Pottery

Although found in relatively large quantities at some findspots, the prehistoric ceramic material is very fragmented, with a small number of diagnostic or otherwise chronologically distinctive sherds. A large number of findspots did not yield any ceramic material at all, making their chronological designation difficult. The largest amounts of pottery come from findspots 2/4 (Choni), 8/9 (Gourimadi), and 21/22 (Dexameni), all of which are located along the southern edge of the Katsaronio plain. Additional (and more ambiguous) ceramic evidence comes from findspots 26, 53, 72, and 75. This summary does not include several individual finds of prehistoric pottery recovered throughout the survey area.

The FN pottery is represented by approximately 50 fragments. Typical shapes include rounded bowls with vertical or spreading thinned rims (found at 2/4, 21/22; Fig. 6a) and cheesepots (2/4, 8/9, 21/22; Fig. 6b). Structural or decorative elements such as elephant lugs (21/22; Fig. 6c), small strap handles (8/9; Fig. 6d) and perforated lugs (8/9; Fig. 6e), rows of incised lines (2/4, 8/9; Fig. 6f), spool-shaped perforated (2/4; Fig. 6g) or plain lugs (8/9), taenia bands with finger impressions (8/9; Fig. 6h), and red-slipped and burnished surfaces (21/22) are indicative of this prehistoric phase. Several joints found on the surface indicate the presence of footed vessels – primarily bowls, judging by their size. Unfortunately, their poor preservation prevents any reconstruction attempts. These pottery features, however, are reminiscent of the later section of the FN or even a FN/EBA I transition, as suggested by some authors (Caskey and Caskey Reference Caskey and Caskey1960; Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Talalay, Keller, Karimali and Farrand2013, 71–4; Tzavella-Evjen Reference Tzavella-Evjen1985). The presence of a possible sherd belonging to a rolled-rim bowl (2/4; Fig. 6i) and the absence of pattern burnishing, which is usually associated with earlier FN subphases, seem to support this assertion (cf. Pullen Reference Pullen2011, 20, 25).

Fig. 6.

Sample of the prehistoric pottery recovered from the survey. Drawings by A. Djordjević and A. Kapuran.

Ceramics from the mature EBA phase (EBA II) seem to be even less well represented in the Katsaronio assemblage. Several sherds from findspot 25 are the most likely candidates for an EBA II date; however, this is far from certain as it is based on their general appearance and not on any specific EBA features. There is also a possibility that some of the footed vessels and vessels decorated with taenia bands can be dated to this phase, since they are commonly found throughout the FN–EBA continuum.

The fabric of the prehistoric pottery was macroscopically examined using a 10x magnification geological lens for consistency. There are no observable changes in the fabric between the FN and EBA phases, which is consistent with observations made elsewhere in the Karystia (e.g. Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Talalay, Keller, Karimali and Farrand2013; Mavridis and Tankosić Reference Mavridis and Tankosić2009; Reference Mavridis, Tankosić and Tsirtsoni2016a; Reference Mavridis and Tankosić2016b; Tankosić and Mathioudaki Reference Tankosić and Mathioudaki2011). All pottery collected from prehistoric findspots was made of local clays, either medium or coarse in quality. The clay contains inclusions commonly found in prehistoric (and later) pottery from the Karystia and also found locally in abundance, such as whitish rock (most likely quartzite), schist, and silver mica. The ceramics were generally well fired, producing surface colours ranging from red (Munsell 2.5YR 5/8) to reddish yellow (Munsell 7.5YR 6/6), with most sherds falling in the yellowish red (Munsell 5YR 5/6–5/8) group.

Lithics

In this section we present a holistic picture of the lithic assemblage that was collected both as individual finds and from concentrated findspots. A total of 9,481 lithics were recovered (Table 1), the vast majority of which were made of obsidian. This constitutes one of the largest obsidian lithic assemblages ever recovered via archaeological survey in Greece. While obsidian is the primary raw material, several other raw materials are present, including quartz, reddish-brown chert, grey flint, low-quality reddish-brown chert, low-quality brown chert, crystal quartz, and white/beige flint.

Table 1.

Total counts of lithics recovered during the survey.

The vast number of lithic finds made the exposition of detailed information about each piece impractical. Instead, the analysis focused on aggregates of findspot material. For each group, the pieces were sorted, counted, and examined macroscopically. Basic information was recorded about reduction techniques and diagnostic types using the European lithic typology, with some variations tailored to the needs of the study (Cherry and Torrence Reference Cherry, Torrence, MacGillivray and Barber1984; Perlès Reference Perlès1987; Karimali Reference Karimali1994; Kardulias and Runnels Reference Kardulias, Runnels, Runnels, Pullen and Langdon1995; Inizan et al. Reference Inizan, Reduron-Ballinger, Roche and Tixier1999; Parkinson and Cherry Reference Parkinson and Cherry2010; Pelegrin Reference Pelegrin and Desrosiers2012). Specifically, platform preparation, knapping techniques (where feasible), blank types, tool types, and some auxiliary remarks, when necessary, were recorded for each piece.Footnote ¹ This allowed for the identification of areas where reduction took place, the extent to which reduction occurred, and the dating of each assemblage.

