaki (SS92-15) 112 3.48. Middle Palaeolithic artifacts from Rodaki 112

3.49. Early Upper Palaeolithic end scrapers from Spilaion 115

3.50. Late Upper Palaeolithic backed blades 116

3.51. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic site/scatters in the Preveza area 118

3.52. Mesolithic artifacts from Tsouknida and Ammoudia 120

3.53. Mesolithic trapeze from Ammoudia 120

3.54. View of Ammoudia, looking northwest, with stone feature visible at left 121

3.55. Mesolithic artifacts from Loutsa 122

3.56. Typical Preveza Mesolithic findspot (SS94-23), looking southwest 123

3.57. Typical Mesolithic artifact scatter near Preveza (SS94-22) 123 3.58. Mesolithic artifacts from the Preveza area 124

4.1. Map showing the location of Spilaion at the mouth of the Acheron River 136

4.2. Map of Spilaion showing topographic contours 139

4.3. View of Spilaion, looking southwest 139

4.4. View of the rugged karst surface on the southeast slope of Spilaion at the time of collection 140

4.5. Sample grid on the southeast slope of Spilaion during collection 141

IX

ILLUSTRATIONS

4.6. Lithic artifacts from Spilaion 145





4.11. End scrapers from Spilaion 146

4.12. Spatial distribution of lithic debitage and retouched tools at Spilaion 151

4.13. Spatial distribution of individual categories of retouched tools at Spilaion 152

5.1. Geology and geomorphology of the Ambracian embayment and its vicinity 158

5.2. Locations of geologic cores and cross sections 159

5.3. Map of the Nikopolis isthmus showing the location of geologic cores and cross sections 163

5.4. Map of Ormos Vathy showing the location of geologic cores and cross section 163

5.5. Stratigraphic cross section D-D', parallel to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus 165

5.6. Stratigraphic cross section E-E', parallel to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus 166

5.7. Stratigraphic cross section A-A', perpendicular to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus 170

5.8. Stratigraphic cross section B-B', perpendicular to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus 171

5.9. Stratigraphic cross section C-C', perpendicular to the axis of the Nikopolis isthmus 172

5.10. Paleogeographic reconstruction of the eastern side of the Nikopolis isthmus showing the shorelines at different periods 173

5.11. Stratigraphic cross section along the west arm of Ormos Vathy 175

5.12. Paleogeographic reconstructions of Ormos Vathy indicating shoreline changes from the Neolithic through modern periods 176

5.13. Stratigraphic cross section near the Grammeno plain 178

5.14. Map of Kastro Rogon and vicinity showing the location of geologic cores and cross sections 180

5.15. Stratigraphic cross section C-C' at Kastro Rogon 181

x

ILLUSTRATIONS

5.16. Stratigraphic cross section B-B' near Kastro Rogon 183

5.17. Stratigraphic cross section A-A' near Kastro Rogon 185 5.18. Stratigraphic cross section north of the Ambracian Gulf

showing sedimentary sequences and environments across the entire coastal plain-lagoon-barrier system 187

5.19. Paleogeographic reconstructions of Kastro Rogon and vicinity showing the changing coastlines and environments from 7000/6500 B.P. through 1000/500 B.P. 190-191

5.20. Changes in relative sea level as indicated by the radiocarbon-dated peat samples from swamp deposits north of the Ambracian Gulf 193

5.21. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the Ambracian embayment showing the shoreline changes from 7000/6500 B.P. through 1000/500 B.P. 196-197

6.1. Area map of Epirus 200

6.2. Area map of the lower Acheron valley 201

6.3. View of concentric accretionary beach ridges surrounding Phanari Bay 202

6.4. Suggested locations of the Acherousian lake in the lower Acheron valley 203

6.5. Satellite image of Epirus 206 6.6. Simplified geology of the lower Acheron valley 207

6.7. Core locations in the lower Acheron valley 210 6.8. Topographic map of the lower Acheron valley bottom 211

6.9. North-south cross section through the Mesopotamon/ Tsouknida valley constriction 218

6.10. East-west cross section through the Mesopotamon/ Tsouknida valley constriction 219

6.11. Northeast-southwest cross section through the valley bottom (area of former marine embayment) 220

6.12. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the lower Acheron valley for 2100 B.C. and the 8th century B.C. 221

6.13. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the lower Acheron valley for 433 B.C. and 1 B.C. 222

6.14. Paleogeographic reconstructions of the lower Acheron valley forA.D. 1100 andA.D. 1500 223

6.15. Paleogeographic reconstruction of the lower Acheron valley for A.D. 1809 and a map of the modern landscape 224

XI

TABLES

1.1. Project Staff and the Years of Their Participation 10-11 1.2. Field School Students and Their Home Institutions 12

2.1. Stratified Sample and Systematic Survey Coverage, Lower Acheron Valley, 1992-1994 31

2.2. Typical Daily Work Assignment, June 28,1994 33

3.1. Dimensions and Elevations of Poljes and Loutses in Western Epirus 61

3.2. Composition of the Fraction >0.064 mm in Redeposited Terra Rossa 67

3.3. Grain-Size Distribution of Redeposited Terra Rossa 68-69

3.4. Mineral Composition of Redeposited Terra Rossa at Kokkinopilos 70

3.5. Mineral Composition of Redeposited Terra Rossa from Poljes and Loutses in Western Epirus 71

3.6. Approximate Paleoshoreline Depths and Coastal Plain Widths, 140 kyr B.P. to Present 78

3.7. Mineral Composition of Modern and Last Interglacial Coastal Sands in Western Epirus 83

3.8. Maturity Indicators of the B Horizon of Greek Quaternary Paleosols 87

3.9. Short Descriptions and Maturity Stages of Paleosol Bt Horizons at Key Sites in Coastal Epirus 88

3.10. Thermoluminescence and Infrared Stimulated Luminescence Sediment Dates for Western Epirus 91

3.11. Chronostratigraphic Diagram for Archaeological Sites, Sediments, and Paleosols in the Preveza Region 92

3.12. Early Stone Age Chronology 98

TABLES XIII

4.1. Categories of Flintknapping Debitage 143

4.2. Types of Retouched Tools 144

4.3. Degree of Association between Pairs of Classes of Flintknapping Debitage 150

5.1. Radiocarbon Dates from the Ambracian Embayment 168

6.1 Radiocarbon Dates from the Acheron River Valley 210

PREFACE AND

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As editors of this volume we wish to thank the Hellenic Ministry of Cul- ture for the approval of the permit to conduct archaeological surface investigations in southern Epirus, and to thank as well the directors of the 12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities and the 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Angelika Douzougli and Frankiska Keph- allonitou, for their positive recommendation to the Central Archaeologi- cal Council and their cooperation for the entire duration of the project. We also want to thank Evangelos Chrysos, then Professor of Byzantine History of the University of Ioannina (now at the University of Athens), for his many different contributions to the success of the project, and Nikolaos Yiannoulis, Mayor of Preveza during our investigations, who helped us in the resolution of a variety of problems that arose in the course of the project. We acknowledge the significant help in geological matters of Panayiotis Paschos, geologist of the Institute of Geology and Mineral- ogy Exploration (Preveza branch) and an expert in the geomorphological investigations of Epirus. During the fieldwork and the subsequent research in the facilities of the Archaeological Museum and the Byzantine Mu- seum of Ioannina, to which the ancient artifacts collected in the surface survey had been brought, the project enjoyed substantial help from the scientific, technical, and security personnel of both ephoreias, to whom we express our warm thanks. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens approved the proposal for American participation in this coopera- tive project, and staff members of the project annually benefited from the superb library and other facilities of the School in Athens. We are grateful to the School, its staff, and its director during those years, the late W. D. E. Coulson. The former comptroller of the School, Joanna Driva, and the School's Administrator, Maria Pilali, were particularly helpful on numerous occasions, and it is a pleasure to acknowledge their congenial advice and cooperation.

