The Pylos Regional Archaeological Projec

The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey
Author(s): Jack L. Davis, Susan E. Alcock, John Bennet, Yannos G. Lolos and Cynthia W.
Shelmerdine
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 66,
No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 391-494
Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/148395 .
Accessed: 26/07/2012 04:17
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American School of Classical Studies at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
http://www.jstor.org
THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT
PART I: OVERVIEWAND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
(PLATES
85-92)
T HE PYLOSREGIONALARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROJECT(PRAP)was formally
organized in the fall of 1990, its purpose being to investigate, primarily through
the techniques of surface survey,the history of prehistoric and historical settlement and
land use in western Messenia, in an area centered on the Palace of Nestor (Fig. 1).1 In
the course of a "reconnaissance"campaign in the summer of 1991 and in three major
campaigns during the summers of 1992-1994, approximately 40 km2 were examined
intensively (Fig. 2). These included areas to the north, east, south, and west of the
modern town of Hora,2 and the entirety of the Englianos Ridge (upper and lower). Our
fieldworkdoubled the number of sites previouslyknown in the area intensively surveyed.
PRAP has also investigated nearly all previously known sites in an additional 30 km2,
defining their spatial extent and chronological components with greater precision. In
addition to the archaeological survey, natural environmental investigations (geological,
geomorphological, geophysical, and paleobotanical)have been supported by PRAP since
1991, organized and coordinated by EberhardZangger.3
The preliminary results of the archaeological survey are the focus of this part of our
report. After a brief discussion of the goals of PRAP, the relationship of our research
to previous archaeological endeavors in the area, and our field methods, the principal
1
In the fall of 1990 a team of codirectors was assembled for PRAP, composed of Susan E. Alcock
(Historical Studies),John Bennet (Field Direction), Yannos G. Lolos (Earlier Prehistoric Ceramics), Cyn-
thia W Shelmerdine (LaterPrehistoricCeramics and Museum Management), and EberhardZangger (Earth
Sciences), withJack L. Davis as overalldirector. In addition, an advisoryboard was constituted, consisting of
Emmett L. Bennett Jr., William P. Donovan, Richard Hope Simpson, Mabel L. Lang, George S. Korres,
William A. McDonald, and Stella G. Miller. We are grateful to each of them for their advice and support
over the past seven years. For further acknowledgmentssee p. 488 below.
The following preliminary research reports and abstracts have been published: Davis et al. 1993;
Davis et al. 1994a; Davis et al. 1994b; Davis et al. 1995; Alcock, Harrison, and Spencer 1996. Illus-
trated texts of preliminary reports for the 1992-1995 seasons are available on the WorldWideWeb at
http://classics.lsa.umich.edu/PRAP.html or http://stream.blguc.edu/PRAP/PRAPhtml, as is an illus-
trated gazetteer of all sites investigatedby PRAP and a catalogue of artifactsfrom each.
2 We thank all the citizens of Hora for their extraordinaryhospitality.As their guests, we were extended
every courtesy; we are particularly grateful that we were allowed use of the Second Elementary School
as a workroom and dormitory. The support extended to us by successive mayors of the town, Panayiotis
Petropoulos (1991-1994) and Dimitrios Papathomopoulos (1995), was nothing short of spectacular. We
are also appreciative of the help that we received from many young people of Hora and the surrounding
area, who, as participants in a European Community sponsored seminar, assisted us for three years in the
field and museum. Finally we are grateful to the former foreman of the Palace of Nestor excavations,
Dionysios Androutsakis,for his supportand willingnessto share with us "inside"information about Blegen's
excavations.
3 Zangger et al., forthcoming in Hesperia 66.4, 1997.
66.3, 1997
Hesperia
392 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
A I~~A!
Pyto 0~ ~ ~~~~
Ne .
I F;
0-200m KYTHERA
200-500m
50O-1O000m
1500m+
0 10 50
kms
FIG. 1. Reliefmapof the Peloponnesos by PRAPindicatedby

(RosemaryJ.Robertson).Regioninvestigated
box
archaeological results of the project are reviewed, as they are relevant both to prehistoric
and historical periods. At the end of this paper general conclusions resulting from
archaeological investigations, their relation to the natural scientific fieldwork, and plans
for future research will be briefly summarized and discussed.
THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT:PART I 393
Agrilia Baka -Plat noTys|

/* o~eis f L5
ni MouXakiMt
Aigaleo Koufieros, ~L4'
~~L6 Mcta~~~ada0
101 A\ Mt
0~~~~~~~~~ 0
51 X t / 9'<'rgos
Floka*'gos ' t aniak-0> / '5
< 1L_w3 1i~~~~argalian' l;'0. + p>>'r

( PROTI, lr
:-Am6ilfof>/
TRAIT ~Os
~i2juOF PROTI a M USI>'S 21}59i
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Arap
0 settlementerhi ( Suna
area surveyed in 1992 | Y4jalovan^ iV

| area surveyed in 1993 | BAY OF NAIVA INO\K Xerias K'
,iS X0
*Farea surveyedin 1994 6 I,
=. . ~~~km jf 9Pylos it'0, 0
FIG. 2. Region investigated by PRAP (RosemaryJ. Robertson). Areas intensively surveyed and sites defined,
1991-1995
THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRAP TO PREVIOUS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
Before World War II, the archaeology of Messenia was almost totally peripheral to the
interestsof archaeologists,foreignand Greekalike.4 But today,aside fromthe northeastern
Peloponnesos (the Corinthia and Argolid), we know more about this area, at least for
the later prehistoric periods, than any other part of Greece (compare, for example, the
' McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 117-118.
Ky. ref ssenia
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
0 =o
KyrLaUng, 5,'-
Ayia
9 V Peninsula 2 200-500m
m oS o natos, fo rosti pr
500m+~
150
25
Mycenaean cetesinthr0 y eo n g ton
absolutenumbersofypsite caaoge in Meseiawththseinothereiaons ; Th
reerce
~~~~pioneering of Blgn ecuaged by his initialidiscvr of thPlceo
FIG.3. Rlief mapofesnia
absolte nubers f sies caalogud in esseitas Gwith mhs nohrrgos. h

pioneering ~ 200rhs
~ ~ fBeen-n50a0myhi
~ ~~~~inul ntaldsoer fte aaeo
mabsout numberiosof Spyitedoalgen

Marnao,sorteni mosth thosein
cemtherireg,atsevera TEal
Mycenaean centers in the area of Pylos and by excavations at Nichoria on the western edge
5 Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979, pp. 126-180; Dickinson 1982, p. 126.
of the Pamisosvalley (Fig.3).6 Many historicalsites had also been discoveredand explored
prior to the start of the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition (UMME), especially
through the work of the Swedish scholar M. Natan Valmin in the 1920's and 1930's.7
Although on the whole less attention has been paid to historicalthan to prehistoriccenters
in Messenia, exceptions do exist, most notably the urban community of Messene, where
fieldworkbegan already in the 19th century and continues today under the direction of
PetrosThemelis.
In the 1960's, in large part encouraged by the decipherment of the Linear B script,
William McDonald and Richard Hope Simpson launched a campaign to investigate
systematicallythe area that would, in the Late Bronze Age at least (ca. 1200 B.C., in the
phase known as Late Helladic IIIB), have lain under the control of the Palace of Nestor.8
The approach of UMME has exercised a prodigious influence on the development of
archaeologyin Greece, not only in promotingactive collaborationsbetween archaeologists,
historians, and earth scientists but also in advocating a regional rather than a site-based
perspectiveand a diachronicratherthan a synchronicapproach.9 The UMME publication
permitted for the firsttime the systematicexamination of Mycenaean geography,as well as
more tentative reconstructionsof settlement patterns and regional organization for other
epochs.'0 Still more recently, archaeology in the area of Pylos has been dominated by
the activities of George Korres,1I who assumed responsibilityfor publishing the results of
excavationsleft incomplete at the time of Marinatos'death and who has himself continued
the investigation of several important local prehistoric centers, most notably the site of
Voidokoilia on the coast near the site of Classical Pylos (Ancient Koryphasion).12
Despite the sheer quantity of earlier studies concerned with the archaeology of the
Pylos area, we believed that new data were urgently required. The archaeological results
of UMME are fundamental to our present understanding of the area. Nevertheless, the
extensive character of UMME's investigations, in comparison to current standards of
intensive surface prospection, made it difficult to determine to what degree their data
were representative of the total pattern of settlement in the region.'3 Certainly, some
regional patterns proposed by UMME lack parallels in the results of later, more intensive
survey projects in Greece. John Cherry thus could write: "So unless Messenia is quite
unlike other parts of Greece in its archaeology, it seems plain the UMME has given us
a large but selective sample of the extant sites and that much remains to be found."14
