Kastraki: A Poor Pick of Pottery? The Middle Helladic Problem- Reassessing Thessaly's 'Dark Age'

(1)

[Type here]

KASTRAKI: A POOR PICK OF

POTTERY?

The Middle Helladic Problem – Reassessing Thessaly’s ‘Dark Age’

UNIVERSITEIT

VAN

AMSTERDAM

MA Thesis

Supervisor

Prof. V.V. Stissi

(2)

1 | P a g e

List of Figures

Figure 1: Google earth image showing the location of Kastraki, and its surrounding region. 4 Source: Map data 2016 Google Maps 2016 TerraMetrics

Figure 2: Hand-drawn map of the Almiros/Sourpi region and surrounding landscape. 9

Source: Wace and Thompson (1912).

Figure 1: Computational map of Kastraki (2000/48) and surrounding areas showing elevation. 11

Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).

Figure 4: Mycenaean pottery illustrations from Mycenae. 17

Source: Mountjoy (1990), 247.

Figure 5: The terrain of Kastraki (2000/48). 29

Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).

Figure 6: Finds from the Kastraki excavation. 32

Source: Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 300.

Figure 7: Computational Map of the Kastraki survey area 36

Source: Jitte Waagen (2016).

Figure 8: Basic hand-drawn map of survey area. 45

(4)

3 | P a g e

List of Appendix Material

(i) Catalogue 42

Section A: Photographs of Find-Spot Groupings 43

Section B: Part I 49 Part II 55 (ii) Illustrations 60 Illu. 1 60 Illu. 2 61 Illu. 3 62 Illu. 4 63 Illu. 5 64

(5)

4 | P a g e Figure 2: Google earth image showing the location of Kastraki, and its surrounding region.

(6)

5 | P a g e

Abstract

Carol Zerner in the concluding statements of her publication “New Perspectives on Trade in the Middle and Early Late Helladic Periods on the Mainland” highlighted the many enduring questions regarding regional variation, local production and changes in technology (or lack thereof) in Middle Helladic pottery on the mainland. She pointed out the lack of answers for these questions reflects the ‘general characterisation of the Middle Helladic as a culturally backward period in the literature’, whilst simultaneously providing the scope for future study to challenge this concept. The use of the term ‘Dark Ages’ in the title of this paper is controversial- as it is intended to be.

The current view of Middle Helladic pottery often circles around the dispersal, consumption and local variations of popular wares such as Minyan, Matt-Painted and Lustrous Decorated ware. The work of Jeremy Rutter in 2007, ‘Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic Type Site’, addresses the fact that research so far has been dominated by considerations mainly from large, multi-component coastal sites. This means when less significant sites (in terms of production and trade) are discovered, they are often dismissed as ‘poor assemblages’. Rutter states that ‘we need to study small, inland and single component sites’. Only in this way will complications arising from large quantities of imports be removed. Following a discussion on the Middle Helladic problem, this thesis will attempt to address some of the material from the site of Kastraki on the border of the Sourpi and Almiros Plains in Thessaly from this theoretical approach.

(7)

6 | P a g e

Introduction

The Middle Helladic Bronze Age is an under explored and marginally understood phase in Greece’s history1. Thessaly in particular is often considered a peripheral and border area in the Middle Helladic period, and frequently is skimmed over in wider narratives due to a lack of well excavated and clearly stratified sites, and associated diagnostic material.

Currently, the evidence which has been gathered from this region has not provided a clear picture of the historical narrative of Thessaly in the Middle Bronze Age. The transitional period from the Early Helladic (EH) into the Middle Helladic (MH) was one which saw significant cultural and economic changes- which have often been considered as a deterioration in cultural progression2. In early publications on the Thessalian region, such as that of Wace and Thompson in 1912, local production was generally characterised as ‘limited’ or ‘bad quality’ in the MH. In fact, the introduction to the principal classes of pottery from Prehistoric Thessaly in Wace and Thompson bluntly stated that “the development or rather degeneration of culture in Thessaly went on gradually without any violent break till the close of the Third Late Minoan period"3. However, modern excavations such as those carried out at Mitrou4 and Pefkakia5 have shown that there is evidence in some areas of Greece, including Thessaly, for a vivid and thriving culture during the MH. With these modern excavations, academic opinion regarding the quality of material culture produced during the Middle Helladic is slowly changing. Nonetheless, Rutter has warned against using evidence only from large centres of habitation like Mitrou and Pefkakia to further develop this opinion, fearing the presence of large quantities of imports at these kinds of sites will obscure the reality of local and regional production6. He suggests that using evidence from these large sites in combination with evidence from small, remote and rural sites will provide a more detailed and complete picture of Middle Helladic Greece. This thesis is an attempt to contribute the material from the site of Kastraki, a small hilltop site which sits on the border between the Almiros and Sourpi plains in Thessaly, to that conversation.

Since the early publications of Wace and Thompson, there has been ongoing debate in scholarship regarding the cause of this ‘decline’ of the Middle Bronze Age, considering factors like war, invasion and natural disaster which have been used explained abrupt cultural changes in other periods of history7. However, modern research approaches such as those expressed in the 2004 conference papers “Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms” have begun to recognise that cross cultural and cross period comparison of evidence often yields problematic conclusions for the Middle Helladic period8. This conference and the subsequent publication addressed these abrupt cultural changes, exploring the possibility of more niched explanations for this region. For example, the concept of ‘colonisation’ is often considered as an extreme and all-encompassing cultural phenomenon. Whilst colonisation can often be attributed to large scale cultural developments, Rutter has posited that a small scale occurrence of colonisation may then be harder to detect in the material evidence9.

1

Buck (1966), 193. 2

Buck (1966); Nordquist (1987); Touchais (1989); Zerner (1993), 51-56. 3

Wace and Thompson (1912), 23; NB- the Late Minoan III period roughly corresponds to the Late Helladic III period. 4 Hale (2016). 5 Maran (1992). 6 Rutter (2007), 36. 7

Wace and Thompson (1912); Buck (1966); Dietz (1988); Felten et al. (2007); Zerner (1993); Rutter (2007); Sarri (2010); Choleva (2012); Hale (2016).

8

Felten et al. (2007), 9. 9

(8)

7 | P a g e

Kastraki is an interesting example through which to examine this concept. Whilst located in Thessaly, which has been recognised since the era of Wace and Thompson as a crossroad of communication in the Bronze Age, Kastraki is situated in the hinterlands of the region, located in a degree of isolation on a steep hilltop10. This may remove, as Rutter expressed, some of the complications that would arrive from significant percentages of imports that would arise in large centres. Additionally,

comparison to local material may also illuminate on small scale connections (or perhaps differences) between Kastraki and nearby centres- such as Pefkakia11. The material study of this thesis will therefore address material of local production at the site and comparisons with nearby centres of habitation, whilst the conclusion hopes to delve into this question of regional cultural changes and colonisation.