The project was sponsored in the United States by Boston University through its Department of Archaeology, the Center for Archaeological Studies, and the Center for Remote Sensing, all of which provided equipment and facilities to the project, and whose faculty, staff, and students have been supportive in many ways. Boston University also provided fi-

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

nancial and logistical support through its Office of International Programs, which sponsored an archaeological field school as part of the project in 1992-1994. The American codirector of the project (JW) was director of the field school, and Thomas F. Tartaron and Carol A. Stein were teaching assistants; all senior staff of the project also provided instruction and guidance to the students, whose field and laboratory studies were fully inte- grated into the project's activities. All staff and field school students are listed in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Thomas L. Sever, now of NASAs Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and Farouk El- Baz, director of Boston University's Center for Remote Sensing, were both supportive and helpful with advice on remote-sensing aspects of the project.

Funding for the Nikopolis Project was provided by grants from the Earth Observing System, NASA in 1991; the National Geographic Soci- ety, 1992; the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, 1993-1995; and contributions throughout the years of the project by a number of private individu- als, the Friends of the Nikopolis Project, who are listed below. Special thanks are due to four of the Friends, Martha Sharpe Joukowsky and Arte- mis A. W.Joukowsky, James H. OttawayJr., and Malcolm Hewitt Wiener, for their support and encouragement from the inception of the project to its conclusion. Equipment for geophysical and topographic survey and for aerial photography was provided through grants by the W. M. Keck Foun- dation to the Center for Remote Sensing. Autodesk Inc. gave the Nikopolis Project copies of its superb drawing program, AutoCAD, Version 12, for each of the three computer platforms used by the project: Macintosh, DOS, and UNIX. Trimble Navigation Company lent the project two Global Po- sitioning Systems for the 1994 season. In 1993, the Apple Computer Cor- poration contributed four computers to the project, two Quadra 950s and two PowerBook 160s, which served many of the computing needs of the project, both in Greece and in Boston. The Archaeometry Laboratory of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, provided substantial aid in personnel time and support for analyses. Finally, we thank Carol A. Stein, a member of the Nikopolis Project staff and Manuscript Editor at the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, for her congenial, thoughtful, and perceptive help in editing this volume and guiding it through the publication process. On behalf of the entire staff of the project, we acknowledge with deep gratitude the help and contributions of all.

James Wiseman Konstantinos Zachos

XVI

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

FRIENDS OF THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT

BENEFACTORS Lloyd Cotsen and the Neutrogena Corporation Dr. Martha Sharpe Joukowsky and Dr. Artemis A. W. Joukowsky James H. Ottaway Jr. Malcolm Hewitt Wiener

PATRONS Ms. Betty Banks Elizabeth Buntrock Leon Levy Dr. Anna Marguerite McCann and Mr. Robert Taggart Professor J. P. Sullivant and J. L. Godfrey

SPONSORS Anonymous Mr. James R. James Jr. Philip J. King Dr. William Ruf and Mrs. Elizabeth Ruf J. Robert Sewell

SUSTAINING MEMBERS Anonymous Dr. Barbara Bell Doreen C. Spitzer Susan and Stephen Wiseman

CONTRIBUTING MEMBERS Dr. Patricia Anawalt Professor Apostolos Athanassakis Robert S. Carter Professor Marian B. Davist Ernestine S. Elster, Ph.D. Dr. Howard Gotlieb In memory of Stuart Haupt Professor G. L. Huxley Mr. Robert F. Johnston Michaelt and Susan Katzev Norma Kershaw Tom Lucia W. V. MacDonald

Katherine Nordsieck Leonard V. Quigley, Esq. Eleanor Robbins Susan Petschaft Rothstein Jane Ayer Scott Jane Dunn Sibley Judith P. Sullivan Professor and Mrs. Homer A.

Thompsontt Dr. George Udvarhelyi Elizabeth Lyding Will Donald and Rae Wiseman

XVII

CHAPTER I

THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT: CONCEPT, AIMS, AND

ORGANIZATION

by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos

Human societies at all times and in all parts of the world interact with the landscape they inhabit: it could not be otherwise, even if the interaction were somehow limited to the selective exploitation of natural resources. Human activities alter the landscape and the natural environment, often in dramatic ways; the alterations may occur as the result of human design, as in clearing a forest to plant crops, or may be incidental, as in the de- struction (or reshaping) of a mountainside by Roman miners of precious metals. Conversely, humans at various times in the past have physically adapted to changes in their environment (especially in the distant past), or responded to environmental change in a variety of other ways. Some of these responses, such as migration or technological innovation, have been drastic and revolutionary in their effect and are often recognizable in the archaeological record, while other responses were more gradual, even subtle, and are more difficult to detect. To acknowledge the importance of the natural setting, of the environment at large, in studying change in human society is not to deny the importance of intercultural relationships, or the role of the individual intellect or collective social conscience in the evolution of ethical, spiritual, or other sociocultural phenomena in human affairs. The point is that to understand and explain changes in human society over time, it is critically important to study society in relationship to the changing environment in which it existed. Through this approach to the past archaeologists are able to provide insights into the factors that underlie changes in human-land relationships, sometimes over a short time- span or even regarding specific events, but especially over the long term. And they can explore those intercultural relationships and sociocultural phenomena cited above, which themselves evolve within specific environmental settings and change.

We have sought to apply these concepts in the formulation and conduct of the Nikopolis Project, an undertaking in landscape archaeology focused on the human societies that inhabited southern Epirus in northwestern Greece from earliest times to the medieval period. More specifically, the project has employed intensive archaeological survey and geological investigations to determine patterns of human-activity areas, and


Figure 1.1. Map of Epirus and adjacent regions. The survey zone is indicated by crosses.

what the landscape and other features of the natural setting were like in which those activities took place, in an effort to understand and explain observed changes in human-land relationships through time.1

THE CHOICE OF SOUTHERN EPIRUS FOR THE STUDY

Southern Epirus was selected for this broad diachronic study in part because, at the time, it was only in Epirus and in Thessaly that there was material evidence for something approaching the full range of prehistoric periods. Palaeolithic stone tools, for example, were first attested in Greece in the Louros River valley of Epirus.2 The area is also topographically diverse, including coastal regions, marshy lagoons, inland valleys, high upland plains in rugged mountain terrain, and mountain passes,3 thereby providing a variety of environmental settings for different types of human activities that might be investigated by the project. What is more, prior to the Nikopolis Project there had been no large-scale, systematic, modern survey of the region, and most of the previous archaeological excavations were limited in a variety of ways.4 The Nikopolis Project thus could be expected to enlarge our knowledge of a region that was not well known archaeologically.

Another important consideration was the existence in the survey zone of Nikopolis, the "city of victory" founded by Augustus to celebrate his

1. This introductory section is an expanded version of the statement of aims set out in Wiseman 1995a, p. 1, and uses some of the phrasing of that earlier formulation.

2. Dakaris, Higgs, and Hey 1964; Higgs and Vita Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967.

3. Etude gdologique. 4. See below, "Previous Archaeo-

logical Work in the Survey Zone."

2

THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT

Louros River

Acheron River X f Voulista 1 ,~~\ ~ ~ ( ~ ~Panayia

, Parga ,Kiperi Vouv taos

Phnr^ Ephyra Kastri Thesprotiko Ayios Yeoryios

(Ammoudia . 'N2manteion Kastro Rizovouni kinopilos , *Spilaion \

Aloaki. *Loutsa V Ch .:- dio mLadiouros

i;':: Palaiorophoros? Louros-Kastro Rogo, -' - :, Cassope* /

'

Arachthos

K' '"X ) * Strongyli \ River Kastkrosykm Grammeno

Archan los

mian Sea *1o Chlts Nikopolis * SaIaor ^

Ormos Vathy y7."\

.Tmas Ambracian Gulf Prey ;:,

.a

Actm

Figure 1.2. Map of survey zone with selected toponyms

0 5 10 15 20 25 KM

victory in 31 B.C. over Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium. The creation of the urban population by the officially encouraged migration or forced removal to Nikopolis of populations from other cities of Epirus, Acarnania, Leucas, Amphilochia, and Aetolia,5 and the long life of Nikop- olis as the metropolis of Epirus, raised a number of challenging problems regarding the relationship between the city and its territory to which the project's research concepts were directly applicable. The project thus takes its name from Nikopolis, the best-known toponym in southern Epirus. Finally, there was an urgent need for interdisciplinary survey before cer- tain types of evidence, including some of the cultural remains, vanished as a result of various activities: land reclamation near the coast, the growth of the modern town of Preveza and several other smaller communities, industrial and agricultural development, limestone quarrying, and other development activities related to tourism. These activities had wrought ma- jor changes on the regional landscape since 1950, and the pace of change in recent years had accelerated.

