|
Thomas F. Tartaron Yale
University
Richard M. Rothaus
St. Cloud
State University
Daniel J. Pullen Florida
State
University
There is
rich
evidence for seafaring and long-distance maritime contact among the
great
Bronze Age civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean. From Egypt
alone,
we have depictions of ships, along with their crews and cargoes, in
many
tomb paintings. In these tombs one also finds models of boats of
various
descriptions, which, along with their crews, are poised to transport
and
provision the deceased in the afterlife. A full-sized funerary boat of
t he
Pharaoh Khufu was excavated from its burial chamber just south of
Khufu’s
pyramid at Giza. From the epigraphic record of Egyptian hieroglyphs and
Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, we learn of the use of ships for trade,
warfare,
and piracy. The movement of ships around the eastern Mediterranean is
implied
in the distribution of trade goods along its shores, and spectacularly
demonstrated by shipwrecks that have been carefully excavated in recent
decades,
such as the Late Bronze Age wrecks at Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun off
the
southwestern coast of Turkey (Bass 1987, 1991).
Fig.1: View of the Bronze Age site of
Aia Irini
on the island of Kea. The promontory creates two landing areas adjacent
to
the site (photo: courtesy J.B. Rutter).
We have less knowledge about seafaring in Aegean prehistory. The
Aegean Sea
and its archipelago separate the eastern coast of Greece from the
west-facing
coast of Asia Minor (modern Turkey). It was the crucible in which the
Bronze
Age civilizations of the Minoans on the island of Crete, the Cycladic
islanders
of the central Aegean, and the Mycenaeans of the Greek mainland were
formed.
With hundreds of islands and thousands of kilometers of shoreline, the
Aegean
dwellers (who spoke a form of Greek by Mycenaean times, if not earlier)
took
to the sea from early prehistory, and subsequent Greek history was
shaped
to a remarkable extent by the relationship of people to the
Mediterranean
Sea. Aegean coastlines are characteristically rugged, with few broad
coastal
plains, but many small, natural bays that are suitable for landing
ships
of modest size.
There is much historical and archaeological interest in
long-distance maritime
activity in the eastern Mediterranean, focused particularly on trade,
in
an effort to reconstruct the political economies of the great Bronze
Age
powers. Considerable attention has also been paid to the technologies
of
pilotage and navigation; and ship design, construction, and performance
(Agouridis 1997; Wachsmann 1998; Broodbank 2000). It is rather
surprising,
therefore, that relatively little is known about the exact locations of
the
Bronze Age harbors, particularly the smaller ones, and about how these
harbors
were used. For the Aegean area, archaeological and geomorphic data lag
well
behind the speculation generated by iconographic representations. This
predicament is probably best explained by the difficulty of exploring
the
rugged, dissected Greek coastline, and the scarcity of large, easily
recognizable
natural harbors. As a consequence, little systematic search has been
undertaken.
Most of the evidence we possess for Bronze Age seamanship in the
Aegean comes
from iconographic representations. In the Early Bronze Age, most
Cycladic
islanders probably used small dugout canoes for intra-Cycladic sea
travel,
but some had access to large “longboats,” several of which
are
represented on ceramic “frying pans,” a familiar form whose
function
is not precisely known. These ships carried crews of 25 or more manning
paddles,
and may have served multiple purposes of warfare, raiding, and elite
voyaging
(Broodbank 2000: 100). It is unlikely that these narrow, crowded
longboats
were used for long-distance trading (Wachsmann 1998: 75), a task
probably
assumed by medium-sized canoes for which we have no direct evidence.
 Almost a
millennium
later, Aegean ships of the early years of the Late Bronze Age were
depicted
in a miniature fresco at the West House at Akrotiri on the island of
Thera
(also known as Santorini). The so-called “Flotilla Fresco,”
dated
to about 1550 BC,1 consists of a series of scenes of large,
medium-sized,
and small manned ships passing by three coastal villages, showing the
rocky
coastal topography, as well as small harbors in which boats are moored
or
pulled up onto the beach (Shaw 1990; Televantou 1990; Wachsmann 1998:
86-99)
(fig.2). These images provide a glimpse of the variety of vessels in
simultaneous
use in the Aegean, and show a major advance in ship technology over the
Early
Bronze Age longboats: the sail, apparently introduced from the Near
East
to Crete near the end of the Early Bronze Age. Cyprian Broodbank (2000:
345-348)
has recently argued that the subsequent extension of Minoan
Crete’s
influence over the Cycladic islands was facilitated by the mastery of
sail
technology.
Fig.2: A portion of the "Flotilla
Fresco" from
the West House at Akrotiri, showing ships moving past villages and
small
harbors (photo: D. Pullen).
The Akrotiri fresco also sheds light on Bronze Age harbor settings.
Between
the second and third towns, a conspicuous promontory is enclosed by two
separate,
protected harbors. In the smaller harbor, three small, crescent-shaped
canoes
are pulled onto the shore. The larger harbor holds two larger sailing
ships.