Alongside questioning the cause of cultural changes in the region, modern scholarship (such as Jeremy Rutter’s 2007 ‘Reconceptualizing the Middle Helladic Type-site’) has begun to consider if the impression of technological frugality in MH Thessaly is really an accurate conclusion, or perhaps a biased result of the past research approaches12. Current investigation on the concept of regionalism in the Bronze Age recognises that this area maintains a strongly unique cultural independence during in the late Middle Helladic13. Thessaly becomes a haven for pottery production in the following Mycenaean period with several workshops currently recognised and the potential for other centres to be discovered, considering the range of wares which originate in this period14. The early stages of the Late Helladic period managed to maintain this unique regionalism. The idea that this kind of industry came out of what has historically been considered a technological vacuum during the Middle Helladic is untenable15. There is unfortunately little comparative evidence through which to establish a wide database of ceramics for the Middle Helladic of this region, because much research has been focused on material such as ‘Minyan’, ‘Matt-Painted’ and ‘Lustrous Decorated’ wares, which constitute large percentages of imports during this time in Thessaly. However, if these fine wares are not present in a significant quantity at a site, does this automatically mean limitations in the quality of manufacturing? Or could it more so indicate isolation from large scale trade?16

The general impression from the material17 collected from the area discussed in the following analysis (the coastal Almiros and Sourpi plains), is not indicative of a particularly busy trade and exchange network. These areas do however occupy a strategic position in Thessaly, the

thoroughfare between southern and central Greece, and the Northern regions. Understanding of local production centres and wares of a local and regional character in the Middle Helladic are only beginning to come to light in recent scholarship18. The connection between this strategic position, and the idiosyncrasy of locally made pottery may have a significance that comparisons and

connections between large sites such as Pefkakia, and small sites such as Kastraki, may illuminate on. It is possible that material from small scale and rural Thessalian sites have been skimmed over as components in a wider consideration of the region and the period generally. Buck in 1966 concluded that because of the limited amount of small rural settlements discovered at the time, habitation in

10

Wace and Thompson (1912), 23. 11

Maran (1992). 12

Hale (2016), 243-244; Zerner (1993), 51; Rutter (2007). 13

Zerner (1993), 39. 14

Mountjoy (1990), 245. 15

Rutter (2007), 37. 17

See Appendix for photographs, descriptions and illustrations of the material; Stissi et al. (Forthcoming) for a discussion of material from the area generally.

18

(9)

8 | P a g e

the region must have been concentrated in urban groupings19. He posited a ‘village model’ for MH Thessaly, where people would have travelled from their villages to farm in the countryside. Evidence from Kastraki does not however support this claim, as several houses were discovered at this small-scale site dating to the Middle Helladic20. It appears that small-scale rural sites have something to contribute towards a more nuanced understanding of the settlement patterns of Middle Helladic Thessaly. However, if evidence discovered from rural areas is consistently considered against material from larger centres of production and trade networks, the evidence may continue to be dismissed as poor quality. The problem of low quality or low percentages of evidence from rural Thessalian sites may potentially lie in the research approach, rather than the material itself. To study material from sites such as Kastraki, is to offer an additional narrative to add to the story of Middle Helladic Thessaly.

During the course of investigating the above issues, the hope is to contribute to a general reconsideration of how to address material which appears on the surface poor and undiagnostic. Middle Helladic pottery does not have a wide typological shape repertoire to consider21. Zerner has highlighted that much of the confusion thus far in the study of this material lies in basic terminology, a lack of consistency in vocabulary and regional variation of names, stating that “Blanket stylistic terms…are superficial”22. Many Middle Helladic scholars have found that attempting to maintain terminologies (applied initially when investigations begin) throughout years of study and refinement is impossible without skimming past important minutiae, chronological distinctions and, to quote MacGillivray, “drawing arbitrary divisions cutting across the stratigraphic sequences which are the foundation of the archaeological discipline23”. Following the suggested approach of Carol Zerner, the evidence considered in the latter half of this study will be referred to on the simplified basis of clay, fabric and production methods. The macroscopic research method which was carried out in 2016 addressed the material on three levels. Firstly, the material was grouped based on fabric colour. Secondly, the sherds were analysed based on fabric type (Appendix (i) Section B Part I) - ware (coarse/medium/fine), surface treatment, and inclusions. Lastly the material was studied according to diagnostic features (Appendix (i) Section B Part II) - shapes and decoration (See chapter four for further detail).

With the above considerations, the research questions of this thesis are thus- What does the material from Kastraki tell us about this site? Does a site of the scale and ‘frugality’ of Kastraki have anything to add to current research on Middle Helladic ceramics? And finally, if so, how can this evidence be used to better understand the idiosyncrasies of Thessalian culture during the Middle Bronze Age? 19 Goldman (1931), 50; Buck (1966), 197. 20 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 21

Rutter (2007), 35; the repertoire that does exist will be discussed in the following chapters. 22

Zerner (1993), 40. 23

(10)

9 | P a g e

Case Study:

Introducing Kastraki- Between the Almiros and Sourpi Plains

The region to be discussed is located on the coastline of the Pagasaean Gulf. The Almiros and Sourpi plains lie within the district of Magnisía, which features the Óthris Mountain range. The later settlement areas of the Classical/Hellenistic cities of Halos lie between the mountain, beach ridges towards the coast and a back swamp. Much has been published on the history of these sites in both ancient and modern times24. Less, however, has been said about the earlier settlements which scatter throughout the hinterlands.

The area was investigated in 1912 by Wace and Thompson, who established the geographical significance of the eastern edge of Thessaly- particular import placed on the natural boundaries created by the landscape25. “Great, parallel ranges starting at right-angles from Pindus run eastward to the sea and divide the land into a series of plains, in which the prehistoric settlements are found. In spite of these passes the mountains seem always to have been a formidable barrier”26. These ranges dominate the landscape of eastern Thessaly, and the areas between create the plains that

24

Wace and Thompson (1912); Milojčić (1974); Theocharis (1973); Tsountas, C. (1908), Reinders (2004); Stissi et al. (forthcoming). Ancient works include: Hdt. VII, 197-198; Dem. De Fals Leg, 163; Thuc. IV, 78; Xen. Hell. IV, 3., amongst others.

25

Ibid.

(11)

10 | P a g e

run towards the coast, where Wace and Thompson identified the first prehistoric settlements. The ‘formidable barrier’ they spoke of made access to the region difficult in antiquity and the Pierian plain, shut off by the precipitous ranges of Pelion and Ossa on the coastline, did not offer Wace and Thompson any material remains at all in 1912. However, immediately south of this area lies the easy sea access of the Pagasaean Gulf. The mountain range which descends from Mt. Othris curves northwards and forms a convenient boundary around the fertile lands which run to the sea, well irrigated by a river network – the Almiros Plain. The fact that this southern region had a favourable landscape for settlement, particularly within Thessaly, is integral to note. Several notable routes passed through these plains, which were a strategic crossing point to accessing Northern Greece, and provided an alternative to the bigger challenge of the wooded and mountainous terrains to the west27.

Since the early 1990s, systematic and experimental surveys have been carried out on these plains in order to establish some kind of settlement pattern for the area28. The idea of this project was to map the progress of human occupation in the area from Palaeolithic times onwards, in order to aid and improve future archaeological study in the area. From the offset, general knowledge of the area had several restrictions. Maps of the area before 1940 were rare and little was known of land cultivation previous to this which could seriously affect the preservation of remains. Also, soil maps of the area were lacking when the study began29. However, since this time, study of the area has been systematic and extensive. The findings and evidence which emerged as a result of this investigation (amongst others) allow the discussion featured in the case study section of this paper.