Ten of the 21 certain prehistoric findspots contained more than 100 lithics each (Table 2). From findspot 8/9 (Gourimadi) – the most abundant of the 10 – we recovered 3660 pieces, the majority of which are obsidian. This assemblage contains 413 spalls, 373 blade fragments, 16 cortical flakes, 11 core fragments, 14 technical pieces, and thousands of flake fragments, indicating that reduction took place in the area. We identified a total of 180 tools, a large part of which constitutes heavily eroded arrowheads (53 in total; Fig. 7). Most of the arrowheads are tanged and barbed with bifacial retouch, bearing typological characteristics encountered on other points from the LN and FN periods at a number of sites in Greece (Perlès Reference Perlès2004; Sørensen Reference Sørensen, Diez and Moschos2006; Moundrea-Agrafioti Reference Moundrea-Agrafioti and Zachos2008). From findspots 21/22 (Dexameni) and 2/4 (Choni) – the second and third most abundant – we recovered 1742 and 1289 pieces, respectively, with obsidian making up 99 per cent of the two assemblages. Both are also characterised by large amounts of debitage and tools. The blades from findspot 21/22 are predominantly irregular in shape, which indicates the possible application of indirect percussion. The largest percentage of tools was found at findspot 71 (Mantra 2) (45 out of 164 pieces). The remainder is comprised of 68 flake fragments, 34 blade fragments and 15 spalls. The presence of thin parallel-sided blades in this industry is a clear indication of pressure technique; most of the blades also have flat and linear butts.

Fig. 7.

Obsidian arrowheads. Drawings by A. Psoma.

Table 2.

Findspots with the highest density of lithics.

The analysis of this impressive assemblage provides us with clues regarding the use and procurement of lithics in the area. The large quantity of obsidian artefacts, which constitute the vast majority of the assemblage, indicates that obsidian was the primary raw material for lithic production, as at other FN (Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Talalay, Keller, Karimali and Farrand2013; Mavridis and Tankosić Reference Mavridis, Tankosić and Tsirtsoni2016a) and EBA sites in Euboea (Tankosić Reference Tankosić2011; Mavridis and Tankosić Reference Mavridis and Tankosić2016b; Tankosić and Katsianis Reference Tankosić, Katsianis, Sarris, Kalogiropoulou, Kalayci and Karimali2017). Moreover, judging by the large numbers of debitage pieces at some of the findspots, paired with evidence of most of the phases of the reduction sequence, we can conclude that extensive reduction did occur in these areas. These findspots seem to have played a central role in the production and redistribution of the artefacts (e.g. findspot 8/9 [Gourimadi]). Further analysis will help determine the role of these sites in the circulation of obsidian in the wider area. While we are able to identify some of the loci where reduction took place, it is difficult to conclude unequivocally in which form the raw material arrived at the sites.

Pressure flaking was the preferred knapping technique for obsidian blade production, although some of the blades may have been manufactured using indirect percussion. Moreover, the composition of the lithic assemblage from some of the findspots suggests that they were very active in the lithic exchange network. The findspots that were characterised by the largest number of artefacts and by an advantageous (i.e. defensible) geographical location – such as 8/9 (Gourimadi), 21/22 (Dexameni), and 2/4 (Choni) – also revealed large numbers of debitage and flake fragments, with only relatively fewer blade fragments. This marker of intense manufacturing, together with the geomorphological characteristics of the findspots and their position in relation to the coast, may suggest that they acted as intermediary nodes in the obsidian exchange network, where raw material underwent some degree of preparation, before being supplied to surrounding areas (Cullen, Talalay and Tankosić Reference Cullen, Talalay, Tankosić, Rupp and Tomlinson2011; Cullen et al. Reference Cullen, Talalay, Keller, Karimali and Farrand2013). Moreover, the important role that site 8/9 (Gourimadi) played in the production of chipped stone at the end of the Neolithic period is confirmed by the exceptional amount of debitage recovered during subsequent excavations (Gourimadi Archaeological Project, 2018–19) which have yielded more than 7000 obsidian artefacts (Tankosić et al. Reference Tankosić, Mavridis, Zafeiriadis and Psomaforthcoming).

A considerable number of tools were identified in certain findspots, with marked variation in typology. Tool types include becs, splintered pieces, denticulates, end-scrapers and retouched blades (Fig. 8). Numerous arrowheads were collected as well, particularly at findspot 8/9 (Gourimadi). There, arrowheads constitute the largest percentage of tools. As of this writing, a total of 171 LN/FN obsidian arrowheads from Gourimadi have been analysed (from both the NASK and the Gourimadi excavation), making this the largest collection of obsidian arrowheads ever uncovered in Greece. The exceptional amount of debitage and large number of arrowheads confirms that the knapping process was related to specialised activity. All the above, in conjunction with the site's privileged geographic position, indicate that this site played a significant and central role in the specialised craft production and exchange network of the region.