This image suggests a differential use of harbors for canoes and
sailing
ships, for sailing vessels require sheltered anchorage and a deeper
draft
than canoes, which could simply be pulled up onto a sandy beach. This
depiction
also indicates a favored harbor topography, supported by previous
archaeological
discoveries (Shaw 1990; Raban 1991). This configuration, a promontory
settlement
between two natural harbors, is found at Ayia Irini on the island of
Kea
(fig.1), and at Vayia in the eastern Korinthia (see below). Other
configurations
include natural harbors formed by the connection of the mainland with
offshore
islands or reefs by means of causeways or narrow necks of land (Mochlos
and
Kommos on Crete), and settlements located on wide, natural bays at
river
deltas (Troy and Miletos in Asia Minor; Ephyra in southwestern Epirus). The lack of empirical knowledge about Aegean harbors has resulted
from a
set of problems that are geomorphological, archaeological, and
historical
in nature. Geomorphology concerns the constantly changing surface of
the
earth, shaped by natural and cultural processes. The physical changes
that
occur in coastlines over time can be considerable, rendering once ideal
harbors
useless. Likewise, modern harbors are often poor indicators of suitable
harbor
locations some 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. Several long-term forces may
be
responsible for changes in the configuration of coastlines. Global
(eustatic)
sea level has been rising since the retreat of the continental ice
sheets
near the end of the Pleistocene geological epoch, ca. 14,000 years ago.
Initially, the marine transgression was rapid and substantial (100
meters
or more in some locations), but stabilized approximately 5,000 years
ago
- that is, at the beginning of the Aegean Bronze Age - with a further
rise
on the order of five meters or less to the present.
Other geomorphic processes are more significant in coastline change,
because
they have effects that are more localized and more rapid; thus they may
be
experienced on human temporal and spatial scales. The first of these is
tectonism. Greece sits atop a subduction zone in which the African
tectonic
plate is moving north and sliding beneath the Eurasian plate. The
predictable
result is an arc of intense faulting, with attendant volcanism (the
Aegean
volcanic arc runs through the Cycladic islands and includes the famous
island
of Thera, much of which was obliterated in a volcanic cataclysm in the
Late
Bronze Age) and earthquake activity. This process is also responsible
for
building the mountains that form the spine of the Greek landmass. On a
local
scale, tectonic activity may take the form of localized subsidence or
uplift
events, causing a change in relative sea level. The effects of these
events
can be dramatic, completely submerging a coastline or raising a beach
high
and dry. A second process is the silting up of river mouths that once
formed
wide deltas or protected bays. Today, most of these former harbors are
stranded
kilometers inland - Troy and Miletos on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor
are
excellent examples. Human activities over long periods of time, such as
clearing
forests and stripping soil from slopes, increased the sediment load to
river
mouths, contributing to the loss of this class of harbor, which,
according
to archaeological and geomorphic evidence, was a common kind of major
natural
harbor in the Bronze Age (Raban 1991: 131).
The archaeological challenge centers on problems of visibility, as
well as
our own expectations of what the physical remains of a prehistoric
harbor
ought to be. What, indeed, are we looking for? Should we expect to find
formal
harbor facilities of stone, earth, and other durable materials, in the
form
of piers, moles, quays, and seawalls? And do we anticipate the
discovery
of attached harbor settlements - communities dedicated to, and perhaps
dependent
upon, the commerce and communication that the sea brought? Built
harbors
and year-round harbor settlements were certainly a common feature of
the
historical periods in Greece, when great harbors served the needs of
military
and commercial fleets. If, however, landing points in the Bronze Age
lacked
such structures, the harbors may be rendered nearly invisible to
traditional
archaeological detection. (In the tectonically active Korinthia, there
were
clear advantages to using natural harbors opportunistically rather than
expending
great effort on built harbor structures: the Korinthia’s two
historical
harbors - Kenchreai and Lechaion - were both destroyed, the former by a
devastating earthquake that sank the harbor, the latter by uplift that
made
the water of the inner harbor too shallow for use.) Substantial
coastline
change, particularly subsidence events, would further conceal the
physical
remains. Few archaeological projects have systematically explored
coastlines
with the explicit aim of recovering ancient harbors that possessed few
or
no durable constructions.
These issues lead to a third problem of historical interpretation of
the
scale and nature of Bronze Age use of coastlines and seas. Discussion
tends
to focus on the use of the sea for long-distance trade and other forms
of
interregional interaction; the image of large trading ships plying the
eastern
Mediterranean and putting in at a series of major harbors is an
alluring
one. But it is important to put prehistoric seafaring in perspective.
Aegean
villages and towns, even the Minoan and Mycenaean palace centers, were
small
territorial polities with modest populations and resources. The
frequency
of long-distance voyages for trading, raiding, and gift-giving was
likely
rather small relative to local or intra-regional maritime connections.
Bronze
Age settlements on Aegean coastlines were not thick on the ground at
any
given moment in time, and in many areas they must have depended on
short-distance
connections for crucial resources. Relationships with nearby
settlements
may have been essential for maintaining kinship ties by which small
communities
could exchange mates and share food in times of resource failure.
Finally,
we must shed a modern (Western), land-based perception of travel.