27 Ibid. 28 Reinders (2004), 3. 29 Reinders (2004), 5.

Figure 4: Computational map of Kastraki (2000/48) and surrounding areas showing elevation (copyright Jitte Waagen 2016).

(12)

11 | P a g e

Kastraki

The site of Kastraki is located on the border of the north-west side of the Sourpi plain, on the southern edge of the Almiros plain, along a route which leads deep into the range of Mt. Othris. It has to date seen one official period of excavation alongside one survey campaign30, the results of which will be discussed in the latter half of this paper. It is a steep hilltop site, occupying a

strategically elevated location with a view of the plain, which begins below the southeast slopes (see Figure 3). In fact, the summit provides a clear view of the coastline. The hill is known locally as ‘Kastraki’ as historically it housed a fortified settlement, of which only a scanty amount of ruins remains today. The hilltop has had sporadic occupation dating back to prehistoric times, but also has remains of more modern buildings, such as the monastery which the name ‘Kato Xenias’ is

attributed to. The original monastery building was located south west of the area focused on in this paper, but this structure was destroyed by earthquakes. The monastery was rebuilt in a new location on the east of the hill, and in the process of this construction the ancient remains were

discovered31.The new monastery needed a better access route through the hill, so an old path was widened into a road, which dug into archaeological remains. A rescue excavation was carried out to attempt to preserve some of this material, and gather as much information as possible from the site. In the course of this brief campaign, five stratigraphic layers were identified and dated preliminarily: 4th century BC Classical remains, Late Helladic IIIC, Middle Helladic III, Middle Helladic II, and Middle Helladic I32. Further, and certainly more complete and comprehensive excavation will be necessary to sharpen and securely identify these stratigraphic distinctions. The thesis is therefore additionally an attempt to lay the foundations for such future research, combining the evidence from the excavation with the more recent survey material.

30

Batziou-Efstathiou (2008); Stissi et al. (forthcoming). 31

Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 32

(13)

12 | P a g e

Chapter One

Excavation and Scholarship on Prehistoric Thessaly:

Cultural Context

"It may seem unusual to start an article dealing with Middle Helladic pottery by referring to the Mycenaean period. Nevertheless, I do this, because in my opinion certain aspects of MH pottery can only be set in proper perspective if we take the later development into consideration." Maran (2007). Maran’s viewpoint shows the careful regard for contextual perspective of Middle Helladic evidence which has been advocated in the introductory chapter of this paper. The current limitations in comprehensively stratified pottery sequences for this period means a close understanding of the development of settlement both following and also, it is here posited, previous to the Middle Helladic period in Thessaly (namely, the Neolithic-Early Helladic and Late Helladic) is paramount to gaining a true insight into cultural evolution at this time. The problem with much scholarship up until recent times has been a disregard for the regionalism identified by Zerner in 1993, and furthermore, what has been described as the internal “latent variability” within prehistoric regions and even specific sites33. Therefore, before considering the Middle Helladic material discussed in the next chapter, an historical overview of research on prehistoric Thessaly thus far will be provided.

From the beginning of the 20th century onwards work began on establishing the chronological order of prehistoric Thessaly. The work of Wace and Thompson mentioned previously was complemented by the intensive studies carried out by C. Tsountas whose discoveries, particularly at Sesklo and Dimini, brought Thessaly to the fore of Greek Neolithic studies. Vast amounts of finds were unearthed during in these early years, and subsequently, focus quickly turned from excavation to material study, to try and grapple with ever complicating series of evidence34.

In the course of these campaigns, the area around the hub of Volos and the coastal plain of the Pagasaean Gulf experienced the most extensive excavation for eastern Thessaly. From the Neolithic into the Early Helladic period, dubbed a ‘transitional period’, a fairly comprehensive excavation record and chronological sequence began to emerge. Certain sites played important roles in this investigation, and an occupation model began to emerge for this early era. In particular, it was found that the repeated pattern of cemeteries which were built over earlier habitation layers would be an important feature for understanding cultural changes during this time35.

Whilst the early excavations of this region themselves do not fit the archetype of extensive or fully investigated campaigns, nonetheless, the work that was done was often carried out meticulously enough to establish substantial occupation in the region. This is attested by a wide variety of sites that have been located with traces of reoccupation and complex habitation sequences. What was less clear were the pottery sequences that emerged from these sites. Ceramic finds were abundant but did not yield an easy chronological typology. A brief summary of some of the main sites in the 33 Andreou et al. (1996), 542. 34 Andreou et al. (1996), 539. 35 Ibid.

(14)

13 | P a g e

region will now be given which helped facilitate a deeper understanding of prehistoric Thessaly, with a detailed description of some of the integral sites and their finds. Those sites with the best

published evidence and best understood stratigraphic sequence will be discussed. The focus will be on burial evidence, architecture and of course ceramics to correspond to the material which will be discussed from Kastraki. In the course of this discussion it is hoped that an overview of important cultural changes and diagnostic evidence patterns, both ceramic and architectural, will be established for the prehistoric period generally, and especially those which are important to understanding the Middle Helladic culture specifically.

Neolithic and Early Helladic Period

Ceramics

A game changer in the study of prehistoric Thessaly was the extensive campaigns which took place at the Neolithic site of Sesklo, first discovered by Christos Tsountas at the close of the 19th century36. Tsountas’ work at this site was pioneering in recognising the features of settlements typical of this period- particularly the concept of an acropolis tell site which occurs frequently in this region. The settlement description was expanded upon by Dr. Theocharis whose work at the site focused beyond the acropolis itself and down into the slopes, creating one of the first models for studying settlement structure and urban dispersal in the region- the tell site with lower slopes of sprawling polis37. The nuanced stratigraphic divisions established by Theocharis rested on improving

understanding of subtle changes in the pottery within the layers already established by his predecessors. It was recognised at this point in the investigation that there were two diverging settlement sequences at Sesklo- the tell (A) and the slopes (B). This arbitrary division can also be seen in the pottery remains, which generally sees more fine painted sherds at Sesklo A than B. From there, it was possible to study these two habitation records contextually- in isolation and in

correspondence with one another.

"An interesting methodological lesson can be learned from Sesklo. The complex intrasite variability of the archaeological features shows clearly that comparisons between sites are potentially misleading38". The mound of Sesklo is a famous site in the history of Greek Neolithic studies which was crucial to establishing the chronological analysis of the period generally.

Architecture

Dimini is another important prehistoric site in Thessaly, situated in its most western vicinity. In the transitional period from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age at Dimini there are several notable features that have been recognised as a pattern in settlements that endure through this period of change. Over eight intramural child burials have also been recognised at Dimini dating from the Late Neolithic period39. Following this, in the transitional period the practice of turning old settlement tells into cemeteries becomes common, which may denote a changing funerary and subsequently cultural tradition. At Dimini, it has been suggested that this phenomenon represents a changing emphasis on burying the dead, and the importance of creating a boundary between the deceased and the living, prior to the incoming practice of tholoi and chamber tomb burials. Halstead posited in 1984 that the development may have functioned as a way of delineating elite areas for restricted use, which may further support the concept of changing cultural practices40. The amount and variety of finds dating from the period suggests that Dimini was an active player in trade networks during

36

Tsountas (1908). 37

Theocharis (1973); Andreou et al. (1996), 540. 38 Andreou et al. (1996), 542. 39 Halstead (1984), (supra n.30) 33. 40 Halstead (1984); Bailey (2000), 171.