Fig. 8.

Sample of lithic tools from the survey. Drawings by A. Psoma.

Metals

Although large quantities of slag were detected throughout the survey area, only one metal find can be attributed to the prehistoric phases with any degree of certainty. The artefact in question is a copper axe or adze collected from the surface at findspot 8/9 (Gourimadi). The object, approximately 10cm in length and probably produced by casting, was found in a nearly perfect state of preservation covered by a stable patina (Fig. 9). Stylistically, it belongs to Branigan's type III (Branigan Reference Branigan1974), with the earliest occurrence in the LN, although these kinds of axes continued to be produced until the end of the EBA. This dating fits well into the proposed FN/EBA I date for findspot 8/9 that is based on the pottery style and lithics. The dating is further supported by the scientific analysis of the object, conducted by colleagues from the Demokritos Institute (Mastrotheodoros et al. Reference Mastrotheodoros, Filippaki, Tankosić and Mavridis2019). The results of this analysis indicate that the axe was made of almost pure copper, suggesting that it predates the introduction of true (i.e. tin-alloyed) bronzes in the western Aegean at the end of the EBA (e.g. Nakou Reference Nakou1995, 15; Papadimitriou Reference Papadimitriou and Tzachili2008, 280).

Fig. 9.

Copper axe found at findspot 8/9 Gourimadi. Drawing by A. Djordjević.

Gourimadi (findspot 8/9)

Due to the potential recognised in the surface assemblage from findspot 8/9 (Gourimadi), this site became the subject of an independent excavation project (the Gourimadi Archaeological Project) that began in 2018 under the aegis of the Norwegian Institute at Athens. As of summer 2020, the project has opened four excavation trenches at the summit of the hill around which the surface artefacts were found in the largest concentration (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10.

Gourimadi trenches in 2020. Author: D. Nenova.

The excavation confirmed the existence of a substantial prehistoric site on this location, a likely settlement. The four trenches produced large quantities of obsidian, prehistoric ceramics that span at least three phases (LN through EBA I) and possibly also a fourth (EBA II), and substantial architectural remains consisting of both curved and straight walls and pits (Tankosić et al. Reference Tankosić, Mavridis, Zafeiriadis and Psomaforthcoming). A limited number of terracotta anthropomorphic figurines, ground stone tools, and stone-made ornaments complete the artefact assemblage. Animal bones were also encountered in smaller quantities, but it appears that the chemical composition of the soil is detrimental to bone preservation. Particularly significant is the identification of pottery that resembles the Saliagos-style ceramics, which was found at the Karystian Agia Triada cave (e.g. Mavridis Reference Mavridis, Tankosić, Mavridis and Kosma2017). Although the evidence currently consists of only several sherds, it is indicative of the presence of an earlier prehistoric phase in the Katsaronio plain that was not encountered among the surface remains. No evidence of metallurgical activities on the site has been found thus far.

Pottery

The historical pottery provides critical information that helps to fill the gaps in the archaeological knowledge of the area. Although southern Euboea is represented in the bibliography of the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman pottery (Chatzidimitriou Reference Chatzidimitriou2003–4; Reference Chatzidimitriou and Mazarakis-Ainian2006; Reference Chatzidimitriou and Kazakou2011; Chidiroglou Reference Chidiroglou and Kazakou2011a; Reference Chidiroglou, Rupp and Tomlinson2011b; Reference Chidiroglou2012, 584–617; Reference Chidiroglou2014; Chidiroglou and Chatzidimitriou Reference Chidiroglou and Chatzidimitriou2006; Langridge-Noti Reference Langridge-Noti and Drougou2004; Moutsopoulos Reference Moutsopoulos1960; Rotroff Reference Rotroff, Rupp and Tomlinson2011; Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and McCoy2018, 93–109), this additional material significantly improves our understanding of the region in terms of habitation patterns, commercial connections, and subsistence strategies. The survey collected more than 9000 historical sherds, from which a collection of about 4340 diagnostic sherds was analysed. This assemblage mainly includes fragments of bases, handles, and rims, while parts of bodies were collected only when they bore typologically or chronologically significant features. Those bearing glaze and/or various types of decoration complement the group. The vast majority of the diagnostic sherds are coarse wares (89.3 per cent), with fine wares accounting for 10.7 per cent. Individual sherds are identified in the text by their assigned inventory number (e.g. NASK 15 4036), where the first number represents the year in which the sherd was collected and the second is an arbitrary consecutive number. The findspot number and toponym are added for further clarification.