Today,
if we wish to negotiate the rugged Greek landscape, we can do so safely
and
efficiently on modern paved roads. In the Bronze Age, travel from one
coastal
settlement to another was usually quicker and easier by sea than by
land.
Narrow, broken coastlines are typically constricted by mountainous
interiors,
with the result that traveling from one coastal town to another in
plain
view might take days overland, but mere hours by boat. This suggests
that
ties may have been stronger among coastal communities than between the
coast
and the interior, although we know that people did move through
interior
regions, perhaps most frequently during the winter months, when sailing
was
dangerous or
impossible.
Fig.3: Eastern Korinthia Archaeological
Survey
zone on the Saronic Gulf.
Prehistoric Harbors in the Eastern Korinthia: In order to
attack these
problems, we chose as a test case the eastern Korinthia, and
specifically
the rough coast bordering the Saronic Gulf (fig.3).2 The Korinthia was
located
at the crossroads of a major sea and land route in the northern half of
the
eastern Mediterranean, and archaeological discoveries of more than a
century
document prehistoric settlement in the region. The Saronic Gulf was an
important
sphere of Bronze Age interaction, giving access by sea to Attica, the
Korinthia,
and the eastern shores of the Argolid. In the center of the Gulf, the
island
of Aegina with its main Bronze Age settlement at Kolonna was a major
player
in the development of Aegean Bronze Age society, apparently influencing
the
emergence of civilization at Mycenae itself (Rutter 1993: 774-781).
Prehistoric
exploitation of the Korinthia’s Saronic coast is virtually
unknown,
however, mainly because its rugged contours and relative isolation in
modern
times have discouraged intensive archaeological investigation. We were
thus
presented with a relatively pristine case study. The strategy we adopted to discover and investigate Bronze Age
harbors and
landing points was relatively straightforward: we constructed a model
for
harbor location and use based on geomorphological analysis, available
archaeological data, and a set of assumptions about cultural and
environmental
factors in human settlement. Then, we simply went out and searched,
using
systematic geomorphological and archaeological methods. To be more
precise,
our project involved the following activities:
1. Mapping regional topographic and other environmental factors that
may
have defined and influenced prehistoric land use;
2. Reconstructing the geomorphological history of landscape
evolution, by
identifying changes in coastal configuration:
· Measuring the amount and rates of land level and sea level
change,
· Identifying sources of these changes,
· Constraining the timing and magnitude of these changes
relative to
pan-Mediterranean eustatic change, seismic uplift or subsidence, and/or
local
sedimentary processes, such as erosion or deposition by rivers;
3. Inducting the spatial and chronological information into a
Geographic
Information System database;
4. Creating a probabilistic model that could be used to guide
archaeological
investigations in the region;
5. Archaeological search using intensive surface survey methods.
In the end we were able to identify numerous small bays along the
Saronic
coast that could have been used opportunistically or continuously as
harbors,
and we incidentally came upon conclusive evidence for such usage.
Building a Harbors Model: A Geographic Information
System, or
GIS, uses powerful computer software to store and manipulate data that
have
a spatial component. GIS is widely appreciated for its ability to store
and
display vast amounts of spatial data in discrete layers. For example, a
project’s GIS might contain satellite images, topographic contour
maps,
site locations, and hydrological maps, all tied
(“georeferenced”)
to the same real-world coordinates. These layers can be displayed in
any
desired combination. Additionally, a GIS package contains many programs
that
analyze spatial data. For example, one can determine all of the sites
that
lie within a certain distance of a perennial water source, the most
energy-efficient walking path across a landscape, or the viewshed
showing
all the territory vi was the problem of reconstituting the coastline of
several
thousand years ago, we turned to the power of GIS to define the
parameters
of the search.
The harbors probability model was embedded in a broader probability
model
for the types of environmental settings that prehistoric inhabitants of
the
eastern Korinthia exploited. Models are simplified constructions of
more
complex phenomena, and all begin with assumptions that are thought to
be
important factors influencing the interaction of dynamic variables to
produce
a final outcome or result. Certain kinds of variables, such as
environmental
processes, are easier to model because they obey natural laws and are
thus,
to some extent, predictable. Human behavior and human choice, on the
other
hand, are difficult to model, because they often cannot be predicted
given
the logic of an observer removed some three or more millennia in time.
When
human choice is introduced, many different outcomes are possible.
Furthermore,
because the information on prehistoric settlements in the eastern
Korinthia
remains woefully incomplete, there is little predictive value in our
findings,
in the sense that we cannot have high confidence, a priori, that a
specific
location meeting the criteria for suitability was in fact utilized.
Rather,
the purpose of the model is to assess the probability that specific
kinds
of locations and environments were favored by Bronze Age people in the
eastern
Korinthia.