(15)

14 | P a g e

this period41. Following the Late Neolithic period, the preservation quality at Dimini declines,

meaning that it is more difficult to analyse the architectural remains, and to interpret exactly what is happening within the community during this time. The occupation sequence becomes less clear, and scholarship is divided on the issue of whether the remains reflect some kind of social crisis, or whether it represents a centralised authority attempting to create a more hierarchical social organisation42.

In the transitional period from the Neolithic to the Early Bronze age the use of perimeter walls and ditches become commonplace throughout Greece43.In the transitional period Dimini is particularly remarkable in its practice of this tradition, with six concentric perimeter walls discovered at the site dating from the Neolithic period onwards. During the Early Bronze Age, a central court is built at Dimini, surrounded by four main habitation areas centred which were divided by the perimeter walls. Hourmouziadis, who excavated at the site, posited that the construction of the walls was evidence of a continuously developing and expanding community making a conscious decision to divide up their territory, rather than any kind of defensive structure which is the most obvious conclusion jumped to in such cases44. At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Dimini is surrounded by a mudbrick wall. Whilst the evidence of the use of the site at this time is limited to the burials mentioned previously, nonetheless there is no break in the use of this site from the MBA to the LBA. In the LBA, the most prominent settlement is located on the lowest slopes of the mound. The oldest surviving architectural remains date from c. LHIIIB/C, and are substantial enough to provide a comprehensive overview of what the building complex would have looked like45. Whilst there is no break in occupation, the ‘Mycenaeanisation’ of this site is fairly abrupt.

The important lesson taken from Dimini for the period is the need to interpret architectural remains in the context of their specific socio-economic situation, which may result in a very different story than what one might expect. The site develops into what is commonly referred to as a

‘megaron’ type structure which is a typical Mycenaean architectural feature. However, whilst it is not stratigraphically clear how this structure developed, Hourmouziadis claimed it was a natural development from the earlier EH central court structure. When Hourmouziadis wrote in 1979, the core of the Mycenaean settlement, including the probable Mycenaean palace, was not excavated yet. The locus of Mycenaean habitation is on the lower slope which has the EH court on top, and the ‘palatial’ building has drawn comparison to the settlement at Pylos. Whilst modern scholarship has not come to a conclusive decision regarding the formation of this structure, it is generally regarded as a probable Mycenaean ‘palace’. The complexity of the development of the walls and boundary divisions at Dimini serve only to exacerbate the socio-cultural narrative which emerges from the site.

The nearby settlement of Pyrgos also follows the recognised trend of the early prehistoric period of building on an elevation. Though not a large mound, it nonetheless has a clear view of the Gulf of Volos, situated just north of the city. This site has evidence dating from the Late Neolithic, with some early Dimini pottery attested, and also a stratigraphical layer featuring pottery of the Rachmani culture46. The layer between the evidence of these two shows burning, though excavators concluded that the site represents a fairly permanent Neolithic settlement, perhaps with strong links to nearby Sesklo47. Two other Neolithic sites in the region, Spartia and Palaikastron have evidence of an even longer period of occupation, which show use right through until the Hellenistic period, occupying a strategic point along the main access route from Thessaly to the coast.

41 Andreou et al. (1996), 544. 42 Andreou et al. (1996), 545. 43 Bailey (2000), 171. 44 Hourmouziadis (1979), 110-140. 45 Andreou et al. (1996), 545. 46

See Wace and Thompson (1912) for discussion on the Rachmani culture. 47

(16)

15 | P a g e

What quickly becomes clear from the overview of habitation in this early era is that the cultural narrative created by the evidence they offer is not homogeneous, and should not be treated as such. The most crucial lesson that emerges is perhaps recognising the complexity of their stratigraphic sequences, and the unpredictability of the material record. A more detailed picture of this region may help to tackle the current impression of a Middle Helladic ‘Dark Age’. The cultural, economic and potentially political situation from the end of the Neolithic, entering into and lasting throughout the Helladic period was much more complex than previously thought this in the region.

It is also interesting to note that Dimini, currently located 3 kilometers from Volos today, during the Neolithic period sat on the coast, but was affected by landscape changes caused by alluviation in the coastal plain since prehistoric times48. Significantly, aspects of the environment which would have attracted settlement and habitation such as the fertility this coastal river plain, may be contributing to the obscurity of the archaeological record. Other sites maintained their location on the shoreline and position of import through multi-occupational layers, such as Pefkakia.

Late Helladic Period

During the Late Bronze Age, the Almiros and Sourpi plains appear to feature mostly small, scattered sites. Current evidence has indicated human activity was concentrated in the south western area known locally as the ‘Voulokalíva’49. Though reoccupation of sites from the Early and Middle Helladic is attested in this area, the continuity is not always self-evident in the material and the record is complex, adding to the challenge of understanding the historical narrative of the region.

Mountjoy’s seminal work “Regional Mycenaean Pottery” is one of the only comprehensive works published which relates directly to Thessaly. She credits the work of Wace and Blegen in their 1939 publication with recognising from an early period the importance of regional styles and wares for the Late Helladic50. Thessaly, however, has not been subject to such focus which centres on such areas as Attica and Laconia which currently yield a more complete excavation record. Thus, habitation in Eastern Thessaly during this time at first glance appears more ‘scattered’, compared to other regions in Greece. Eventually, in the later stages of the Late Helladic, Thessaly is absorbed into the

Mycenaean koine and produces similar material to the rest of the Greek world51. But for a time, namely the transition from the Middle Helladic culture, into and enduring through the initial stages of the Late Helladic, Thessaly maintains a uniquely regionalised culture. This makes it both intriguing and challenging to study.

48 Andreou et al. (1996), 544. 49 Stissi (2004), 91. 50 Mountjoy (1990), 245. 51 Batziou-Efstathiou (2012).

(17)

16 | P a g e Figure 4: Mycenaean pottery illustrations from Mycenae (Mountjoy (1990), 247).

At this point it becomes clear why Thessaly was initially labelled a ‘peripheral’ area in past scholarship. In a period where mass production of pottery and period defining styles began to be consolidated (the beginnings of the LHIII Mycenaean ‘koine’- see Figure 4), Thessaly stubbornly held on to its regional preferences. Mountjoy noted that the Thessalian predilection for their local variations was not simply isolated to certain motifs or slight adaptations in shape. Instead, while much of the rest of Greece was adopting a uniform ceramic tradition Thessaly persisted in maintaining their local styles52.

“In the early Mycenaean phases, LHIIA and LHIIB, Mycenaean pottery was already becoming standardised in the central area of Mycenaean Greece; only in outlying areas, such as Thessaly, where the Mycenaean ware was adopted more slowly, do regional styles…exist”53.