Vessel shapes

Vessel shape can be identified (with any degree of certainty) for only 1168 diagnostic sherds from the Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. This is due largely to the poor preservation of the sherds, which in many cases makes even the identification of potter's wheel traces impossible. This leaves the examination of the fabric the sole factor for distinguishing between prehistoric and historic sherds. NASK14 1454 (findspot 76, Ag. Nikolaos 2) (Fig. 11a) is an instructive example of the usual state of preservation: the entire glaze on the sherd is fugitive, while only shallow traces of the rouletting decoration are preserved.

Fig. 11.

Fragments of (a) plate with rouletting decoration, (b) lamp, (c) Attic-type skyphos, and (d) Classical-type kantharos. Photos by A. Laftsidis.

The pithos is the most common shape among the coarse wares, a fact to be partly explained by the higher visibility of and greater degree of survival of this type of pottery (Fig. 12). Most of these sherds are rim fragments, though a large number also come from bases. Body fragments are also common, often bearing decoration consisting of plastic rings. The second most common shape is the trade amphora. Most of the amphorae are easily recognisable by their distinctive handles, which form the majority of this shape's fragments. There are, however, several examples from their pointed ends, and some – though much fewer in number – from the neck. Body and handle sherds of Roman-period trade amphorae form a small group, easily identifiable from their distinctively hard-fired fabric. Furthermore, there are numerous fragments of lekanai, which almost exclusively come from the upper part of the body and the rim, and which represent several different types of this shape. The next most common shape is the hydriai; the majority of these are represented by parts of handles (either horizontal or vertical), and there are also a few fragments from the shoulder, neck, and rim of the vase. Jugs are identified most frequently by vertical strap handles, but fragments from the rim are also present in much lower frequency. Finally, there are many examples of cooking vessels, particularly small and large chytrai with either one or two handles, and there are also a few examples of lopades. These vessels are most often recognised by their distinctive rims and handles and their gritty fabric, which contains many inclusions. Additional coarse ware shapes occur in considerably fewer numbers, including storage vessels, lagynoi, mortars, plates, small bowls, and a single lamp.

Fig. 12.

Representation of coarse ware shapes from historic periods. Chart by A. Laftsidis.

An equally large variety of shapes is observed among the fine wares, despite their significantly smaller number in comparison with the coarse wares (Fig. 13). The prevalence of drinking vessels is evident, accounting for 65 per cent of the total number of fine wares. The most numerous is the skyphos of the Attic type, with 18 examples. Almost all of these fragments come from the base and lower part of the body. There are also plentiful handle fragments of bolsals and/or one-handlers – although the function of the latter as either drinking cups or food bowls is debatable (Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 155), and most possibly their use could vary depending on the occasion. However, a definitive identification with any of these shapes is difficult due to the sherds’ fragmentary state of preservation. Furthermore, nine examples of the skyphos of the Corinthian type are present, similarly coming from the distinctive lower part of that shape and characterised by a flaring foot and a strongly upward body. Kylikes can also be seen, though in only four examples; these are identified by pieces coming from the high swung handles and the base. In addition, there are five examples of kantharoi, which are easily identified through their distinct moulded bases and spur handles, typical for kantharoi of the classical type. A small part of a handle (NASK15 4036, findspot 106, Ag. Antonios), however, speaks to the presence of the kantharos type with swung handles. One example of a bowl-kantharos is also present. A parabolic cup (mastos) completes the group of drinking vessels. It is notable that there are only two examples of small handleless bowls (NASK14 0397 and NASK13 1255, found outside of recorded findspots), which are typically among the most common fine ware shapes in pottery assemblages especially from the Hellenistic period onwards (Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 156 nn. 38–40; Laftsidis Reference Laftsidis2018, 726–37). In contrast, eight fragments come from kraters, most of which are from handles, but also from bases and one that preserves part of the rim of a calyx-krater. Other fine ware shapes that can be identified in smaller numbers include amphorae, hydriai, plates, deep bowls, lekanides, oinochoai, lamps, and a single fragment of a lekythos.

Fig. 13.

Representation of fine ware shapes from historic periods. Chart by A. Laftsidis.

Fabrics and decoration

Several different fabrics are present in the assemblage. The most common type among the coarse wares is a plain reddish fabric with many schist-like inclusions and abundant mica. The colour is usually reddish yellow (Munsell 5YR 6/8, 5YR 7/8, or 7.5YR 8/6). Pithoi and cooking vessels, on the other hand, tend to have a coarse reddish fabric with more schist-like inclusions and mica, many grits, and often many small grinds of roof tiles (grog), which together form a much more resilient fabric. This fabric colour is usually also reddish yellow (5YR 6/8, 5YR 7/8, or 7.5YR 8/6), while the core often has a different colour ranging from white (7.5YR 8/1) to light grey (7.5YR 7/1). The clay of both fabrics is usually brittle, likely a result of the firing conditions. Both of these fabrics were observed in the pottery from the Bouros-Kastri peninsula (characterised there as Plain Red Fabric [PRF] and Coarse Red Fabric [CRF]), although the colour of the clay recorded in that case does not seem to correspond directly to the one stated above. However, the fact that the Bouros-Kastri types are interpreted as most likely local (based on their abundant presence in the nearby kiln site of Akrotiri) could point to a local origin for the fabrics considered here as well (Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and McCoy2018, 93–4). A few Roman amphorae represent a third fabric type which is very hard-fired and reddish yellow in colour (5YR 6/8–7/8), and includes a modest quantity of shiny particles and white inclusions (possibly quartzite).