Because models succeed or fail on the strength of their parameters,
they
must be made explicit. We began with two crucial assumptions about
long-term
environments. The first parameter, based on detailed fieldwork, is that
the
environment, on a regional scale, has been relatively stable over the
last
10,000 years. Since the beginning of the Bronze Age, there has been a
minor
global sea level rise on the order of 3-5 meters, but the amount of
change
within the Mediterranean basin has been so sufficiently small as to be
insignificant for our purposes. Climate data from Greece indicate that
wind,
current, and weather patterns have not changed substantially during
that
time, suggesting that in spite of numerous environmental
“hiccups,”
a dynamic state of equilibrium has prevailed. From a long-term,
regional
perspective, the environment tends to adapt to changes wrought by
forces
of climate, tectonics, and human interference. A second parameter is derived from the assertion that prehistoric
humans
were constrained by certain environmental conditions - that is, they
could
not prosper at all locations on the landscape. Many obvious constraints
come
to mind: for example, humans cannot survive without access to perennial
fresh
water; farmers cannot prosper without arable land, or farm on
precipitous
slopes. We can develop reasonable probability models to depict a range
of
suitable environments in which humans could have prospered. But at
present,
we cannot predict within that range the exact locations humans chose to
inhabit
and exploit, because we cannot control for a host of cultural choices
and
preferences from among the available options. We expect the most
significant
variation, that perceptible to humans, to reside mainly at the local
level.
At this fine spatial and temporal resolution, the dynamic between
environment
and culture becomes complex, and only explicable through detailed field
study.
The real utility of the model is not as a magical
“site-finding”
tool; rather, it is the potential to explain the variability in
landscape
use that is of true value.
On the basis of these parameters, we made three sets of further
propositions:
environmental determinants, cultural determinants, and harbor
determinants.
These were used to create spatial models of hypothetically preferred
areas
for human exploitation.
Environmental determinants:
1. Usable slope. The range of usable slope suitable for agricultural
purposes
is defined as 0-12 degrees. A similar figure is used for establishing
slope
limits for successful agriculture throughout the Mediterranean,
although
major terraforming projects, such as terracing, may act to change the
slope
artificially.
2. Contiguous area of usable slope greater than 500 m2. Reasonably
level
and spacious plots of land are needed for settlements to be successful;
that
is, people need sufficient space to live. This parameter is based on
modern
and ethnographic data and is conservative, in that much larger living
spaces
would be preferred.
3. Proximity to faults. This is a proxy measure of access to fresh
water,
since faults provide access to groundwater in the karstic environment
that
characterizes the eastern Korinthia. In this semi-arid region, annual
needs
for water among the inhabitants would have exceeded stream yield and
rainwater
storage capacity. Faults also help define slope and topography.
Cultural determinants:
1. Proximity to areas of high relief (change greater than 10 degrees
within
50 meters). This is an empirical observation, based on decades of
survey
and excavation in the eastern Korinthia, that many prehistoric sites
are
found on high, flattish areas defined by steep dropping slopes. These
settings
were presumably favored for defense and visibility.
2. Proximity to the coast. This parameter recognizes a strong
predilection
toward sea communication and travel in Mediterranean near-coastal
areas.
3. Proximity to wetlands. Wetlands provide copious plant and animal
resources,
and were once common in coastal areas of the Mediterranean, though most
have
been drained and infilled since the 20th century. Wetlands also furnish
quiet,
sheltered environments for beaching small ships. This parameter is
largely
hypothetical; it is intriguing, but has not yet proven to be
archaeologically
significant.
 4.
Location in
proximity to continuous tracts of land (greater than 5000 m2) of usable
slope.
This preference is also inferred from archaeological data, and is
seemingly
linked to a desire for expansive parcels of agricultural land.
These factors define our basic model of prehistoric landscape
utilization.
In practice, the model works rather well in that the correlation is
high
between suitable locations identified by the model, and actual
prehistoric
sites as determined by past and recent surveys of the eastern
Korinthia.
Based on this success, we added three further considerations to
specifically
target locations suitable for prehistoric harbors.
Harbor determinants:
1. Location on the coast. Only a computer would need to be told
this! This
is a requirement, rather than a preference, as in the cultural
determinants
above.
Fig.4: Model for fetch, an example of a
harbor
determinant.
2. Fetch (fig.4). Fetch refers to the maximum distance that wind may
travel
unhindered along a coastline. In the variable and constantly changing
weather
conditions of the Mediterranean, a viable harbor must be protected from
wind.
Any cove exposed to sizable fetch cannot be a good harbor without
extensive
modification; not only would ships be battered by high winds, but even
in
moderate winds, moving in and out of the harbor would be difficult.
Note
that changes in the configuration of the coastline over time may affect
fetch.
Our model uses modern information that may require modification based
on
geomorphological findings.
 3.
Bathymetry.
No embayment with shallow reefs and other navigational hazards is
appropriate
as a harbor. Bathymetric data help to identify suitable deep-water
approaches,
subject also to geomorphological findings of changes in the topography
of
the seabed over time.
The harbors model identified areas with high and low potential for
harbors,
large and small, on the Saronic coastline (fig.5). The next step was to
go
out and investigate these locations to test the model. Since a good
test
incorporates the null hypothesis, we searched low- as well as
high-potential
locations. In this the model was also successful, but negative results
make
for less than compelling reading, so here we focus on our discoveries.