THE SURVEY ZONE 5. Kirsten (1987), Murray and

Petsas (1989, pp. 4-5), and Purcell (1987) all discuss the founding of Nikopolis and cite the most important sources.

The survey zone (Figs. 1.1, 1.2), about 1,200 km2, includes the entire nomos (administrative district) of Preveza, a modern town on the Nikopolis peninsula, extending from the straits of Actium almost to the walls of the ancient city. On the east the survey zone extends into the nomos of Arta,

IC

*.. 11,- I I

..:. I .

3


so that the entire deltaic, lagoonal area of the Louros River after its exit from its gorge at the modern town of Philippias was included; not included was the course of the Arachthos, a larger river east of the Louros which flows through the city of Arta (the ancient Ambracia) before emp- tying into the Ambracian Gulf, also known today as the Gulf of Arta. It is the western part of the north coast of the gulf, therefore, that lies within the survey zone, from Salaora on the east to the southern tip of the Nikopolis peninsula. The other boundaries follow those of the nomos of Preveza. That is, the western boundary of the survey zone is the shoreline of the Ionian Sea, from the straits of Actium on the south, where the Ambracian Gulf is linked to the sea, extending north beyond Ammoudia Bay (= Phanari Bay), at the mouth of the Acheron River, to Parga. The northern boundary of the survey zone runs east from Parga, along the middle Acheron River, and across the mountains to the narrows of the Louros River gorge near the modern town of Kleisoura, below the ancient acropolis known locally as Voulista Panayia.

The geology and geomorphology of southern Epirus are discussed in detail in Chapters 3, 5, and 6, so comments here are limited to observations of an introductory nature, primarily focusing on features providing general constraints on communication and exploitation of resources. A series of north-south Mesozoic limestone ridges, 600-1,000 m high, extends across the region from the Louros gorge to the Ionian coast, alter- nating with Tertiary flysch basins at elevations of 150-600 m, so that the basins provide now, as they did in the past, corridors of varying conve- nience for traveling north-south; fortified town sites of Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic times are situated along the routes. Access to these natural corridors on the south is via passes through or between a series of mountains along the Ambracian embayment: from west to east, Mts. Zalongo, Stavros, and Rokia (see Fig. 5.1). The Louros River valley was an important communication route from early prehistoric times to the present; the principal road from Arta to Ioannina, present-day capital of Epirus, still passes through the gorge. The next basin on the west is most easily entered from the south between Mts. Rokia and Stavros, and a traveler would pass near a fortified Classical and Hellenistic town site (Kastro Rizovouni) en route to the north and the passes that lead eventually into the valley of Dodona. The next basin to the west includes access to the upper Acheron River, and can be entered over a low ridge between Mts. Stavros and Zalongo. A bit further west, the natural route is over a ridge of Mt. Zalongo, by the Classical and Hellenistic town of Cassope, and from there through a winding pass to the modern town of Kanallakion in the eastern part of the plain of the lower Acheron River.

Agriculture is now practiced throughout the region, wherever it is possible to do so, in the upland valleys, along the courses of rivers and streams, and in the coastal areas. In the latter regions, especially around Ammoudia Bay and along the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf, swamps and marshy areas have been drained during the past half-century and flood- ing has been further controlled by the construction of canals, which also serve as conduits for irrigation of fields. Dams were built on both the Louros and Arachthos Rivers. There has been extensive work also in some of the

4


upland basins; for example, a small lake (Lake Mavri) was drained in the basin east of Kastro Rizovouni to provide more arable land, and the deep waters of Lake Ziros in the same area are now being tapped for irrigation. The whole lower Acheron and the valley of its chief tributary, the Vouvos (ancient Kokytos) River, as far as the modern town of Paramythia (outside the survey zone) are now lush with vegetation, including a variety of cash crops and orchards.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE SURVEY ZONE

6. A detailed account of previous investigations in southern Epirus is being prepared by K. Zachos.

7. Dakaris 1971, 1975b, 1977,1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983.

8. Dakaris 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1975a, 1975b, 1977, 1993; Wiseman 1998.

9. Dakaris, Higgs, and Hey 1964; Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs et al. 1967.

10. Bailey et al. 1983a, 1983b; Bailey, Papaconstantinou, and Sturdy 1992. The investigations in Epirus by G. Bailey and his colleagues, as well as other recent work somewhat further afield (e.g., by K. Petruso in Albania), are discussed, and additional publications cited, by Runnels and van Andel in Chapter 3.

11. Hammond 1967. 12. Dakaris 1971, 1972. 13. Papers presented at the

symposium were published in Chrysos 1987.

14. Wiseman 1987, p. 413.

The most significant archaeological activities in the larger region in earlier years6 were excavations by Greek and German scholars at the ancient town of Cassope;7 Greek excavations at a site near the mouth of the Acheron identified by the excavator as the Nekyomanteion, the Oracle of the Dead;8 and investigations by British scholars of Palaeolithic sites in the Louros River gorge to the northeast of Nikopolis.9 Recently the British renewed their interest in some of Eric Higgs's early work at Kokkinopilos and its environs (e.g., Asprochaliko), and carried out limited survey for Palaeolithic remains along the coast.10 Little was known of Neolithic, Bronze Age, and early Iron Age developments in the region, but the historical period was somewhat better represented in the scholarly literature. Important, useful studies of the region in antiquity were published by N. G. L. Hammond11 and by Sotirios Dakaris.12 Both authors included copious topographical observations in their books and their research involved some survey, which was, however, neither systematic nor intensive. Other archaeological investigations in the area have been limited to small-scale operations, usu- ally involving salvage or preservation by the ephoreias, and have been briefly reported over the years in the annual Archaiologikon Deltion of the Greek Archaeological Service.

BACKGROUND AND ORGANIZATION OF THE PROJECT

The Nikopolis Project had its origins in the First International Sympo- sium on Nicopolis in 1984.13 A paper presented by one of us (JW) focused on the need for the study of Nikopolis in its topographic setting, and suggested approaches to such a study. One specific recommendation, particularly relevant to the eventual development of the Nikopolis Project, was phrased as follows.

A survey both of the natural resources and the cultural remains of the region will be required if Nikopolis is to be studied in its regional context. What is more, the ancient topographic profile, including the changing coastlines, must be determined, along with climatic changes and the palaeo- ecology generally.14

5


Remote sensing, including geophysical prospection, and computer-aided analysis were discussed in the same presentation as useful tools to aid in such an undertaking, as well as in the investigation of Nikopolis itself. Geophysical prospection, in particular, was cited as an important methodology by which at least some parts of the city plan of Nikopolis might be established before any excavation was initiated. Symposium participants and organizers were deeply interested in the investigation and preservation of the great city itself, and a coordinated, multifaceted, long-term effort was formally declared by the symposium board to be a desirable outcome of the symposium.15

Continued concern for Nikopolis eventually led to the appointment in 1986 by the Greek Minister of Culture, Melina Mercouri, of a special Committee for the Preservation of Nikopolis, which was headed by Evangelos Chrysos (now based at the University of Athens), who was then Professor of Byzantine History at the University of Ioannina and one of the organizers of the symposium. The committee members represented the groups and organizations in Greece with concerns or responsibilities for Nikopolis, including the Greek Archaeological Service, the Archaeo- logical Society of Athens, the city of Preveza, the University of Ioannina, and others. Architects hired by the committee were given an office in the Town Hall of Preveza, and they began the important jobs of mapping all visible remains in Nikopolis and its periphery, and of documenting the ownership of all properties within the archaeological zone of Nikopolis. The committee was reconstituted occasionally in the 1990s to reflect political (both local and national) and institutional changes, but Chrysos re- tained the chairmanship throughout the permutations of the committee until the completion of the Nikopolis Project.