The fabric of the fine wares is almost devoid of inclusions, with at times only a small amount of mica. The colour of the clay can vary, but in most cases it falls within different tones of reddish yellow (5YR 7/8 or 7.5YR 7/8), with some examples of pink (5YR 8/3 or 5YR 8/4). All the fine wares (about 75 in number) bear glaze, which is usually fugitive. When still preserved, it is usually shiny black or, less frequently, dull black. Only in a handful of examples is the glaze brown in colour. Assigning a place of origin to them is not easy, but three are most probably Attic (Fig. 11cd). The possibility of a local origin for some of the fine wares should not be excluded, since local pottery production in the area of Karystos has already been verified (Chatzidimitriou Reference Chatzidimitriou and Mazarakis-Ainian2006, 1070; Reference Chatzidimitriou and Kazakou2011). Lastly, a red (2.5YR 5/8) hard-fired fabric with some lime inclusions and voids is attested and can be attributed to the much later Incised Sgraffito Ware, which is mentioned below.

Only a small number of sherds bear any kind of decoration (4.9 per cent of the total collected historic sherds). Among these, several different decorative techniques can be identified. The most frequent, found on pithoi and less frequently on lekanai, consists of plastic rings. In the first case, they surround the vase at the transition from the base to the body, in the middle of the body, or at the transition to the rim. In the case of lekanai, they are found only below the rim. Another type of decoration consists of multiple parallel horizontal incised lines that surround the vase, usually some distance below the rim. Surprisingly, relief decoration, often combined with incision, appears 11 times on sherds deriving from pithoi (Fig. 14). These sherds mostly come from raised panels in the body, probably helping the transition between separately made parts of the vessels, while at the same time better ensuring their cohesion. In one case, however, the decorated fragment derives from the rim of a vase. There is a relative variety of non-figured patterns, consisting mostly of tongue motifs and palmettes (NASK14 1114 and NASK14 1140, from findspot 67, Oikopedo Spasis), single guilloche (NASK14 1121 and NASK13 0007 from 67 and 13–23,Footnote ² Oikopedo Spasis and Ag. Petros and Pavlos, respectively), and Ionic cyma (NASK14 1201, findspot 67). This type of decoration on pithoi is not uncommon for the area. Similar examples have been found in Karystos, as well as at the neighbouring sites of Filagra and Zarakes.Footnote ³ Rope decoration is found on only one sherd (NASK12 0084 from findspot 08/09, Gourimadi), which probably belongs to a pithoid vase. Stamped decoration appears twice: kantharos NASK13 1241 (findspot 43, Xokklisi) preserves one stamped palmette on its bottom (Fig. 11d), and the bowl NASK14 0397 has traces of two palmettes, in this case surrounded by rouletting. The rouletting decoration can also be seen on the plate fragment NASK14 1454 (findspot 76, Ag. Nikolaos 2), though it is impossible to say whether it was accompanied by stamped decoration due to the state of preservation (Fig. 11a).

Fig. 14.

Relief decorated pithoi. Photos by A. Laftsidis.

A very distinct type of decoration, appearing in the assemblage only once, is modelling in the form of an ivy-leaf thumb rest which decorated the upper part of the strap handle of the bowl-kantharos NASK13 1083 (findspot 44, Ag. Taxiarches) (Fig. 15c). There is only one example of possible red-figure decoration: krater rim NASK14 1749 (findspot 77, Mantra), on which the outline of possible laurel leaves is preserved (Fig. 16a). Burnished decoration is found in a single instance (NASK13 0502; findspot 35, Ag. Thimotheos and Mavra) and consists of several thin radial lines starting from the lower part of the vase, possibly a bowl. Finally, there is a single stamped handle of a trade amphora (NASK14 0530, findspot 67); it is broken precisely at the beginning of the sealing, making the recognition of the decorative motif difficult, but a tripod identification seems very possible (Fig. 16b).

Fig. 15.

(a) Fragments of a parabolic cup, (b) Attic-type skyphos, (c) bowl-kantharos, and (d) mortar. Photos by A. Laftsidis.

Fig. 16.

Fragments of (a) red-figure krater and (b) stamped amphora handle. Photos by A. Laftsidis.