Fig.5: Model for suitable prehistoric locations. Note the
locations
of Vayia and Cape Trelli, discussed below.
Fieldwork: As we anticipated, coastal configurations in the eastern
Korinthia
have been affected by localized, short- and long-term geomorphic
changes.
Because the nature of the changes may be specific to a locality, there
was
no substitute for careful, detailed examination. We employed an
interdisciplinary
approach combining geomorphology and archaeological survey to assess
the
potential of several dozen candidates.
Geomorphology: Our geomorphological assessment of a potential harbor
area
might include some or all of the following:
1. Observation of indicators of tectonic activity, including faults
and fault
patterns, coastline shape, mountain slopes, and bathymetry;
2. Examination of soils for indication of high rates of
sedimentation, uplift
or subsidence, and former wetlands;
3. Examination of relative indicators of coastline age, including
pebble
and sand size and shape, and erosion of limestone;
4. Identification of subsidence and/or uplift events through
submerged tidal
notches, uplifted platforms, and submerged or uplifted beachrock;
5. Coring of former and current marsh areas to examine
sedimentation, with
use of foraminifera as proxy data (fig.6).
 While we
have
concluded that regionally the landscape is stable, certain areas of the
coastline
have undergone episodic dramatic change. Thus, any attempt to
understand
coastal archaeology must incorporate a study of the previous shapes of
the
coastline. Close examination using a variety of methods allowed us to
identify
causes and effects of coastline change or stability. Some approaches
are
relatively simple: coastlines that are being controlled by seismic
faults
have characteristic shapes, as do the mountain slopes and bathymetry
associated
with them. Even the material on the beach, for example fine-grained
sand
versus large rough stone cobbles, can indicate its age.
Fig.6: Sinking a geological core in a
wetland
near the village of Korphos (photo: R. Rothaus).
But these are rough indicators that do not always provide the fine
chronology
required by archaeologists. An innovative technique used by our project
was
the use of foraminifera as proxy-data for environmental change
(Reinhardt
et al. 1996, in press). Foraminifera are microscopic shelled creatures
that
live in marine environments, each species occupying a preferred
habitat.
Some thrive in very saline water; others favor only slightly saline
water.
Over time, the shells of these creatures accumulate in bottom
sediments.
By taking cores in former or current marshes and identifying the
species
found in certain sediment layers, changing conditions of water depth
and
salinity over time can be determined. By comparing the species in
different
sediment layers, coastline change can be detected. A sudden species
change
can, for example, indicate a subsidence event. An additional advantage
to
this technique is that foraminifera can be radiocarbon-dated, providing
important
evidence for the timing of events, as well as confirmation of dates
obtained
by traditional archaeological methods. For the Cape Trelli site,
described
below, the data obtained from analysis of foraminifera recovered in
cores
gave us our first indication of how the coastline had changed.
Archaeological Survey: We initiated archaeological investigations at
several
sites under the umbrella of the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey
(EKAS).
Our techniques included systematic surface reconnaissance in survey
units
superimposed on the site, from which we recovered artifacts and noted
features
such as architecture. At one site (Vayia; see below), we created a
detailed
map of the architectural remains using an Electronic Total Station.
Artifacts
and features were described in the field, and documented by
measurements,
drawings, and photographs. On other occasions, observations made during
geomorphological work (see Cape Trelli, below), while not technically
part
of our archaeological work, nonetheless yielded crucial information.
Preliminary Results: In addition to several small inlets that may
have served
as minor harbors in the Bronze Age, our search led us to the discovery
of
two major Bronze Age settlements situated adjacent to ideal harbors.
Vayia: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Site: A north-facing promontory
known
as Vayia was identified as particularly promising for prehistoric
activity.
It possessed many desirable attributes, including proximity to a point
of
high relief and proximity to wetlands, and most importantly, was
situated
just above two usable harbors, making it ideal for opportunistic usage
practices.
Paths connecting the site to both coves are visible in aerial
photography
and may represent ancient routes. The western harbor, known as
Lychnari,
once possessed an extensive wetland at the terminus of a stream valley
emptying
into the harbor. The harbor is well protected from winds and has a
deep-water
approach to a gently sloped beach. The eastern harbor also has a
deep-water
approach and formerly a wetland, but being more linear, it is much more
vulnerable to wind and storms. Volcanic stone of the type typically
used
to make millstones in the prehistoric period was noted at both harbors,
but
it is likely that the eastern harbor was always secondary. On the
promontory,
we discovered a previously unknown Early Bronze Age site in a
remarkable
state of preservation. The site consists of numerous rubble-walled
structures
enclosed by perhaps two lines of substantial walls. Notable among the
features
is a series of massive rock piles five meters or more in diameter; some
of
these are partially collapsed bastions belonging to the enclosure wall
(fig.14),
though the function of others that appear to lie outside the wall is
not
yet known. The hilltop site spreads over two hectares, and is littered
with
pottery sherds, mainly of the final Neolithic, Bronze Age, and
Classical
periods. Archaeological mapping, surface survey, and geomorphological
observation
at the site in 2002 revealed that the fortified settlement belongs to
Early
Helladic II (2600-2200 BC). The main architectural features are
associated
with Early Helladic II pottery, particularly fragments of heavy,
utilitarian
vessels. This pottery can be associated with the stone architecture
because:
1) it is found on top of and inside the stone features, to the near
exclusion
of sherds of all other periods; and 2) it is, like the stones of the
walls
themselves, encrusted with a calcium carbonate (CaCO3) concretion. We
believe
this carbonate crust formed from the percolation of water through the
interior
of the structures over a long period of time, dissolving the limestone,
carrying
CaCO3 in solution, and subsequently precipitating it on the surface of
the
sherds. The concretion is found on the surfaces and breaks of the
pottery,
and matches similar concretions on the rock itself. It may be that the
wall
builders found sherds from broken storage vessels to be suitable
filling
material. Such concretions are not found on the pottery of historical
periods.