That this phenomenon can be linked to social and economic administration structures is supported by the fact that following the fall of the palatial society in the Late Helladic LHIIIB, regional

differences once again began to emerge across Greece54. Whilst there is evidence that around the beginning of LHIII Thessaly too began to submit to the popularity of the ceramics within the Mycenaean koine, when the centralised authority of Hellenic political organisation and

administration focused in regions such as Laconia and Attica collapsed, it is certainly important to note that niche differences in production and exchange again being to emerge. It would perhaps more useful to consider the region of Thessaly as consisting of several individual yet interconnected cultures during the Bronze Age.

52 Maran (1992), 285. 53 Mountjoy (1990), 245. 54 Ibid.

(18)

17 | P a g e

Mountjoy states that small scale regional studies should subsequently be compared to wider regional units in order to apply some kind of framework of analysis to Mycenaean pottery, before trying to consider it as a cohesive whole. The approach of this study tends to agree- before

attempting to study the macrocosm of ‘Mycenaean pottery’ or even ‘Thessalian pottery’ one must first understand the microcosms of smaller networks of production and exchange. In this way, scholarship can begin to recognise when these networks cross paths and build up an understanding of how knowledge or materials are exchanged. This approach can then attempt to improve upon the general historical picture of Mycenaean Greece during this time, but more specifically of the areas from which the pottery is not well known, for as Mountjoy puts it, "Indeed, until recently [1990] all well-made Mycenaean pottery found in other regions was often thought to come from the Argolid." This is a misconception that needs to be tackled from a twofold approach- firstly, better

understanding of regional variation, and secondly, the application of these studies onto wider implications55.

In very broad terms, two ‘types’ of Mycenaean pottery have been isolated for these localised centres56. The first group includes carefully rendered fine ware pottery of which one finds published in reports of the period. The second group refers to the more roughly rendered local type, which is much less understood. Overall, most pottery of the period that has thus far been studied tends to be painted pottery. The cohesive style and production of Mycenaean ware and its blatant connections to the Minoan culture of Crete points to a single origin point, from which the style was developed and then spread and exchanged throughout the Greek world. This origin spot has been highly debated in Mycenaean scholarship, and while a consensus has yet to be reached, the Peloponnese has emerged as a strong candidate57. The earliest evidence of Mycenaean ware currently comes from the southern Peloponnese of the LHI phase, which is considered to have a strategic position within the LH trade network. However, it is important to note that although this change is initiated early into the LH period, Mycenaean pottery constitutes only a minor percentage of Late Helladic I pottery. Throughout this period, Grey Burnished, Yellow Burnished and Matt-Painted wares endure at the most popular wares in use- wares that gained prominence in the Middle Helladic and even originated in the Early Helladic58.

When the southern region enters into the Late Helladic II period, the repertoire becomes more homogenous and by the time the hallmark LHIIB comes around the fine painted pottery style of the Mycenaean koine is well established. Thessaly however, like other peripheral regions such as Crete, was maintaining a degree of cultural and stylistic independence during this time. How, and why? At this point in time the Pagasitic Gulf was part of an important sea route connecting the southern mainland and the islands to Northern Greece and Macedonia59. The unique combination of this thoroughfare combined with the relative isolation of the ring of mountains bordering the plains created a position of independence combined with strategic connectivity at this time60.The sites which mirror this route inland show evidence of this connectivity, offering material recognised as LHI and LHIIA imported ware61. The Late Helladic Thessalian community had access to modern

production methods and techniques that had been producing the high quality pottery of Grey Burnished ware and Lustrous Decorated for generations. It had enough independence, self-sustainability and distance from the locus of the rise of Mycenaean culture to maintain local 55 Mountjoy (1990), 246. 56 Mountjoy (1968). 57 Rutter (1983), 328. 58 Rutter (1983), 353. 59 Mountjoy (1990), 248. 60 Reinders (2004), 3. 61 Mountjoy (1990), 252.

(19)

18 | P a g e

preferences for a significant period before the Mycenaean koine took over. And take over it did- by the LHIIB period Mycenaean pottery was not only being imported from the south, it was being produced locally also. The local version featured Thessalian orange clay matrix which was typically covered in a white slip to mimic the standard Mycenaean tradition. The adoption of the Mycenaean style and production method did not only take place at coastal sites, but also further inland and eventually throughout the Thessalian plains. The traditional land route between the North and the South through the plains had continued to be in use from the Early Helladic period right through this time62.

The integration of the Mycenaean koine into the Thessalian repertoire in the Late Helladic is an interesting phenomenon. Whilst the Thessalians maintained local styles for some time and certain shapes and motifs even survive throughout the Mycenaean period, there was not actually a huge time gap between the rise of Mycenaean ceramic culture in the southern mainland and these northern regions. This is because when the cultural adaptations did begin to spread, they did so widely and rapidly. Presumably this spread happened through the Thessalian communication networks. Furthermore, the adaptation to Mycenaean traditions in the Volos region was so drastic that if not considered a colony or immigrant settlement, it must be accepted that the local rulers made a quick and conscious decision to integrate into proper Mycenaean culture. If so, it appears the Thessalians were ready and well-equipped to adapt to the influx of new technologies. This does not support the concept of a culturally depleted or barren region, or a technologically inferior population. Regionalism has been recognised as an integral aspect of Thessalian Bronze prehistoric culture, but much more study is needed to establish the extent of these local traditions, and importantly, how they interact with each other, and within the wider network of Greek trade63. The implications of understanding the intricacies of local and regional production on future

understanding of the idiosyncrasies of Middle Helladic culture are paramount.

62

Mountjoy (1990), 256. 63

(20)

19 | P a g e

Chapter Two

The Middle Helladic Problem

Ceramics and Chronology

In 1921 Carl Blegen published “Korakou: A Prehistoric Settlement near Corinth”. His work at this site was the first to fully establish a Middle Helladic chronology64. Other early excavations which

followed at sites like Lerna, Argos, and Kirrha contributed to understanding of life and society on the mainland during this time65. Lerna in the Argolid was particularly influential in creating the pottery sequence which was to dominate Middle Helladic scholarship, reconfirming Schliemann’s Minyan Ware and additionally establishing Matt-Painted as the primary wares of the period66. However, chronology and ceramics went hand in hand in such early investigations and the lack of a complete unbroken ceramic sequence for the period meant results were often inconclusive. In the weeks preceding the completion of this thesis Christopher Hale published the current findings of the Mitrou project in East Lokris67. Claiming for itself the ‘first pottery chronology of its kind for Middle Helladic central Greece’, this publication is set to revolutionise current chronological understanding of the ceramic tradition, and subsequently enlighten on socio-economic synchronisms and

diachronic patterns which evolved through cultural interactions on the mainland at this time68. Other recent publications, such as those presented in the Mesoelladika conference on the period in 2006, have expanded upon early study into the chronological and ceramic record of Middle Helladic Thessaly, and begun applying the findings to wider cultural issues such as burial, architecture and settlement, economy, subsistence and modes of life, and social structure69. The following section provides a summary of this research to provide contextual background for Bronze Age Thessalian material culture. In order to do so, research has honed in especially on some of the best published sites of the Middle Helladic period.