Datable examples

To date such fragmentarily preserved material with precision is a difficult task. This is particularly true for the pithoi, the most numerous category (27.2 per cent of all the diagnostic historical pottery). Aside from being preserved only as sherds, according to Giannopoulou (Reference Giannopoulou, Papanikola-Bakirtzi and Kousoulakou2010, 66–7) they retained the same form over time, and no true technological differences can be seen in their way of production. Any precise dating is thus very difficult. Rotroff, on the other hand, presents a typological organisation of the material from the Bouros-Kastri survey based on the form of the rims and the presence (or not) of necks. A generic chronology is assigned to these types on the basis of similarly shaped examples found elsewhere and on other chronological indicators found at the same findspots as the pithoi fragments (Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and McCoy2018, 105–7). We focus here on the pithos fragments which offer more readily accessible chronological evidence, as well as some of the more important sherds from other types of vessels.

The earliest dated group of sherds concerns 11 sherds of pithoi that bear relief and incised decoration (see Fig. 14). They are a rare exception to the general challenge of dating pithoi. Based on comparisons with other similar examples from the Aegean area, we can place them in the period spanning from the late seventh to the early fifth century bce (Chidiroglou Reference Chidiroglou2012, 597 n. 2627). It is true that a few isolated examples from Attica or the Aegean area can be dated even deeper into the fifth century bce because of their inclusion in later deposits, but the possibility cannot be excluded that at the time of their last use they were already several generations old.Footnote ⁴ Further, the coexistence of relief Archaic pithoi and Hellenistic period pottery has been noted in several areas of eastern Crete (Englezou Reference Englezou and Drougou2000, 62 n. 9; Whitley Reference Whitley, Nevett and Whitley2018, 62–3, fig. 4:3).

Second comes a fragment of a black-glazed lamp NASK14 1197 from findspot 67 (Oikopedo Spasis) (Fig. 11b). The narrow nozzle, which is set too close to the body, and the extremely large filling-hole that occupies most of the upper part, place the lamp in Howland's Type 16 B. Its particular morphological features, such as the narrow rim, date it to the last quarter of the sixth century bce (Howland Reference Howland1958, 31–2 n. 94, pls 4 and 32).

The most numerous fine ware shape, the skyphos of the Attic type, offers several more datable examples. The best preserved is a skyphos from findspot 77 (Mantra) consisting of the joining fragments NASK14 1742, 1754, 1741, 1752 and 1745, while the fragment NASK14 1751 belonged to the same vase, though it cannot be joined with the others (Fig. 11c). Its form, despite being fragmentarily preserved, places it around 400 bce. Even though the wide torus ring foot comprises an element of an early date, the straight profile of the lower part of the body with diagonal upward direction reveals that the vase belongs to a next, middle stage of the shape's development.Footnote ⁵

Kantharos fragment NASK13 1241 (findspot 43, Xokklisi) is one of the most important examples for dating purposes (Fig. 11d). Its profile and, most importantly, the stamped palmette on its floor constitute critical chronological features that place it before 325 bce; according to Rotroff (Reference Rotroff1997, 37) that shape was not stamped after that time. Furthermore, the form of the base and the height and profile of the stem put it close to examples from the Athenian Agora, which are dated to the third quarter of the fourth century bce (Sparkes and Talcott Reference Sparkes and Talcott1970, 286 n. 700, fig. 7). Another datable kantharos fragment (NASK15 4032 from findspot 106, Ag. Antonios) is placed slightly later, in the last quarter of the fourth century bce. This date is indicated by the form of the moulded base and the narrow, slightly elongated stem (Sparkes and Talcott Reference Sparkes and Talcott1970, 283, no. 662, 287, no. 714).

Fragment NASK14 0223 (findspot 51, Dyo Aloga) from a parabolic cup (mastos) must be placed in a slightly later period (Fig. 15a). It finds a close parallel in the mastos Z21 from Tomb Z at Derveni, Macedonia, which is dated to the transition from the fourth to the third century bce (Themelis and Touratsoglou Reference Themelis and Touratsoglou1997, 121, 125, no. Z21, pl. 139). Its best comparanda, though, are a mastos from Messene, which is placed in the early third century bce (Themelis Reference Themelis and Drougou2000, 412–13, pl. 186a), and another from Keryneia, Achaea (Dekoulakou Reference Dekoulakou2011, pl. 1d). The only elements that set them apart are the absence of a nipple in our example, as well as the straighter profile of the body. It is not possible to establish whether these elements constitute chronological criteria.

A fragment from the base and lower body of a skyphos of the Attic type (NASK15 4025; findspot 106, Ag. Antonios) can be placed at about the same time (325–275 bce; Fig. 15b). This date is indicated by the narrow torus ring foot and the almost vertical lower part of the body (cf. Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 257–8 nn. 151–2, fig. 12, pl. 14).