Vayia joins a small number of known Early Bronze Age fortified sites
on the
Greek mainland and Aegean islands. One clue to its location (it is
removed
from good farming land by several hundred meters), other than the
sheltered
bay of Lychnari, may be its viewshed - that is, the area visible from
the
site (fig.16). The only significant area in the Saronic Gulf not
visible
from Vayia, and a factor that may play a role in its placement and
significance,
is the island of Aegina, where Kolonna ranked as probably the most
important
settlement in the immediate region at this time. Likewise the western
end
of the Saronic Gulf is not visible from Kolonna, yet Vayia commands all
of
it. Vayia’s placement on the western coast of the Saronic Gulf
may have
taken advantage of the natural defenses of the steep mountains to the
south,
while at the same time controlling the few passes around and over these
mountains. The areas to the west and the north (the Korinthian
heartland)
were perhaps under the control of other centers located on the
mainland,
with which Kolonna was in competition. Thus, one central question about
Vayia
concerns its role in interconnections among these areas.
Korphos-Cape Trelli: A Mycenaean Harbor Town: The second major
harbor settlement
we located, near the small fishing village of Korphos, provides the
best
illustration of the utility of the model (fig.7). Visual inspection of
maps
of the area suggested reasonably high potential for harbors - and the
harbor
at Korphos itself seems the most likely location - but there were no
visible
remains to verify a prehistoric presence. In this case, we discovered a
Mycenaean
harbor and its attached town because, together, the harbors model and
geomorphological fieldwork unlocked the secrets of a millennia-old
natural
harbor that has long since disappeared under the sea.
 We had
some
interest in the Korphos area because of its wetlands and potentially
usable
harbors at small inlets in a mostly rough and vertical coastline.
Accordingly,
we began to take geological cores from wetlands close to Korphos
village
in 1998 to study long-term changes in the coastal environment. Yet the
harbors
model persistently pointed us toward a small (and in our minds rather
unpromising) southward-projecting promontory called Cape Trelli
(meaning
something like “Cape Madness”). Although the promontory has
a small
wetland at its neck, the adjacent coastline is linear and open to the
sea.
It was with some skepticism, then, that we visited the cape the
following
year to carry out a geomorphological study.
Fig.7: Overview of the location of the
Cape Trelli
archaeological area (photo: T. Tartaron).
Tectonic faults in the Korphos area have produced localized,
episodic co-seismic
subsidence in the past. This subsidence has been detected and is being
studied
using three different indicators: submerged tidal notches, proxy
indicators
of subsidence events recorded in wetland cores, and a series of
submerged
platforms and beachrock formations. All of these indicators point to
change
greater than that accounted for by eustatic or isostatic sea-level
change
and instead evidence co-seismic subsidence events.
The nature of the indicators can be briefly explained. A minimum of
three
submerged tidal notches have been documented at Korphos. The tidal
notches
are formed by bioerosion and dissolution processes and are excellent
indicators
of rapid sea-level change. Gradual sea-level change obliterates notch
evidence;
sharply preserved submerged notches are a definitive indicator of
sea-level
events. Sedimentological and paleontological examination of wetland
cores
recovered from Korphos’ bay provides excellent proxy indicators
for
subsidence events. Identification of the various microfossils in their
sedimentological context has indicated changing water salinity and
energy
levels, which in turn can indicate the results of subsidence events.
Through
correlation with radiocarbon dates from associated organic material, a
detailed
sequence of events and dates has been recovered.
But the real breakthrough awaited us at Cape Trelli, where we
identified
three sections of submerged beachrock at depths of -1.2 m, -3.3 m, and
-5.9
m (Wells n.d.). Beachrock can form in as little as a year when fresh
and
salt water mix in an intertidal zone, causing cementation by calcium
carbonate.
All three levels of beachrock were riddled with an astonishing amount
of
ceramics that must have been cemented in place while the surface was at
sea
level The beachrock not only verifies subsidence events that must be
episodic
rather than gradual sea-level change, but through the fortuitous
inclusion
of ceramic material provides a solid terminus post quem for subsidence
events.
Many of the sherds from the deepest beachrock were easily recognized
Mycenaean
types, including fragments of kylikes (a standard drinking vessel of
the
Mycenaean palatial period), stirrup jars (used to transport luxury
liquids),
and Late Bronze Age coarseware. These sherds established a
chronological
range between 1425 and 1065 BC, which was corroborated by evidence in
the
geological cores for a tectonic event in that time frame.