Modern ceramic studies, like those views mentioned by Zerner and Rutter in the initial stages of this thesis about reconceptualising what is expected from the evidence of Middle Helladic sites, have resulted in a re-evaluation of the quality of Middle Helladic material. However, even the most recent of publications recognise that the absence of a solid ceramic sequence left full

comprehension of the period and its place in the wider Greek narrative a challenge70. Thessaly occupies a strategic position as a terrestrial crossroads of mainland Greece and both the eastern world, and the Northern region of the Balkans71. When the material cultural of the Middle Helladic was first discovered during Schliemann’s excavations at Orchomenos, it was thought the Minyan ware heralded ‘the coming of the Greeks’, a new cultural invasion from the North72. This view has since been dismissed and it is now recognised that Minyan ware has firm ancestry in the Early Helladic period, supported by material from Lerna, and also confirmed by material from newly

64

Blegen, (1921). 65

Caskey & Blackburn (1997); Waldstein (1982); Dor et al. (1960). 66

Caskey (1960); Caskey & Blackburn (1997), 22; see also Rutter (1983). 67 Hale (2016). 68 Hale (2016), 291. 69 Philippa-Touchais et al. (2006), 1038. 70 Hale (2016), 243. 71 Buck (1966), 193. 72 Hale (2016), 248.

(21)

20 | P a g e

excavated sites such as Pefkakia and Mitrou73. However, the realisation that some of the defining ceramic traditions of this period have in fact beginnings in an earlier period, has meant that the Thessalian Middle Helladic is a period of cultural development which demands further investigation to achieve a deeper understanding of the regionalism of its material culture.

One of the problems Buck refers to is the lack of published evidence. Since the early investigations of Wace and Blegen, a significant number of Middle Helladic sites have been discovered across Greece. Yet whilst many sites have been recognised, many remain unpublished and most of the in-depth publications that do exist come from large multi-component sites74. Many of the inferences made in the 20th century about the Middle Helladic were therefore gathered from such large sites, or surmised from the remains of scantily excavated sites75. There is a design flaw in this kind of evidence, which Rutter has recognised and challenged in his paper ‘Reconceptualising the Middle Helladic Type-site’76. The conclusions reached from large sites often resulted in a kind of ‘tunnel vision’ approach in scholarship, which presumes similar evidence would arise from smaller, more isolated sites of the same cultural background77. In Thessaly, it has been recognised that settlement during this time tended to be focused on small river plains, with a large amount of habitation in scattered rural sites, additional to the major coastal loci. Many of these scattered rural sites have yet to be fully investigated and may contribute to current understanding of this time period. Eastern Thessaly is one such region that has recently been considered by scholars that recognise the idiosyncrasies of regional sites and their material.

Ceramics

The regionalism of Middle Helladic pottery means material from any location is therefore not an easy subject to tackle. There are three main wares that were established for the period, Burnished Ware (including Minyan as the prime type), Matt Painted and domestic cook ware78. Anything beyond these three categories has historically been dismissed as imports, or simply ‘poor quality’ material. In Boeotia, for example, the ‘Minyan’ or Burnished ware of the period is so well made and so common that early scholarship considered all other wares (apart from basic coarse-ware) to be imported79. The shape repertoire of Middle Helladic pottery is also notoriously limited, and the developments that do take place in the vessel types throughout the period are relatively slow,

73

Rutter (1983), 342. 74

Buck notes the following sites

These include: Orchomenos (H. Schliemann, Orchomenos, Leipzig 1881) Argissa (Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Argissa - Magula in Thessalien-several volumes) Asea (E. J. Holmberg, Asea [Lund 1944]); Asine (0. Fr6din and A. W. Persson, Asine [Stockholm 1938]); Eleusis (G. Mylonas, pIIo'oropuL) 'EXeuats [Athens 1932]); Eutresis (H. Goldman, Excavations at Eutresis in Boeotia [Cambridge, Mass. 1931]); Gonia (C. W. Blegen in MMS 3 [1930-1931] 55-80); Kirrha (L. Dor, J. Jannoray, H. and M. van Effenterre, Kirrha [Paris 1960]); Korakou (see above, n. 1); Krisa (J. Jannoray and H. van Effenterre in BCH 61 [1937] 299-326 and 62 [1938] 110-148); Lerna (preliminary publications by J. L. Caskey in Hesperia 23 [1954] 3-30; 24 [1955] 25-49; 25 [1956] 147-173; 26 [1957] 142-162; 27 [1958] 125-144; 28 [1959] 202-207); Lianokladhi (A. J. B. Wace and M. S. Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly [Cambridge 1912] 180-187); Malthi (N. Valmin, The Swedish Messenia Expedition [Lund 1938]); Zygouries (C. W. Blegen, Zygouries [Cambridge, Mass. 1928]). In addition several other sites, though not as yet fully published or not yet completely excavated, provide some stratigraphical information. These include: Aegina (G. Welter, Aigina2 [Athens 1962] 44-46; AA 40 [1925] 1-12, 317-321; ArchEph 1895, 235-254); Agia Marina (REG 25 [1912] 270-271; 7HS 25 [1915] 196-199); Agios Stephanos (BSA 55 [1960] 97-100; ArchRep 1959, 9-10; 1960, 32-34; BCH 85 [1961] 691-692). 75 Rutter (2007), 37. 76 Rutter (2007). 77 Buck (1966), 194. 78 Rutter (2007), 35. 79 Sarri (2007).

(22)

21 | P a g e

resulting in a difference in the shapes typically produced in the early period and the later period80. This contributes to the difficulty of addressing ceramics of this period as a general concept.

Additionally, Rutter made the observation that perhaps the most striking development that takes place in the ceramic record, the advent of ‘Yellow Minyan’ pottery, had the interesting effect of blurring the lines between the two types of tableware of the time, Burnished and Matt-Painted, and further obscuring distinctions between fine-ware and plain domestic ware81. This has meant there may have been a misrepresentation in previous scholarship of what can be regarded ‘fine-ware’ in the Middle Helladic. When Yellow Minyan took its place as the most popular pottery type in the latter half of the period, the pale clay surfaces of Minyan ware and Matt Painted pottery were very similar, and not remarkably dissimilar to the domestic wares of the period. Many scholars began to recognise the problems and confusion that arose from the use of the term Minyan, and the limitations it places on the evidence in order to fit into a specific ware distinction82. While the term was established on a historical basis with allusions to the mythical origins of the Greek people83, its use in today’s ceramic studies is questionable. Rutter therefore applied the term ‘Burnished ware’ to the pottery to avoid placing presumptions on any ware that resembles this category, whilst

maintaining the colour distinctions84.

Burnished ware consists of hard fired, often wheel thrown pottery85 made from fine clay. The monochrome finish is distinctively recognisable and has led many to draw potential comparisons to metal vessels, due to a combination of fabric, colour and shapes. The shape repertoire features mostly open shapes, small drinking and pouring vessels, and fine tableware. Common vessels include the kantharos, small two handled bowls, and the ‘Lianokhladi’ pedestal goblet86. Distinctive characteristics include sharp carinations and prominent everted rims. The decoration repertoire is fairly limited, featuring mostly ribbing, grooves and incision in the form of zigzags, lines, wavy lines and loops87. The distinguishing grey colour of early examples was created in a reduced environment in the kiln88. As the ware develops colour variations begin to appear, created by different firing methods. Since study of this ware has begun, four distinct colour categories have emerged; Grey, Black, Yellow and Red89. Black versions are created by uneven heating methods. Red and yellow variants which appear later in the period are created by a high temperature environment that does not include any reducing atmosphere. Colour preferences do develop chronologically to an extent, but also vary on a regional basis. This geographical variation can help to explain why this ware would not necessarily appear in rural and regional sites, which is a possibility for the case study of Kastraki.