NASK13 1083 (findspot 44, Ag. Taxiarches), which derives probably from a bowl-kantharos (Fig. 15c), appears to be slightly later. It is comparable to an example from the Athenian Agora dated to the second quarter of the third century bce (Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 257 n. 148, fig. 12, pl. 14). Even though a dating exclusively based only on the form of the handle is far from secure, its placement in the third century bce seems quite safe, since almost all of the examples of this Hellenistic type of bowl-kantharos belong in this century (Rotroff Reference Rotroff1997, 934).

Another vase that can offer some chronological evidence is NASK14 2062 (findspot 90, Ag. Nikolaos 1) (Fig. 15d). It is part of a mortar, which is also the best-preserved fragment in the collection and the only one that retains its entire profile. Despite the undeniable fact that coarse wares are much more difficult to date than fine wares, this fragment offers a wide chronological frame. The lack of a ridge at the inner edge, as well as of the distinctive piecrust handles, categorises it under the Classical type of the shape, which was still in use in the second half of the fourth century bce, while it can also sometimes be found in contexts belonging to the early third century bce (Rotroff Reference Rotroff2006, 101 n. 139).

A relatively small number of sherds can be assigned to the Roman period. A precise dating can be determined for even fewer, as most of them come from locally made and difficult-to-classify vessels. Nevertheless, some of them, such as NASK14 0042 from findspot 48 (Ag. Ioannis) (Fig. 17a) could belong to eastern sigillata C (ESC) ware or locally made imitations, dating to the second or third centuries ce (Hayes Reference Hayes1972, 321–2, type 4). The amphorae sherds NASK14 0230 and 1253 from findspots 51 and 68 (Dyo Aloga and Paradeisi 1, respectively) (Fig. 17bc) are also of interest. Their heavy, round-sectioned and ribbed handles, with their reddish yellow fabric, places them under the amphora type identified at Benghazi as Middle Roman 5 or Zeest 80, a type with a widespread distribution in the Aegean and Black sea regions and generally dated to the second and third centuries ce (Riley Reference Riley and Lloyd1979, 188–9).

Fig. 17.

Fragments of (a) an eastern sigillata C (ESC) ware, (b–c) type Zeest 80 amphorae, and (d) an Incised Sgraffito Ware. Photos by A. Garyfallopoulos.

Finally, as far as the Byzantine period is concerned, only one sherd (NASK13 1431, findspot 44, Ag. Taxiarches) can provide us with chronological indications (Fig. 17d). This sherd has a characteristic red, hard-fired fabric with lime inclusions and voids, the application of white slip (both on the interior and exterior surface), and a yellowish glaze on the interior surface. These features place it under the Incised Sgraffito Ware category, with a possible date in the second half of the twelfth or the early part of the thirteenth century ce (Morgan Reference Morgan1942, 146–57; Vroom Reference Vroom2005, 91).

While it is difficult to draw definite conclusions based on this assemblage, it seems that most of the material can be placed in the Classical period and, more specifically, in the late fifth and fourth centuries bce (Fig. 18). This conclusion is in accordance with the small number of handleless bowls. From the Hellenistic period onwards, handleless bowls are usually the most abundant category of vases found in both residential and funerary contexts; handleless bowls are not, however, as common before the late fifth century bce (Sparkes and Talcott Reference Sparkes and Talcott1970, 128). If this image is not simply coincidental or a result of preservation bias, it could indicate the expansion of habitation during the late fifth to early fourth century bce and, possibly, the increase in population in the areas under investigation.

Fig. 18.

Spatial and temporal distribution of dated vases/sherds from historic periods. Chart by A. Laftsidis.

Summary of the historical pottery

The historical pottery not only gives us the opportunity to complement the archaeological map of the Karystia, but it also provides us with important information about habitation patterns, local economy, and commercial connections, about which some preliminary remarks are made here. In all but one case, the findspots should be interpreted as sites with residential aspects. This conclusion stems from the enumeration of the identified shapes, which include pithoi, storage vessels, trade amphorae and cooking vessels, as well as fine wares. Most of the above shapes could also be found in funerary contexts; however, their high percentages do not support such a view. The only shape that could be associated with higher probability with a cemetery is the lekythos fragment NASK15 3086 from findspot 12–23 (Ag. Isidoros) (Fig. 19). Lekythoi, however, are often found in residential contexts as well, such as various types of lekythoi from the Athenian Agora (see Sparkes and Talcott Reference Sparkes and Talcott1970, 150–5 nn. 1097–146, fig. 11, pls 38 and 48), so the existence of a cemetery at this location in the Katsaronio cannot be ascertained with certainty.

Fig. 19.

Lekythos fragment (NASK15 3086). Photo by A. Laftsidis.