With the encouragement of Chrysos, Wiseman began discussions in 1988 with Angelika Douzougli, the newly appointed proistameni (director) of the 12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, and her husband, Konstantinos Zachos, senior archaeologist in the same ephoreia, regarding possible collaboration on a project in the Nikopolis region, which lies within the purview of that ephoreia. The 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, directed by Frankiska Kephallonitou, also became involved in the early planning, because Late Antique and Byzantine remains in the same region were among the responsibilities of that ephoreia. The deci- sion was reached in 1990 that the two ephoreias, both based in loannina, and Boston University would jointly share the responsibilities of the project, so that the proposal for the project, when finalized, was for a joint undertaking, synergasia in Greek terminology. The directors of the two ephoreias and K. Zachos were codirectors of the project with Wiseman, the Ameri- can Principal Investigator, and other representatives of the ephoreias were also members of the staff. The project proposal was then submitted first to the American School of Classical Studies, as then required by Greek law for a project involving American sponsorship or cosponsorship.

There was for a time consideration of a collaborative project based on Nikopolis itself, working in cooperation with the group that would carry out the regional study, as envisioned at the Nikopolis symposium.16 The principal aims of work at Nikopolis would have been to determine at least

15. Chrysos 1987, pp. 417-418. 16. Wiseman 1987.

6


17. van Andel and Runnels 1987; Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994.

the general outline of the city plan through geophysical prospection and other forms of remote sensing; photography from a tethered blimp both to help in detecting the town plan and to aid in the documentation of above- ground remains; and test excavations intended to provide a stratigraphic control for regional ceramics, an urgent need because there were then few published groups of well-dated ceramics. These plans were abandoned in 1991, as it became clear that there were too many conflicting and compet- ing claims to archaeological rights at Nikopolis itself for any one group, especially a new one, to obtain the support of the Archaeological Council in Athens, the responsible body for approving permits for archaeological investigations of any kind in Greece. The proposal as finally submitted was for a combined archaeological and geological survey of the region, but not including Nikopolis, conducted in synergasia. For 1991, the project would involve mainly ground-truthing of satellite imagery and gaining greater familiarity with the landscape by the American staff, and finalizing the aims and methodology of the regional investigation. The subsequent permit was for three years, 1992-1994, during which the archaeological and geological investigations were carried out. There were study seasons in the summers of 1995 and 1996, when senior staff, based in Ioannina to study archaeological materials collected during the survey, were able to revisit the survey zone with staff reports in hand and to discuss project results and interpretations. Laboratory analyses and study both of the artifacts and the archives have continued since that time.

A number of scholars in Greece, the United States, the United King- dom, and other countries contributed to the eventual research design, including both specific research aims and methodologies adopted by the Nikopolis Project, especially those who have devoted so much of their time and effort as members of the staff. George (Rip) Rapp, a geoarchaeologist at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, with extensive field experience in Greece and other parts of the eastern Mediterranean, was one of the first scholars invited to join the staff; he organized and directed much of the project's geological survey, coring program, and shoreline studies. Curtis Runnels, an archaeologist at Boston University, brought his exper- tise in the early prehistory of Greece and in survey to the Nikopolis Project. He would lead the Palaeolithic survey, with the aid and cooperation of his wife, Priscilla Murray, Research Fellow in Archaeology at Boston Univer- sity, and Tjeerd van Andel, a geoarchaeologist formerly of Stanford Uni- versity, then (and now) of the University of Cambridge. Runnels and van Andel would now apply survey techniques they had jointly developed on projects in southern Greece to the investigation of early humans and hominids in Epirus.17 Their survey, which supplemented, but was conducted separately from, the intensive surface survey carried out by other staff, involved intensive geomorphologic studies in the detection of Pleistocene landscapes, which they then searched. Both would also join in other project responsibilities-Runnels, for example, in the analysis of prehistoric stone tools, and van Andel in geomorphology for all periods, as well as providing counsel and insight for all geoarchaeological concerns. Lucy Wiseman of Boston University's Center for Archaeological Studies was also a member of the staff from the beginning, serving both as project administrator

7


and registrar of artifacts. Three advanced graduate students in archaeology at Boston University were also part of the senior staff. Thomas Tartaron and Carol Stein were the primary team leaders in archaeological survey, and provided both supervision and guidance for others who subsequently became survey team leaders. Tartaron also developed a specific sampling strategy for the Acheron River valley and Ayios Thomas peninsula, re- flecting the overall stratified sampling strategy of the project, and carried out a special study of the Bronze Age sites and materials, part of which was included in his doctoral dissertation.18 Melissa Moore oversaw the study and registration of ceramics, and part of her research has been included in her Ph.D. dissertation.19 Other staff and consultants included geologists, computer scientists, archaeologists, and specialists in various other fields; all staff and their affiliations during the Nikopolis Project are provided in Table 1.1. Students enrolled in a Boston University Archaeo- logical Field School were invaluable members both of the field survey teams and the geological coring and survey units in 1992, 1993, and 1994. As a part of their archaeological training, they participated in all activities of the project in Greece, including the processing of artifacts, data processing on computer, digitizing of maps, ground-truthing of satellite imagery, topographical survey, geophysical prospection, aerial photography by tethered blimp, and other investigations. Their names and the institutions where they were studying at the time are listed in Table 1.2.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH AIMS

Research aims, nested within the larger conceptual framework described above, relate mainly to specific time periods and include the following topics, phrased as questions, which much of the project's fieldwork was intended to answer.

1. What forms do the cultural remains of the earliest inhabitants of southern Epirus take, and how may we explain their distribution in the different periods of the Palaeolithic? What resources were exploited by the early humans and hominids, and what was the environmental setting?

2. What is the evidence for the shift from hunting/gathering groups to agricultural societies? Can that shift be related to changes in the landscape?

3. What was the nature of the contacts between peoples of this region in later prehistoric times, especially in the Late Bronze Age, and groups on the shores of the Ionian Sea, in other parts of Greece, and more generally in the eastern Mediterranean? Do these contacts differ in quality during fully historical times?

4. How are colonial activities of southern Greeks manifested in this region?

5. What were the effects of the development of political leagues and interregional alliances on settlement patterns, sizes of sites, religious centers, and resource exploitation in Classical and Hellenistic times?

18. Tartaron 1996. 19. Moore 2000.

8


6. What were the effects of the historically documented Roman intrusion into Epirus (which was also the earliest intervention by Romans in Greek affairs) in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C., and how may they be identified in the landscape? How intru- sive into local society were the Romans, and what activities (military, industrial, commercial, social, etc.) are indicated by the cultural remains?

7. What was the regional effect of the synoecism involved in the founding of Nikopolis by Octavian, later Augustus, first emperor of Rome? How are the new patterns of settlement and communication related to changes in the landscape itself?

8. What was the nature of the exploitation of the countryside in the Late Antique period (4th-6th centuries A.c.) and how was it related to the socioeconomic transformation into medieval times? More specifically, what was the economic basis of southern Epirus in late antiquity and in medieval times? When did the extensive exploitation of wetlands along the Ambracian Gulf begin, and when the deliberate reclamation of land from coastal lagoons?