Examination of all of these indicators revealed a sequence of at
least four
subsidence events at Korphos since 1425 BC. Most relevant to the issue
of
harbors is the indication that a usable harbor existed at Cape Trelli,
in
the area of the submerged beachrock. Because the number of subsidence
events
and their provisional chronology are known (albeit imperfectly) through
the
geomorphological studies, it is possible to restore the coastline as it
existed
in the prehistoric period . This restoration is essential to the
application
of the model, and led directly to a major discovery, both by allowing
for
an adjustment of the model to reveal an area of high potential, and
because
an understanding of the coastline change led us to visit a location
that
currently is remarkably inhospitable and unattractive as a habitation
or
as a harbor and usage area.
Our final discovery allowed us to put all the evidence together.
Adjoining
and adjacent to the subsided coast there exists a large complex of
architectural
remains covering perhaps as much as 30,000 m2, as indicated by aerial
photography. The
 architecture
of the complex is clearly in the “cyclopean” masonry style
of the
Mycenaean palatial period (fig.8). These incidental discoveries,
combined
with the incredible abundance of Bronze Age material in the water,
embedded
in the beachrock and strewn over the beach, confirms that we have
discovered
a major, previously unknown and unsuspected Mycenaean harbor. All
archaeological
finds were reported immediately to officials of the Greek
Archaeological
Service. In the years ahead, we hope to return to the site to initiate
an
archaeological investigation.
Fig.8: Mycenaean walls at Cape Trelli,
exemplifying
the "cyclopean" masonry technique (photo: T. Tartaron).
Conclusions: It is our belief that most Bronze Age Aegean harbors
lacked
durable constructions (but see Shaw 1990 for rock cuttings, putative
ship
sheds, and other enhancements that are hypothetically associated with
Minoan
harbors); rather, natural embayments were utilized opportunistically to
allow
coastal communities to engage the outside world.
The Early Helladic fortifications at Vayia and the architectural
complex
at Cape Trelli are manifestations of specific time periods - Early
Helladic
II and Late Helladic III - that witnessed the emergence of complex
societies
characterized by frequent regional and interregional interaction by sea
and
land. Control of these harbors in periods of complexity may have been
in
the hands of polities that controlled regional systems. In the case of
Vayia’s fortified settlement and harbor, that polity may have
been Kolonna
on Aegina, the nearest important Early Helladic II center. Kolonna may
have
had an interest in Vayia as an outpost on the Saronic shore along a
travel
route to the Korinthian Isthmus.
Cape Trelli also had early ties with the island of Aegina. A
“Saronic” pottery fabric of Final Neolithic and Early
Helladic
I found at Vayia, Trelli, and elsewhere contains volcanic temper that
must
have come from stone brought from Aegina and Methana. There is abundant
evidence,
in the form of volcanic stone characteristic of Aeginetan geology, that
Trelli’s inhabitants were importing this raw material for the
manufacture
of ground stone objects, such as querns. In the Late Bronze Age, Cape
Trelli
was well placed to serve as a regular commercial stopover for Mycenaean
vessels
sailing from the Argolid to the Korinthia and Attica and back. Although
Trelli
is situated almost due east of Mycenae, the intervening territory is
rugged,
and so the overland route was probably never a practical means of
travel
between the settlements. On the other hand, we believe that the harbor
at
Cape Trelli was valued as one of the few good landfalls on a heavily
traveled
sea lane skirting the Saronic coast during Mycenaean palatial times. In
our
future research, we hope to explore Cape Trelli’s role in the
economy
and politics of the Mycenaean world.
But at these sites and others we discovered on the Saronic coast,
there is
evidence for activity during times when high complexity and an
“international spirit” did not prevail. Bronze Age Aegean
harbors
during these periods may often have lacked attached settlements,
perhaps
reflecting a strategy of simultaneously using multiple small, natural
harbors.
In the 19th-century Korinthia, inland producers of currants and other
crops
routinely checked the wind and then took their products to the
appropriate
harbor for that particular day. For many such harbors, a primary
function
must have been to ensure the connectivity of small communities to
essential
local and regional social and economic networks. It is unlikely, in any
case,
that more than a few harbors in a given region could have been
supported
primarily by trade. For mariners engaged in regional and long-distance
voyaging,
small landing points along the rugged Greek coasts offered life-saving
shelter
from storms and opportunities to take on water and other supplies.
Already
in the Bronze Age, skills in pilotage (using landmarks and seamarks)
and
navigation (using the sun and stars) were quite advanced (Agouridis
1997).
These skills, along with detailed information on Aegean coasts and
seas,
formed a voyaging “template” shared and passed down among
generations
of seamen.