It is noteworthy that pithoi comprise a very large percentage (almost one third) of the coarse wares. This fact may imply the existence of several farms or settlements with extended storage facilities. It also underlines the agricultural production capabilities of these communities, as these containers usually held grain and wine. The indication of production activities is further emphasised by the discovery of other objects, such as five collected fragments of wine presses, with several additional elements also left in situ, as they were too large to transport. Furthermore, the identification of two fragments of kiln furniture – a teardrop-shaped support (NASK13 0676) and a stacking ring (NASK 13 6890) – indicates the presence of local pottery workshops.Footnote ⁶

Last but not least, the extremely high percentage of fragments of trade amphorae (21.4 per cent of the coarse wares) demonstrates the degree to which the area was involved in commercial activities. Due to the fragmentary state of the material and the fact that most of the trade amphorae are identified only through their handles, it is difficult to identify an area of origin for these vessels. A fortunate exception is the stamped handle NASK14 0530 (Fig. 16b) from Oikopedo Spasis (findspot 67), whose origin was the island of Thasos, in the northern Aegean. Trade connections with the northern Aegean or the Black Sea area are attested, furthermore, by the Benghazi Middle Roman 5 or Zeest 80 type amphorae (NASK14 0230, 1253), a type linked to those regions. The type was identified in Karystia itself, in the nearby Bouros-Kastri peninsula (Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and McCoy2018, 218) and, recently, in significant quantities in Dion, Macedonia (Fragoulis, Minasidis and Mentzos Reference Fragoulis, Minasidis, Mentzos, Poulou-Papadimitriou, Nodarou and Kilikoglou2014, 298, figs 6–7).

As far as the fine wares are concerned, the Athenian origin of several vessels seems possible. This is corroborated by the reddish yellow inclusion-free clay of many of the examples, as well as their shiny black glaze, whenever it is preserved. This is the case, for instance, with the kantharos fragment NASK13 1241. To pinpoint the origin of these vessels with any degree of certainty, petrographic analysis must be undertaken. It is noteworthy that the close connection between Athens and the Karystia has been observed in the case of cooking wares and some coarse wares (e.g. Rotroff Reference Rotroff, Rupp and Tomlinson2011, 179; Wickens et al. Reference Wickens, Rotroff, Cullen, Talalay, Perlès and McCoy2018, 94), as well as by the abundance of products from the Athenian kerameikos found in two cemeteries in the area, one in Karystos (the Papachatzis’ plot; Chidiroglou Reference Chidiroglou, Rupp and Tomlinson2011b) and one found west of the modern town (Chatzidimitriou Reference Chatzidimitriou and Mazarakis-Ainian2006, 1067–71). Finally, the abovementioned example of Incised Sgraffito Ware (NASK13 1431) appears also to be imported from elsewhere in the Aegean (Morgan Reference Morgan1942, 146–57; Vroom Reference Vroom2005, 91).

Finally, in spatial terms, it is apparent that findspots datable to historic periods tend to cluster in the central, northern, and north-eastern sections of the Katsaronio plain (Fig. 5). This roughly mirrors the modern distribution of settlements and agricultural fields, suggesting a relatively consistent habitation/use pattern. The weather conditions are surely at least partly the reason for this, as those areas are more sheltered from the prevailing strong north-easterly winds, the intensity of which can be particularly abrasive along the southern edges of the plain. In addition, the main water sources can be found in the upper two thirds of the Katsaronio, which makes this area more suitable for agriculture, whereas the southern third could have been used in the past chiefly for husbandry (as is the case today), an activity which would have left fewer material traces.

Metals

Large amounts of slag were found throughout the survey area, often in concentrations associated with specific findspots, but also as off-site scatter (Fig. 20). This material is currently under study by Ole F. Nordland from University College London. Based on preliminary analysis, the most frequently encountered type of slag is tap slag, followed by furnace and smithing slags (O.F. Nordland, pers. comm.). The largest concentration of slag was encountered at findspot 18 where, based on slag and burnt soil distribution, we were able to identify the existence of at least six distinct furnaces. We also identified some technical ceramics used in metallurgy (e.g. furnace lining, crucibles, blowpipes). Findspots 44 and 106 also produced evidence of substantial metallurgical activities, and we recorded an abandoned iron mine (findspot 27), which according to locally obtained information was exploited in modern times.

Fig. 20.

Distribution of off-site slag collected during transect survey, generalised in 1-ha tessellations. Finds collected during intensive findspot survey are not shown. Unsurveyed areas are absent of tessellations. Map by R.M. Seifried.

Most of the slag found during the survey appears to be of post-prehistoric date, as macroscopic assessment suggests it is a by-product of iron-based metallurgy. This interpretation is supported by the occasional discovery of slag at findspots where Classical and Hellenistic pottery were dominant. Unfortunately, we are unable to date the largest slag concentration at findspot 18. We encountered no datable material there whatsoever, despite repeated revisitations. Samples for thermoluminescence dating have been collected but not yet analysed.