Matt-Painted pottery is the other major ware popular during the Middle Helladic. It is the main handmade ware used during the period. Towards the latter half of the Middle Helladic, a wheel-made variety of this ware is also developed and increases in quantity as the period continues. Common coarse ware shapes include storage jars, basins and pitchers. The term comes in this case from the decorative elements rather than the material itself. A manganese based paint was typically applied to the light surfaces of domestic and storage pottery90. The flat ‘matt’ sheen of the paint is 80 Hale (2016), 250. 81 Rutter (2007), 35. 82 Sarri (2010), 604. 83 Drews (1994), 12. 84 Rutter (1983). 85

See following discussion on manufacturing techniques. 86

Hale (2016), 250; see also Childe (1915) for discussion on the Lianokhladi excavations in the Spercheios valley. 87

Buck (1966), 200. 88

Hale (2016), 247- see for further elaboration on the complexities of this process. 89

Sarri (2010). 90

(23)

22 | P a g e

created by leaving out alkaline agents in the mixture, such as ash, which was used at this time to create glossy finishes in paint91. The ware was first established at Lerna from the fourth/fifth phase which is attributed to the transitional EHIII and MHI period. However, though Matt-Painted ware existed early in the Middle Helladic period the ware becomes most popular during the era of ‘Yellow Minyan’ ware.

The third category of material from the Middle Helladic remains descriptively obscure, despite its abundance in material evidence. Lindblom in 2011 noted that Bronze Age ‘locally or regionally produced cooking vessels…very difficult to attribute with any confidence to any single period’92. He acknowledges that even material from his own site publications that have been attributed to the early Late Helladic could easily belong in the last stages of the Middle Helladic93. The regional variation of ceramic material during this time, and furthermore the diversity within localities and sites themselves which has been discussed in the chapters previous to this, makes Thessaly a considerable challenge for this kind of research. One of the most complete Middle Helladic assemblages published comes from a valley in the Argolid. The excavations of the multi occupational site of Mastos has produced a multi-authored publication which allowed each specialist to produce an in-depth study of their allocated time period at the site94. Published in 2011,

Lindblom’s section of the paper has produced one of the highest quality and recent Middle Helladic assemblages to date. Whilst geographically not comparable to the material from Thessaly,

methodological lessons can be learned from his approach to the material. Of particular importance to this thesis is his treatment of the coarse ware material. He notes that most sherds of large and rough material seem to be from shapes designed for storage or food preparation, with exceptions of small jars and goblet forms, or pedestal cups. He notes that the coarse ware sometimes features hasty burnishing, but overall tend to be undecorated. Large grained fabric is also a recurrent feature that is observed at Mastos95. Lindblom compares cooking ware he identifies with Adriatic ware from the southern Peloponnese, in terms of the crumbly reddish yellow fabric and the limited incised decoration.

It is interesting that Rutter notes that the development of Yellow Minyan, perhaps the final phase of development in the Burnished ware repertoire, does not distinguish it as aesthetically different from other categories of pottery, but instead appears to further associate it with its plainer ware

counterparts96. The potential implications of this will be expanded upon in the concluding section of this paper. Another interesting discovery is the refinement of current understanding of production methods of Burnished ware by Choleva through her work on Fine Grey Burnished pottery in Lerna, from the Early Helladic III period. Through a detailed study on the technological process of

manufacturing Burnished ware and in particular the criteria of marks and striations currently used to determine this, she concluded that many if not all of the vessels she placed under scrutiny were not in fact wheel thrown. Instead the vessels appear to be wheel finished, and assembled initially through a coil building technique97. The implications that would be associated with confirmation of her theory from other sites may lead to a complete reassessment of Burnished ware production methods, and further understanding of the complexities of the category historically termed ‘Minyan ware’. It also could have interesting collateral implications for the concept of regionalism in the Middle Helladic, and the ‘quality’ of locally made pottery. If correct, Choleva’s findings would 91 Buck (1966), 200. 92 Lindblom (2011), 90. 93 Lindblom (2011), 90 (note 38). 94 Lindblom (2011). 95 Lindblom (2011), 84. 96 Rutter (1983), 353. 97 Choleva (2012), 359.

(24)

23 | P a g e

support the concept of a “slow, conservative adoption of the potter’s wheel” on the mainland98, or more specifically a localised adaptation of the technology to suit specific needs, social contexts or categories of pottery.

Middle Helladic Life: Eutresis, Pefkakia, and Mastos

While large multicomponent sites may have drawbacks in terms of the hierarchy of evidence they portray, it is possible to observe patterns in evidence of day to day activities and traditions of Middle Helladic settlements. As a result of the campaigns of the early 20th_{century an overview of basic} information such as subsistence, habitation and burial tradition was established for the period. Excavations such as that carried out on the settlement of Eutresis on Boeotia, Mastos in the Berbati Valley of the Argolid which has been studied by Lindblom, and publications by Jeremy Rutter on Pefkakia in Thessaly contributed a significant amount of evidence of the socio-economic background of the period99.

The preliminary evidence of Middle Helladic material from Kastraki currently gives the general impression of a small, self-contained agrarian site. The hope is that further excavations at the site will result in a more detailed and descriptive narrative of the occupational sequence. However, before this is possible, it is necessary to have a knowledge of the trends and traditions characteristic of the period. Any future attempt to contextualise the material from Kastraki would benefit from understanding the cultural background to the evidence. Several notable features have been observed from the remains at Kastraki that deserve further investigation. Firstly, the ceramic material as it stands appears to give an overall domestic impression for the site, but there is limited diagnostic or decorated ware. Secondly, architectural remains of several houses have been observed from numerous levels. Thirdly, cist graves and burial evidence have been discovered in the layers. Eutresis, Pefkakia and Mastos have been chosen for the following discussion because they have yielded evidence of these aspects of Middle Helladic culture- ceramics, architecture and burial. Northeast of the Almiros plain exists one of the best excavated and thoroughly discussed Thessalian regions of the Bronze Age; Magoula Pefkakia. The area features evidence of settlement from the Final Neolithic through to the end of the Mycenaean period. Excavations in the early 2000s have shown that habitation flourished in the Mycenaean settlement particularly in terms of ceramic production. However, the early excavations of Theocharis and Milojčić in the mid-20th century identified several older phases in a settlement in the region which has numerous occupation layers throughout the Bronze Age100. Pefkakia occupies a strategic position on the Gulf of Volos, just south of the modern city. Material from the site shows it was not only a strong pottery production centre, but also had connections within and outside Thessaly101. The evidence of manufacturing

technologies has been influential in establishing the EHIII material from the site as a predecessor of Middle Helladic Burnished ware, consolidating theories of the multi-period continuation of ceramic tradition in this region, and across Greece generally102.