The harbors model, founded on geoarchaeological and landscape
approaches
to understanding prehistoric coastal adaptations in the Korinthia,
proved
quite successful in its aim to facilitate the discovery and
investigation
of prehistoric harbors. Notably, the model was able to identify and
quantify
parameters that appear to moderate the choices of prehistoric people in
utilizing
the landscape. In a semi-arid environment, these are to a considerable
extent
delimited by topographic and environmental considerations. Yet the
model
also proposes that cultural preferences generated inductively from
available
archaeological data - defensible position, proximity to wetlands, and
proximity
to contiguous land of usable slope - may help refine the search.
Naturally,
a host of other cultural choices, most of which cannot be modeled using
current
data sets, and many of which will never be known, shaped human
landscape
use in the Aegean Bronze Age. Only through intensive fieldwork may we
expect
to illuminate some of them.
The discovery of the harbors at Vayia and Cape Trelli, as well as
smaller
coves that may have been used as harbors, holds important implications
for
understanding the use of coastlines in the Aegean and elsewhere. The
case
of Cape Trelli demonstrates the value of a localized approach to
geomorphological
change that may reveal other lost harbors in this, or any, tectonically
active
part of the world. By restoring the configuration of the coastlines
through
time, we can begin to reconstitute the coastal worlds of the Aegean
Bronze
Age. .
Notes:
1 The chronology of the volcanic eruption that buried Akrotiri
remains a
complicated topic of debate among archaeologists and earth scientists.
This
situation is mainly the result of conflicting dates from two sources:
radiocarbon
dating of ice cores and archaeological layers containing ash
disseminated
by the eruption; and dating of ceramics and other materials in the
affected
layers according to traditional correlations with Egyptian pharaonic
chronology.
A range of plausible dates within each of these categories has
confounded
efforts, with the result that a rather wide range persists.
2 Funding for our work was provided by the Foundation for
Exploration and
Research on Cultural Origins, St. Cloud State University, McMaster
University,
and Oregon State University. Sedimentological and geomorphological
studies
were directed by Eduard Reinhardt and Jay Noller, respectively; we
could
not have succeeded without their fundamental contributions. We
gratefully
acknowledge our colleagues at the Institute for Geological and Minerals
Exploration (IGME) in Athens for a series of permits from 1997 to 2001.
The
archaeological work took place in cooperation with the Eastern
Korinthia
Archaeology Survey (EKAS), co-directed by Timothy Gregory and Daniel
Pullen.
Lee Anderson provided invaluable assistance and untold hours in
developing
the GIS model.
3 The following is a simplified description of the model, the
fieldwork,
and our discoveries. For a more detailed account, see Rothaus et al. in
press.
The GIS model and all GIS images were generated using ArcView 3.2,
©
Environmental Research Systems, Inc.
References: Agouridis, C. 1997. “Sea Routes and Navigation in the Third
Millennium
Aegean.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16(1):1-24.
Bass, G.F. 1987. “Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors of
the Bronze
Age.” National Geographic 172(6): 692-733.
Bass, G.F. 1991. “Evidence of Trade from Bronze Age
Shipwrecks.”
In N.H. Gale (ed.), Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean, pp. 69-82.
Jonsered,
Paul Åströms Förlag.
Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades.
Cambridge
University Press.
Raban, A. 1991. “Minoan and Canaanite Harbours.” In R.
Laffineur
and L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa: L’Egée Préhistorique
et
la Mer. Aegaeum 7, pp. 129-146. Université de Liège.
Reinhardt, E.G., N. Easton, and R.T. Patterson. 1996.
“Foraminiferal
Evidence of Late Holocene Sea-Level Change on Amerindian Site
Distribution
at Montague Harbour, British Columbia.” Géographie
Physique et
Quaternaire 50(1): 35-36.
Reinhardt, E.G., R.J. Fitton, and H.P. Schwarcz. In press.
“Isotopic
(Sr, O, C) Indicators of Salinity and Taphonomy in Marginal Marine
Systems.” Journal of Foraminiferal Research.
Rothaus, R., E. Reinhardt, T. Tartaron, and J. Noller. In press.
“A
Geoarchaeological Approach for Understanding Prehistoric Usage of the
Coastline
of the Eastern Korinthia.” In K. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds.),
Metron:
Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Université de Liège.
Rutter, J.B. 1993. “The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern
and Central
Greek Mainland.” American Journal of Archaeology 97:745-797.
Rutter, J.B. 2003. Prehistoric
Archaeology of the
Aegean. On-line course:
http://projects.darmouth.edu/history/bronze_age
Shaw, J.W. 1990. “Bronze Age Aegean Harboursides.” In
D.A. Hardy,
C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis, and P.M. Warren (eds.), Thera and the
Aegean
World III.I Archaeology, pp. 420-436. London, Thera Foundation.
Televantou, C. 1990. “New Light on the West House
Wall-paintings.”
In D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis, and P.M. Warren (eds.),
Thera
and the Aegean World III.I Archaeology, pp. 309-324. London, Thera
Foundation.
Wachsmann, S. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze Age
Levant.
College Station, Texas A & M University Press.
Wells, L. n.d. “Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology of
Akrotirio
Trelli.” Report on file in archives of the Eastern Korinthia
Archaeological
Survey.
This article appears in Vol.3, No.4 of Athena
Review.
.
|
|