6 ANChoria I-IIl.
7 McDonald 1967, pp. 334-335; Valmin 1930.
8 McDonald and Rapp 1972, p. 3.
9 McDonald and Rapp 1972; McDonald 1984; Fotiadis 1995.
10 See, for example, Chadwick 1972 and 1973; Shelmerdine 1973 and 1981; Bintliff 1977.
11 See Korres 1990, with referencesto extensive earlierbibliography;Korres 1993, with a summaryof the
recent investigationsof his University of Athens team in western Messenia.
12 We are glad to have the opportunity here to thank the University of Athens team for their collegiality
during the years we have worked at Pylos; we particularlythank George S. Korres of the University of
Athens (the director of the Voidokoiliaexcavations),Aphrodite Hassiakou, and George Stathopoulos.
13 Bintliff 1977, p. 6; Cherry 1984.
14 Cherry 1983, p. 393.
396 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y. G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
Our investigation of a substantial portion of the overall UMME study area offered us
an excellent opportunity to examine what limitations, if any, lay in the original UMME
methodology. This was an important issue to settle, since site distributionsas presented by
McDonald and Hope Simpson have been extensivelyemployed in the past twenty years for
the reconstructionof both prehistoricand historicalpatterns.15 Increasinglysophisticated
methods for reconstructingpast demographic trends and settlement patterns furthermore
demanded that more detailed information be systematically collected about the size,
functions, and duration of occupations at sites previously explored by UMME.
Another problem to be confronted was the prehistoricbias of most long-term archae-
ological projectsin the Pylos region. Blegen'swork, especiallyhis excavationsat the Palace
of Nestor, provided a vast fund of information about Mycenaean life and socio-economic
systems. It was a desire to make this picture of prehistory still fuller that fueled UMME
in its desire to "reconstructa Bronze Age regional environment," as the subtitle of the
1972 publication puts it; indeed, the heavily Bronze Age orientation of UMME was freely
admitted by its organizers. Of their gazetteer of post-Mycenaean habitation sites (Reg-
ister B), they noted honestly that "the data reported ... and our handling of it may be
rather inadequate and uneven."16
Given these large gaps, both real and potential, in our understandingof the Messenian
archaeological landscape, our research emerges as an essential next step, moving well
beyond mere reassessment of the results of UMME. This is not to deny the very close
relationship of our fieldwork to that of our predecessors. Indeed, the very existence of
the UMME work is one factor that made western Messenia so desirable for study. Hope
Simpson wrote to us at the beginning of the project: "There is absolutely masses to do
in the Pylos area. I rejoice that it is at last being tackled, after such a long 'drought'." In
a sense, the surveyconducted by PRAP might be viewed as a defactosecond-stage research
project, pursuant to the fieldwork of UMME.17 Multistage research plans make sense
in areas of the world that are archaeological terraincognita:there, intensive survey might
follow a lengthy program of initial reconnaissance and inventory. In Messenia, however,
broad reconnaissance and inventory had already been accomplished by UMME. Our
work then comprised detailed examination of many problems brought into clearer relief
by their research.
RESEARCH GOALS OF THE PYLOS REGIONAL

ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT
NATURE OF THE PROJECT
By organizing a new program of surface survey in western Messenia, members

of PRAP hoped to remedy many of the deficiencies in available archaeological data
(see pp. 393-396 above). Three differentlines of researchwere envisioned:
15 McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972. See Alcock 1993; Carothers 1992; Kosso 1993.
16
McDonald and Hope Simpson 1972, p. 143.
17
Sullivan and Davis, forthcoming.