Within the Middle Helladic layers at Pefkakia, 7 layers of habitation have been recognised. The material culture of the Middle Helladic really emerges at Pefkakia after the phase 2 habitation layer. Changes from the Early Helladic are more obvious, particularly in terms of the ceramic

evidence. The introduction of the popular decorated wares becomes apparent- Grey Burnished ware appears, followed by colour variations of Burnished ware103. The fine ware appears to increase in popularity and use as the settlement develops. In the fourth phase of occupation, Grey Burnished is

98

Hale (2016), 248. 99

Maran (1992); Lindblom (2011); Goldman (1931). 100 Theocharis (1973); Milojčić (1974). 101 Batziou-Efstathiou (2008), 292. 102 Maran (1992). 103 Rutter (1983), 340.

(25)

24 | P a g e

the dominant ware in use, with Matt-painted ware as the equivalent hand-made ware. It first makes an appearance in the transitional phase from Early Helladic, popularity grows alongside the

Burnished ware, though the handmade ware appears reaches its hallmark period in the fifth phase of occupation at the site. An intriguing comparison arises when the material from Mastos is then considered. Whilst Burnished ware is a popular ware at this site also, Lindblom also notes the lack of wheel thrown pottery emerging from the site104. Intriguingly, an additional observation that he makes is that “not a single sherd from a wheel-thrown vessel decorated with matt, manganese-based paint could be identified” from a survey of nearly 13,000 sherds105. The ceramic finds of Pefkakia have begun to be used to trace connectivity between this region and internal and external contacts106. The plain domestic ware from connected the site mostly with regional neighbours such as Argissa, further supporting the concept of a localised ceramic tradition. However, the decorated wares from this site paint a more complex picture. Pefkakia lends support to the concept of settlements in this period developing as a result of their geographical location107. Situated on the coast, it has significant evidence for the importation of various goods including obsidian and flint108. The ceramics also show signs of influence from the external contacts the site would have had with Southern Greece and the Near East, particularly in terms of the time frame taken to adopt new ceramic techniques and traditions. Overall, the ceramic record that emerges for the period is one of a strongly regionalised nature, which is confirmed by the recent findings at Mitrou in East Lokris109.

Pefkakia is both a well-documented site, and a consistent site in terms of successive habitation. This has led many to deem it a suitable ‘type-site’ for the Middle Helladic, and many consider it the most complete stratigraphical ceramic record published for the period110. Within the Middle Helladic stratigraphical sequence, phase 2 to phase 6 show a fairly consistent record of occupation, featuring densely packed habitation quarters. The houses that have been excavated at this site conform to what has come to be known as the ‘standard’ Middle Helladic house- oblong in shape, consisting of several rooms with basic stone foundations. While specific functions were not always directly obvious, the excavators recognised several domestic, utilitarian and storage facilities present111.

This ‘typical’ Middle Helladic house appears also at Eutresis112. The interior of these houses are usually divided into three sections; the porch entrance, main central room and then a smaller room at the back which has a rounded rear wall and often features a hearth. Walls are typically made of mudbrick, and the tendency was to lay uncut stone foundations before building. It has been

suggested that this building represents the precursor to the Mycenaean megaron113. As these houses develop, the rounded end is often sharpened out to a rectangle in latter half of the Middle Helladic period, so it is easy to see where such an inference would arise from114. Buck in 1966 saw an ‘obvious’ connection to the later Mycenaean palaces. Modern scholarship has acknowledged that the development of the habitation sequence from the Middle Helladic to the Late Helladic is much more complex than this, as discussed in the previous chapter. However, what can be derived from this observation is that the inhabitants of such a house probably may not necessarily represent the 104 Lindblom (2011), 81. 105 Lindblom (2011), 77. 106 Maran (2007). 107 Karimali (2000). 108 Reinders (2004), 64-65. 109 Hale (2016), 291. 110 Hale (2016), 250. 111 Maran (1992), 7-33. 112

Caskey and Caskey (1960). 113

Buck (1966), 197. 114

(26)

25 | P a g e

majority of the population, the ‘typical’ Middle Helladic individual. While recognising characteristic features of these buildings is useful in terms of locating Middle Helladic sites, considering this type of building as a ‘typical’ Middle Helladic house may project the assumption that any standard Middle Helladic site should produce similar material. Additionally, the typology of the houses should only be considered alongside a consideration of dimensions. Kastraki, itself a small, rural site features some considerable architectural remains. However, it will take excavation of many more rural sites to prove or disprove this theory.

A similar lack of evidence caused Buck to claim an ‘argument from silence’ that settlement during this period was concentrated in small urban groupings, since the majority of settlements excavated at that point were villages and small towns. He inferred that the lack of rural homestead-type structures at that time suggested the habitation pattern of rural Middle Helladic populations fit the village model, with inhabitants who would have gone out daily into the countryside to farm115. It is here posited that modern excavations and sites such as the case study of Kastraki will challenge this theory and lead to a more elaborate understanding of settlement patterns during this time.

Currently, different types of settlement appear at Kastraki. Small houses are present in the layer MHIII, yet intriguing evidence emerges from the MHI level which features a large ‘apsidal’ building. Another past conception of habitation pattern which deserves reassessment is the concept of Middle Helladic towns as ‘disordered’, which is based on the observations of town planning at Eutresis116. Overall, the evidence from Eutresis gives the impression of individual households functioning within the close quarters of a wider community117. This is further supported by the several instances child burials within households, which is a repeated pattern in this period, and in the case of the burials from Pefkakia, several of these graves were marked by stone slabs. Pefkakia also appears to have been constructed to facilitate self-sufficient households118. This community was able to build downwards on the slopes due to a system of terracing still evident from the

architectural remains. They used this space optimally for habitation, leaving very little space in between houses. This is typical of the ‘disorder’ noted by Buck in 1966. For something to be considered disordered it must be held up against a model of order, to which it falls short. It is here posited, particularly for the region of Thessaly, that understanding of Middle Helladic settlement patterns is thus far too limited to consider any sites lacking order or layout. This concept of disorder arises from comparisons to larger, multi-occupational settlements which would have had a more numerous population and presumably longer and premeditated construction period. It will be interesting to bear this in mind during future excavations at Kastraki.

In the 7th stratigraphical phase at Dimini, a significant change occurs in the settlement remains, not unlike what was observed in the developments of the layout at Dimini. Cist graves appear at the southern region of the tell, in what previously functioned as a habitation area. The burials mostly are infants with few adults present119. Middle Helladic graves located at the southern slope of a hilltop settlement is a pattern which also presents itself at Mastos, where burial evidence was one of the first traces of human occupation to be discovered at the site120.

A range of burial traditions exist at Dimini, all apparently within the boundaries of habitation. Simple cist graves most frequently occur, but there are also remains of cemeteries and as the period progresses, intramural burials underneath houses also become common121. A variation of this type is 115 Goldman (1931), 50; Buck (1966), 197. 116 Goldman (1931), 50. 117 Andreou et al. (1996), 548. 118 Maran (1992), 51-55. 119 Maran (1992), 7-33, 51-55, 61-64. 120 Lindblom (2011), 77. 121 Buck (1966), 198.

Kastraki: A Poor Pick of Pottery? The Middle Helladic Problem- Reassessing Thessaly's 'Dark Age'