METHODOLOGIES

20. A practice recommended in Sever and Wiseman 1985, pp. 70-71.

The research design called for the archaeological sampling by intensive surface survey of all environmental zones: coastal plains, inland valleys, mountainous terrain, and upland valleys. The large size of the survey zone precluded archaeological survey over the entire region. The selection of the areas to be surveyed within each environmental zone would be guided primarily by acquired knowledge of the region. Geological survey and other geomorphologic investigations provided important information, both negative and positive, influencing the selection of fields and transects to survey; fieldwalking teams, for example, could avoid areas of recent alluviation where remains (if any) of prehistoric-medieval times would have been covered over and not detectable. The location of early historical or even Pleis- tocene landscapes exposed by erosion, on the other hand, offered opportu- nities for survey with greater expectation of detecting archaeological remains. Even so, occasional surveys were conducted to test negative indi- cations from geomorphology or satellite imagery,20 as when fieldwalking teams spent a day walking transects across the presumed relict coastlines of Ammoudia Bay that were formed by long-shore deposition in recent historical times. The negative results of the intensive survey confirmed the geomorphologic conclusions and the interpretations of imagery. The degree of visibility was recorded for all areas surveyed. Fields where vegetation was too dense for archaeological remains to be seen during preliminary reconnaissance were not selected for survey. This practice is an important consideration in evaluating the results of the survey, because in some other year, or some other time of year, those fields might be clear of vegetation, and might, of course, yield archaeological materials. On the other hand, in some instances fieldwalking teams were able to return to a region to survey fields that had been too densely covered for survey in a

9


TABLE 1.1. PROJECT STAFF AND THE YEARS OF THEIR PARTICIPATION Name 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

CODIRECTORS Angelika Douzougli/Konstantinos Zachos,

12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities * * 0 0* Frankiska Kephallonitou,

8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities 0 0 0 James Wiseman 0 .

ADMINISTRATION AND INVENTORY

Lucy Wiseman (registrar of artifacts, administration) * * * 0 Melissa Moore (registrar of ceramics, archaeology) * * * * e Lia Karimali (lithics, survey) * * * Dimitra Papagianni, University of Cambridge (lithics, survey) * * 0 Katerina Dakari, 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities

(survey, Late Antique ceramics) * * Ricardo Elia (associate director, archaeology) Asymina Kardasi, Athens (Byzantine ceramics) Stavroula Vrachionidou, 12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and

Classical Antiquities (administration, survey) *

ARCHAEOLOGY, SENIOR STAFF Timothy Baugh (remote sensing, ground-truthing) Brenda Cullen (survey, remote sensing) * * * * Priscilla Murray (survey, drafting) * * * Curtis Runnels (field director, Palaeolithic survey; lithics) * * * * * Carol Stein (survey, remote sensing) * S 0 Thomas Tartaron (survey, ground-truthing) * * * Stavros Zabetas, Greek Archaeological Service (survey)

GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS Mark Besonen, University of Minnesota, Duluth

(geological survey, coring) Richard Dunn, University of Delaware (geological survey, coring) Zhichun Jing, University of Minnesota, Duluth

(geological survey, coring) * * Jon Jolly, Seattle, Washington (oceanography, instrumentation) George (Rip) Rapp, University of Minnesota, Duluth

(geology, geoarchaeology) * * 0 Apostolos Sarris, Athens, Greece (geophysics) Marie Schneider (geology, survey) Tjeerd van Andel, University of Cambridge

(Pleistocene geology, geomorphology, geoarchaeology) * * * Sytze van Heteren (geology) John Weymouth, University of Nebraska (geophysics) Li-Ping Zhou, University of Cambridge

(geology, thermoluminescence dating)

IO


TABLE 1.1-Continued

Name 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

COMPUTER SCIENCE Robert DeRoy (computer science, remote sensing) Daniel Juliano (computer science, remote sensing) Rudi Perkins, Bangor, Maine (computer science)

PHOTOGRAPHY Michael Hamilton (aerial photography, generalphotography) * Eleanor Emlen Myers' (aerialphotography) J. Wilson Myers (aerialphotography)

TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY AND DRAFTING Theodoros Chazitheodoros, Greek Archaeological Service,

Athens (topographical survey, drafting) * David Clayton (topographical survey, drafting) Athina Kotsani, Preveza (drafting) a Kostas Papavasileiou, Preveza (architecture, drafting) a Anne Van Dyne, Seattle, Washington

(topographical survey, drafting) a

GENERAL STAFF Stephen Agnew (ground-truthing) 0 Kael Alford (survey) Alesia Alphin (survey, inventory) Betty Banks, Spokane, Washington (survey, inventory,

data entry) Mark Greco (survey) * Cinder Griffin, Bryn Mawr (survey, inventory) a Nikola Hampe, University of Miinster (survey) a Alan Kaiser (survey) Petra Matern, University of Miinster (survey) 0 Michele Miller (ground-truthing, survey) * S Lee Riccardi (survey, inventory) * Katrin Vanderhuyde, University of loannina (survey) Elizabeth Wiseman, Littleton, Colorado

(photography, ground-truthing)

CON SULTANTS Virginia Anderson-Stojanovic, Wilson College (ceramics) * Evangelos Chrysos, University of loannina (Byzantine history) * * * Harrison Eiteljorg II, Bryn Mawr (databases, AutoCAD) Panayiotis Paschos, IGME, Preveza (geology) * * *

Staff members listed without an institutional affiliation or city were from Boston University.

II


TABLE 1.2. FIELD SCHOOL STUDENTS

I992 Kael Alford, Boston University Alexandra Bienkowska, Boston University Anne Cockburn, Williams College Todd Gukelberger, SUNY, Albany Deborah King, Rensselaer University Dawna Marden, University of Southern Maine Thomas Matthews, Utica College of Syracuse University Richard Rotman, Boston University Bayleh Shapiro, Boston University Jane Sontheimer, Boston University Anita Vyas, Boston University Erika Washburn, Boston University

1993 Alessandro Abdo, Boston University Evie Ahtaridis, University of Pennsylvania Tracy Barnes, Texas Christian University Arlyn Bruccoli, Bard College Christina Calvin, George Mason University Scott deBrestian, Boston University Antonina Delu, University of California, Riverside Katherine Demopoulos, University of California, Los Angeles Cheryl Eckhardt, Boston University Jennifer Fisher, Boston University Lorena Freeman, University of the South Stephani Kleiman, Loyola Marymount University Noah Koff, Boston University

AND THEIR HOME INSTITUTIONS

Natalie Loomis, Tulane University Michael Marton, Franklin and Marshall College Martin McBrearty, Furman University Scott McCrimmon, Boston University Sean Mulligan, Boston University Wendy O'Brien, Boston University Dena Pappathanasi, University of New Hampshire Rudolph Perkins, Boston University Jamie Ravenscraft, Duke University Jonathan Wood, Princeton University Kelly Younger, Loyola Marymount University

1994 Lisa Davis, Harvard University Mely Do, University of Pittsburgh Aviva Figler, Boston University Mike Gaddis, Princeton University Amy Graves, Miami University Leslie Harlacker, Boston University Karla Manternach, Loras College Joe Nigro, Boston University Anne Maxson, Duke University Kathy Montgomery, Boston University Jennifer Murray, SUNY, Buffalo Stephan Papageorgiou, Versallius College, Brussels T. J. Reed, Cornell University Yasuhisa Shimizu, Boston University Alison Spear, Mount Holyoke College

previous year. The methodology of the surface survey is discussed in detail by Tartaron in Chapter 2, but it is important to note here that surface surveys included both transects within large regions and intensive sampling, or complete coverage, of human-activity areas ranging from small single-activity sites to extensive settlements. In addition, one fortified town site (Kastri, in the lower Acheron valley) was selected for intensive urban survey.

Geomorphologic studies formed part of the central core of the project, as required by the research concept. If we were to study the interaction between humans and their environment, we reasoned, one of the first steps must be to determine what that natural setting was-that is, what the landscape and other aspects of the environment were like over time. A number of investigations, therefore, were planned to provide the needed evidence. An extensive coring program was initiated in 1992 and continued through 1994 that was aimed at determining changes in shorelines over time both in the Ambracian Gulf and along the Ionian coast. The analyses of the cores, most of which were carried out in the Archaeometry Laboratory of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, also made it possible to establish a sequence of local change and, through radiocarbon dating, to determine the chronology of change. Cores also provided microfauna,

I2


21. See the discussions in Wiseman 1992b, pp. 3-5; 1993a, pp. 12-13.

22. The following brief account is intended mainly to explain what kinds of remote-sensing imagery were acquired and used by the project, and why they were used.

23. Wiseman 1996a, 1996b. 24. Stein and Cullen 1994;

Wiseman 1996a, 1996b.

macrofauna, and pollen for paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Geomor- phologic investigations involved geological survey in all parts of the survey zone, and intensive work, including coring and mapping, at selected sites or regions. Geological survey and coring were coordinated as closely as possible with the archaeological survey, so that field teams often com- prised both geologists and archaeologists working together.

We had planned offshore investigations to supplement the study of shoreline change, and there was a promising beginning to that research. The Hellenic Navy dispatched a research ship, the Pytheas, to work with project staff for two weeks in 1992. A Klein side-scan sonar and a Klein subbottom profiler were towed behind the ship both in the Ionian Sea and in the Ambracian Gulf, the former recording features on the surface of the sea bottom, the latter detailing the depth and nature of sediments below the sea floor. The survey, in perpendicular transects forming a grid pattern, produced data covering some 300 linear kilometers, which to this date have received only preliminary analysis21 because they were subsequently sequestered by another bureau of the Greek government.

Remote sensing from space was determined to be a potentially useful tool for our survey well before the initiation of the project, as noted above.22 We did not, however, expect remote-sensing imagery to play a significant role in the detection of archaeological sites because at that time most remote sensors were known to be unsuccessful in penetrating dense vegetation, which covered much of our survey zone.23 What is more, although the resolution of satellite imagery had been improved, the smallest picture element (= pixel) of available multispectral imagery was 20 meters to a side, too large to be helpful in detecting the small features and artifacts of most archaeological landscapes. It is an interesting sidelight on the development of archaeological methodologies that remote sensing in the end proved to be quite useful in detecting Pleistocene landscapes, which could then be located and searched by ground-truthing survey teams, and which resulted in the discovery of five prehistoric sites.24 Its greatest value, we thought at the time, would probably lie in its ability to provide imagery of the entire region that would permit the classification and identification of present-day land cover. It could, therefore, help in defining the environmental zones of the survey area; show current conditions that might affect the conduct of surface survey; and perhaps provide some insight into routes of communication among known (or subsequently discovered) ancient settlements. The imagery would also serve as a layer in the computer- aided GIS (geographic information system) maps to be generated by the project, and we hoped to develop spectral signatures-that is, a character- istic spectral response identifiable in the imagery-for features of archaeological interest.

Both multispectral (MSS) and panchromatic imagery of the entire survey zone was acquired from the French satellite company SPOT before the beginning of fieldwork in 1991. SPOT imagery was selected primarily because its spatial resolution was the finest available for general research at that time: MSS at 20 meters, panchromatic at an even finer 10 meters. The United States'Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery, in contrast, has a resolution of 30 meters. Since spatial resolution on the ground is a

I3


Figure 1.3. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the northern part of the survey zone

Figure 1.4. Multispectral image (SPOT) of the southern part of the survey zone. Leucas (lower left) and other regions south of the Ambracian Gulf lie outside the survey area.

I4


function of altitude as well as the type of sensor, we could have achieved finer resolution from sensors mounted on aircraft, instead of spacecraft. The only airborne platform available to the project, however, was a tethered blimp, which, although excellent for individual sites and smaller areas, was not appropriate for such a large regional survey as ours because of the time and other logistical difficulties such coverage would require. Full coverage of the survey zone required two images, both in MSS and panchromatic. The northern image (Fig. 1.3) included almost the entire survey zone, and the second (Fig. 1.4) added the southern part of the Nikopolis peninsula, along with areas outside the survey zone: Actium, Leucas, and other areas south of the Ambracian Gulf.

Multispectral imagery is particularly useful in showing different types of landcover because landcover types have a different reflectance value in each band of the electromagnetic spectrum. The combination of these numeric values in the bands used by the sensor (SPOT uses green, red, and near infrared) constitutes a spectral signature, which may be represented by a (false) color assigned in a multispectral image generated by the computer. This assigning of colors, or classification of images, is a process whereby each land area having the same kind of cover receives the same (false) color in the image. The researcher, then, after identifying on the ground at least once the class represented by a particular color as a particular landcover (e.g., class 12 = red = limestone outcropping), may reason- ably expect other patches of red in that image to represent the same kind of landcover; in the example just cited, more limestone outcrops. In practice, however, the classification of an image may result in the combining of several signatures into a single class, or the subdivision of a signature into more than one class, depending on the number of classes the researcher chooses for the image and on other physical aspects of the landcover. Mak- ing use of the facilities of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston Uni- versity, Carol Stein classified the MSS imagery of the Nikopolis Project into fifty classes, with all unclassified landcover assigned class 0. The number of classes was considerably larger than proved useful in the field because the fine distinctions the classification made possible resulted in the identification of many kinds of landcover that were irrelevant for our research. For example, there was no reason for us to be able to distinguish kiwi plants from maize, which our classification enabled us to do. In retrospect, we now see that fewer landcover classes (say, fifteen to twenty) would have been preferable, because such a classification would have resulted in a ben- eficial lumping together of rock outcroppings, and would have created other continuous zones-as in fact they were-of barren land, instead of a number of separate units in the classified imagery. The finer distinctions involved in developing a spectral signature of an archaeological feature, or archaeological feature combined with a particular vegetation, would still have been theoretically possible.

The relevant portions of the MSS images were then subdivided by Stein into twenty scenes, each representing about 100 km2 on the ground, and printed for field use. Transparent overlays at the same size were also printed, five for each scene, each displaying ten of the fifty false colors of classes of landcover, so that field teams were able to use them conveniently

I5


Figure 1.5. The eroded landscape of , Z ~ ~ W . . . . . . _ ~~~~~ ~ ~ .......Kokkinopilos above the Louros

__ ............ .River gorge

to determine what on the ground was actually being represented by each false color; this kind of fieldwork is called "ground-truthing." The hard copy of the scenes and transparencies were at a scale of 1:50,000, so they could be used in conjunction with our topographical maps of the same scale; the transparencies could be used as overlays of the maps, just as they were on the printed scenes.

Ground-truthing, a focus of our fieldwork in 1991, required precise location of the observed landscape, so the field teams were also provided with copies of the panchromatic scenes, and even more detailed subscenes. Locations were marked on 1:5,000 topographical maps, and aerial photographs (scale: 1:20,000) also were used to help locate specific features in the landscape; both maps and photographs were obtained from the Geo- graphic Service of the Hellenic Army. Additional locational information was obtained by 1) global positioning systems (GPS), which provide UTM as well as longitude/latitude readings through communication with the navigational satellites (21 in number in 1991) that constantly orbit earth; 2) altimeter readings (more accurate at that time than GPS in determining altitude), when benchmarks are not readily available; and 3) readings by electronic laser theodolite, for still more precise location in three dimensions, as appropriate. These ground-truthing expeditions, which were led by Timothy G. Baugh during the first, preparatory field season, resulted in the identification of 27 of the 50 classes of landcover. An additional 12 classes were created for areas with distinctive features related to human activity whose spectral signatures might serve as guides to the location of other similar areas: e.g., quarries or ancient sites. One of those new classifications was the eroded Pleistocene landscape of Kokkinopilos (Fig. 1.5), which eventually led to the discovery of five other similar landscapes, and prehistoric sites, as mentioned above. The experience gained in using GPS, satellite imagery, and topographic maps in 1991 was invaluable in developing standard procedures for the survey teams of 1992-1994.

I6


25. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman 1987.

26. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman 1987.

What is more, the ground-truthing expeditions of 1991 provided several members of the staff with a fundamental familiarity with the Epirote landscape.

Another kind of remote sensing, aerial photography from a tethered blimp, was employed by the project to document some of the larger known ancient sites. Four sites were photographed with radio-controlled cameras in 1992 by field teams led byJ. Wilson Myers and Eleanor Emlen Myers: the fortified town of Kastro Rogon south of the Louros River gorge; Kastro Rizovouni, a fortified town in an enclosed plain north of Kastro Rogon; the Roman aqueduct near Ayios Georgios in the Louros River gorge; and Voulista Panayia, a Hellenistic site overlooking the narrows of the same gorge further north at Kleisoura. Michael Hamilton, who was the project's staff photographer, led the blimp-photography team in 1993 that photographed the large fortified Classical and Hellenistic site at the abandoned modern village of Palaiorophoros, north of the town of Louros. The use of this technique was limited by a number of factors. The necessity for permits from multiple civilian and military authorities resulted in numerous, costly delays and disruption of schedules (e.g., blimp photography in 1991 had to be cancelled and the 1993 season was severely curtailed). The ex- pense was significant, and was greatly increased in 1993 when we decided, for safety reasons, to use helium in the blimp instead of less expensive, but highly flammable hydrogen. In addition, there were the normal delays and logistical problems imposed by the technique itself, such as the need to await favorable winds (that is, none or very light) and other climatic conditions. The photographic results of this technique, however, are highly useful, especially when, as on the Nikopolis Project, multiple cameras are used to provide coverage both in black and white and in color. A particular advantage of photography from a tethered blimp is that the views are ver- tical and so can be used in mapping, unlike the oblique views frequently gathered by cameras on aircraft. It is also possible in a single flight to obtain photos at a series of elevations up to a maximum of 800 m, thereby providing both close-ups and extensive coverage (see Fig. 1.6). The aerial photograph also can be scanned and then combined with the multispectral image of that area, a technique we used in the study of the fortified town site of Palaiorophoros.

The Boston University blimp-photography system was designed byJ. Wilson Myers, who modeled it on the system he had developed earlier, and is described in detail elsewhere.25 A multispectral video camera, suc- cessfully used on a tethered blimp in the Corinthia by a Boston University team in 1986,26 was not used by the Nikopolis Project, but could usefully be deployed in the future, since it can provide high spatial resolution in six bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Geophysical prospection of various kinds was carried out at a number of sites, primarily to provide data on possible subsurface features in areas where surface survey suggested significant human activity. Only limited prospection was possible in 1992 because of staffing and equipment problems, but successful programs of investigation were conducted in 1993 under the direction of John Weymouth of the University of Nebraska and

I7


Figure 1.6. Aerial view of the fortified town site at Kastro Rogon from an elevation of 400 m. Photo by J. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers

in 1994, when Weymouth was succeeded by his protege, Apostolos Sarris. Instrumentation included a proton magnetometer, electrical resistivity meter, and electromagnetic conductivity meter, of which the first was most frequently used. Weymouth and Sarris are preparing a report on their investigations for volume 2 of this series, and the results are also being incor- porated into reports on the town sites where geophysical prospection de- tected significant subsurface features such as probable kilns and buildings.

The permit of the Nikopolis Project was for survey, not excavation; indeed, under Greek law a single permit might cover only one or the other. As a result, the project had an arrangement whereby one of the cooperat- ing Greek ephoreias would perform excavation if a site was discovered by the project to be in need of emergency attention. The discovery at the Roman villa site of Strongyli, for example, that burials had been plundered by clandestine diggers and parts of floor mosaics had been exposed prompted excavations by the Greek ephoreia to ensure conservation.27 A similar situation arose at Frangoklisia, probably another Roman villa, on the Ionian coast near Loutsa.28 The project did carry out limited excavation in 1991 at the request of the Prehistoric and Classical Ephoreia in the Roman aqueduct below the village of Ayios Georgios, so that details of the water channels and the chronological sequence of aqueduct bridges across the Louros River might be studied and drawn (Fig. 1.7). Our work here resulted in, among other conclusions, the confirmation that the northern bridge was built and utilized for the aqueduct after the earlier, Au- gustan bridge had been damaged and abandoned.

27. Douzougli 1998a, 1998b. 28. Zachos 1998.

I8


Figure 1.7. Aerial view of the water i channel (right) and aqueduct bridges . t across the Louros River from an elevation of 320 m. Photo by a ' f J. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers s

DOCUMENTATION

All team leaders and individual investigators kept a daily record of their activities and observations in bound, hardback notebooks, which also con- tained photographic prints and drawings, and were indexed upon completion. The notebooks were numbered sequentially. This permanent historical record, partially in narrative form, was supplemented by an array of printed forms that were filled out in the field or laboratory, as appropriate, providing detailed information on all aspects of the investigations, from surface survey to artifact inventory. These two kinds of written documentation were cross-referenced on a daily basis, but it was primarily the series of printed forms that provided the bulk of the information that was entered into the computer databases. I summarize below the principal databases of the Nikopolis Project. All forms were numbered by year and se- quential accession within the year, e.g., 92-1. Databases marked with an asterisk are dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 2.

1. Ground-Truthing Form (GTF). A GTF was filled out at every location where ground-truthing was conducted to identify the landcover of classes in the satellite imagery.

*2. Tract (T). The tract, an area of arbitrary size, is the project's primary survey unit whether in the countryside or within a large site. The database includes location, size, description, conditions of the survey, total artifact counts, and summary results.

I 9


*3. Site/Scatter (SS). An SS is any location where there was a concentration of artifacts or that is marked by visible, in situ remains. This category includes any location from a small scatter of lithics to a fortified town. The database includes location, size, description, chronology, and survey data.

*4. Walkover (W). A W indicates a nonintensive survey or a visit either for reconnaissance or reexamination.

5. Sample. The sample database includes the description, counts, dates, and other details of all cultural material collected during survey. Sample numbers are identical to the numbers of the survey units where they were collected.

6. Inventory. Artifacts selected for inventory were catalogued and stored according to material/function. Selection criteria included, among others, significance for dating or functional analysis, or the likelihood of publication as a type artifact.

7. Special Analyses. This database provides a record of the context and nature of samples taken for laboratory analyses, from clay samples to geological cores.

8. Photo Inventory. A record of all black-and-white and color photographs taken by the Nikopolis Project, in the field, photo studio, or laboratory.

9. Drawing Inventory. A record of all drawings made by and for the project.

Relational databases 1-6 were all created in FoxBase+ for Mac, which seemed to the staff, including the computer scientists and engineers, the most suitable at the time. Unfortunately, when the software was redesigned as FoxPro in 1993, databases in earlier versions of the software could not be upgraded; all windows for data entry would have had to be redesigned and the data reentered to use FoxPro, a duplication of effort we declined to do. The program, therefore, lacks some of the flexibility and ease of some of the more recent databases, but still has served the project well. The design of the relational databases reflects the archaeological concerns and experience of the senior staff, and there was much (both fruitful and lively) discussion between the archaeologists and the computer experts who put it all together.

The various forms and notebooks were supplemented by copies of maps, primarily the 1:5,000 topographical maps, on which field teams marked survey locations and other observations. Each member of the staff also prepared a staff report at the end of each season, which summarized the activities each person performed, the forms and notebooks in which the records were kept, and whatever other comments the staff desired to make. There were numerous other logistical records, including logs to keep track of the forms assigned for field use, and extensive cross-referencing. We hold redundancy in archaeological records to be a virtue because it makes it possible to discover the inevitable recording errors that occasionally creep into databases, however carefully they are kept. All databases and other archives of the Nikopolis Project are stored in the Center for Archaeological Studies at Boston University.

20


POST-FIELDWORK ANALYSES

During study seasons in 1995 and 1996, materials collected during the surveys were reexamined and studied in Ioannina. The Byzantine Ephoreia made available for study space the secularized former mosque, Fetiye Dzami, located on the highest part of the fortress of Ali Pasha and adjacent to the new Museum of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Archaeology. The glori- ous view from one side of the mosque included the lake of Ioannina and the Pindos Mountains, and there were trees nearby that offered shade for staff members who might be working outside. The staff is particularly grateful to the Byzantine Ephoreia for providing such a splendid place to study, and to the Prehistoric and Classical Ephoreia for permitting the survey material to be transported across town from the Archaeological Museum to the Kastro during two summers.

During each of the two study seasons, the senior staff also had the precious opportunity to revisit survey areas unaccompanied by survey teams to direct, and not burdened with surveys to conduct or detailed forms to fill out. The staff, then, were able to contemplate on the spot the observations of previous years, and had the leisure to discuss observations and interpretations with each other in the midst of the landscape we were studying.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

29. Wiseman, Zachos, and Kephallonitou 1996, 1997, 1998.

30. Wiseman 1991,1992a, 1992b, 1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1997a.

31. Rapp and Jing 1994; Runnels 1994; Stein and Cullen 1994; Tartaron 1994; Tartaron and Zachos 1999; Wiseman 1997a, 1997b; Wiseman and Douzougli-Zachos 1994; Wiseman, Robinson, and Stein 1999; reports by several staff members recently appeared in Isager 2001. Articles and abstracts in press have been omitted here.

32. Runnels and van Andel 1993b; Tartaron and Runnels 1992; Tartaron, Runnels, and Karimali 1999.

33. Papagianni 2000, which is based on her (1999) dissertation at the University of Cambridge.

34. Besonen 1997.

Preliminary reports of the Nikopolis Project appeared regularly in Greek in the Archaiologikon Deltion29 and in English in Context and the Nikopolis Newsletter, publications of Boston University's Center for Archaeological Studies.30 Papers by several members of the staff have appeared in full or in abstract form in the published transactions of the several conferences and symposia at which they were presented,31 and a few special reports have been published in journals and edited volumes of essays.32 In addition to the doctoral dissertations of Moore and Tartaron, which were based mainly on project results and have been cited above, a dissertation by Dimitra Papagianni also includes research on material from the Nikopolis Project.33 Chapter 5 in this volume, written by Mark Besonen, George (Rip) Rapp, and ZhichunJing, is based in part on Besonen's M.S. thesis.34

The present book is the first of two volumes of final reports. Chapter 1, by Wiseman and Zachos, provides a history of the Nikopolis Project, and discussions of the research aims, the interdisciplinary methodologies employed, the databases, and the organization of staff and responsibilities. In the second chapter Tartaron presents in detail the methodology of the diachronic surface survey and places both the methodology and the aims within the historical and theoretical context of survey archaeology, especially as that field has evolved in the archaeology of Europe. These two chapters, which constitute an introduction to the work of the project, provide a historical, theoretical, and methodological framework within which the results of the overall interdisciplinary project may be understood and evaluated. They are not intended to be summaries of the results them-

2I


selves, which are presented in the reports that follow in this volume and its forthcoming companion volume.

In Chapter 3 Runnels and van Andel present the results of the Palaeo- lithic survey, which they conducted as a supplement to the diachronic survey. Their methodology, developed over some fifteen years of survey in southern and central Greece, was based first on the investigation of the paleoenvironment, especially the geological history of Pleistocene sediments and other landforms. Their report thus deals comprehensively with the geomorphology and changes in the environment of southern Epirus in early prehistoric times, as well as the cultural evolution of its human inhabitants, from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. One of the most remarkable of the open-air Palaeolithic sites investigated by the project is Spilaion, an Early Upper Palaeolithic site near the current mouth of the Acheron River, where the ground surface was littered with an estimated 150,000 lithic artifacts. Runnels, Evangelia Karimali, and Brenda Cullen report in Chapter 4 on their study of the Spilaion assemblage, including the results of a spatial analysis of the distribution of the artifacts.

Chapters 5 and 6 carry the discussion of the geomorphology of southern Epirus and its relationships to archaeological sites from the end of the Pleistocene to the present. Both reports are based on extensive geologic coring programs and intensive laboratory analyses of the cores, as well as other geomorphologic investigations in the field. ZhichunJing and George (Rip) Rapp document the changes over the past 10,000 years in the coastal landscape of the Nikopolis peninsula and the area to its east, which com- prises most of the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf. The locations of the important Classical, Roman, and medieval town sites in this region, and of human habitation generally, are related to the dramatic changes in the landscape, which are themselves shown to result from a variety of environmental, geomorphologic, and cultural factors. Besonen, Rapp, and Jing report in detail on the post-Pleistocene geologic history of the lower Acheron valley, tracing the changing course of the Acheron River, the creation and demise of the Acherousian lake, and the gradual change over time of the deep embayment known to Strabo as the Glykys Limen, where large fleets of ships found anchorage both in Greek and Roman times, to the small bay of the present day at the mouth of the Acheron River. The historical implications of the coastal changes are also discussed. In a final chapter the editors comment briefly on the results reported in this volume.

Volume 2 of Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece will include a catalogue of sites/scatters and all tracts surveyed; reports on the pottery, lithics, and other artifacts; and a chronological presentation of the cultural remains in their environmental contexts.

22

CHAPTER 2

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY:

SAMPLING STRATEGIES AND

FIELD METHODS

by Thomas F Tartaron

1. Keller and Rupp 1983; Barker 1991; Cherry 1983, 1994.

2. Alcock 1993; Cherry 1994; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Kardulias 1994a; Bintliff 1997.

3. Cherry 1994, pp. 92-95. 4. Binford 1964. 5. Fish and Kowalewski 1990;

Trigger 1989, p. 311. 6. Fish and Kowalewski 1990; but

see Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994, pp.137-138.

7. Kintigh 1990; Plog 1990. 8. Parsons 1990; Sumner 1990. 9. Fish and Kowalewski 1990.

Systematic surface survey has been practiced and refined in the Mediter- ranean region for more than a quarter century,1 and there is no longer serious controversy about the legitimacy of survey as a robust methodological tool for regionally focused research, or about the contribution it has made to the study of all periods of the Mediterranean past.2 Al- though the many achievements of survey projects are self-evident and arouse much optimism,3 few would suggest that a state of disciplinary maturity has been attained. The developmental years have witnessed continuous and serious challenges to many of the theoretical and methodological foun- dations upon which surface survey rests, as archaeologists have increasingly recognized the complexity of the surface archaeological record, and the inadequacy of many of our methods and conceptual frameworks for analysis and interpretation.

Vigorous debate continues on a range of theoretical and practical matters. Recently, the validity of probabilistic sampling schemes and quan- titative methods, once regarded as powerful means of characterizing entire regions from carefully chosen samples,4 has been called into question. Ex- perimental data suggest that such "samples" often fail to capture the true variability present in the archaeological record, making suspect the notion that patterns discerned for a portion of a region are necessarily valid for the whole.5 Fish and Kowalewski are particularly vocal in advocating "total" regional coverage to offset the problem of sampling,6 but this approach fails to solve-and in some cases to address-a range of problems, which are well documented by Kintigh and Plog.7 Among these is the fact that many of these "full-coverage" surveys ignore the powerful effect of survey intensity; thus, one project that employed a 30-m spacing interval between walkers, and another in which intensive and systematic coverage are treated as secondary concerns, hardly point the way forward to revealing the fullness of human activity upon a landscape.8 In more practical terms, while the general principle of covering a region, however narrowly or broadly defined, in its entirety would seem unimpeachable, the immense increase in costs entailed in such coverage must be justified by suitably enhanced results. In view of the cases presented by Fish and Kowalewski,9 we must at present conclude that sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.

THOMAS F. TARTARON

At minimum, the critical parameters of intensity and systematic data collection must be integral, not independent,'? variables in full-coverage survey design. Most Mediterranean surveys, while acknowledging potential problems with sampling, have relied on some type of stratification of the survey universe, typically incorporating samples of a full range of environmental zones with survey locations derived from known distributions of archaeological remains.T"

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that whereas archaeologists ask ever more expansive and complex questions of the archaeological record, the development of increasingly refined methods capable of providing the answers has failed to keep pace. Archaeologists have not been able to re- solve a range of difficulties that stem, on the one hand, from the inherent complexity of the surface record and, on the other, from an inability of existing methods to record the scatters in a way that faithfully represents their distribution, density, and degree of clustering. The issues are both observational and analytical in scope.

The intrinsic complexity of the surface archaeological record has been measured in a number of recent studies. It is well understood that surface scatters of artifacts at a given location are constantly modified by diverse natural and cultural agents over time, as replication and experimental studies have clearly demonstrated.12 Ammerman's work in particular reminds us that the local circumstances and timing of an inspection strongly influence the results, and that repeated visits over a period of years may be necessary to capture the fullness of the archaeological record. (This became abun- dantly apparent to us at locations such as Gramme

james _wiseman,_konstantinos_zachos]_landscape_archaeology in southern epirus-greece [2003].pdf

Documents

commemorative studies

athenian architecture

athenian mason

athenian councillors

athenian constitution

ancient athens

revolt of athens

tholos of athens