1. An intensive survey of a large area around the Palace of Nestor (P1.85:a), designed to
encompass one other nearby EarlyMycenaean center, a Graeco-Roman urban site and
its hinterland, and at least one mediaeval village settlement;we also planned to explore
the boundary region between the Hither and Further Provinces of the Mycenaean
kingdom of Pylos.'8
2. A systematic investigation of areas adjacent to the Palace of Nestor itself, including
intensive surfacecollection of artifacts,geophysicalprospection, and geomorphological
studies.
3. An inventory survey of already known prehistoric and historical archaeological sites
in the area of Pylos, involving reexamination,systematiccollection of surfacefinds, and
mapping.
Our initial intent, already in the formative stages of research design, was to examine
the entire historical and prehistoric spectrum of human occupation in western Messenia.
This decision was stronglyinfluenced by the Annales school of historical research,with its
emphasis on the long-term, and complex, relationshipsbetween human societies and their
physical environments. Questions about changing patterns of Mediterranean settlement
and land use, and about shifting conceptions of landscape, have acquired increasing
prominence in later 20th-century classical archaeology and ancient history. It is to this
growing field of inquiry that our research is intended to contribute. Any such study of
the "big picture" first demands, of course, that certain facts about many different stages
of the past be established as soundly as possible. Only then will these indivridual"case
studies" from different periods of the past, when examined in the aggregate, contribute
to our interpretation of patterns in the overall history of the region.'9
RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES
Following a brief visit to the area in 1989 (by Alcock, Cherry, and Davis), the
codirectors of the project undertook a single preliminary reconnaissance study season
at Pylos in 1991.20 The rationale for this stage of the project was the realization that
18 Our original goal was to survey intensively 60 km2. In the event, however, this proved to be an
overly ambitious undertaking. Our estimates had been based on experiences elsewhere in Greece (e.g.,
Nemea, Keos, Melos), where, as it happens, patterns of ancient settlement are rather different from those
of Messenia. In Messenia, where small farmsteads seem to have been rare and large nucleated centers
the rule (see pp. 455-458 below), we found it necessaryto invest a greater than anticipated percentage of our
time in the gridded collection of surface artifactsfrom large sites. Such a reallocation of human resources
reduced by one-third our ability to cover "new"ground.
19 The relevance of such questions to the study of history is now widely recognized. Nonetheless,
appreciation of the enormous potential contribution of archaeology to social and economic history has
been slower to develop, albeit with some exceptions (e.g., Snodgrass 1991; Bintliff 1991; Knapp 1992 and
1993). A few regional-studiesprojects in Greece have succeeded in actually introducing an archaeological
component to historical studies in the longuedur&e (see Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Jameson,
Runnels, and van Andel 1994).
20 Fieldwork was conducted under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens
(ASCSA), in accordance with terms specified in a permit granted by the 7th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and
ClassicalAntiquities at Olympia. Participantsincluded William V Alexander,John Bennet,John F. Cherry,
Jack L. Davis, Yannos G. Lolos, Cynthia W Shelmerdine, and Eberhard Zangger. In following years our
careful preparation and advance planning significantlyreduce the amount of time spent
in executing fieldwork. Preliminaryexamination of terrain to be intensively surveyedalso
allows realistic quotas to be set for the amount of land to be investigated daily by survey
teams. Given the substantialnumbers of sites already discovered (and in some cases also
excavated)within the area we proposed to examine, it seemed particularlyimportant that
we give careful consideration in advance to choosing the most appropriate strategy for
studyingthese sites. Here, as always, the problem lay in finding the right balance between
intensive and extensive techniques in a multistrategysurvey.21
Our specificallyarchaeologicalgoals for the 1991 reconnaissanceseason (duringwhich
no artifactswere collected) were as follows:
1. Theselection anddefinition oftheboundariesoftheareatobeexaminedin 1992-1994. To this end
we systematically walked selected samples of the overall area covered in our permit
in order to learn more about the artifactdensities our teams would be likely to detect.
2. Visitationof all knownsiteswithinthearea,especiallythosewithinadequately
recorded
architectural
remains,usinga computer databaseespecially
preparedfortheproject.22The result of these
inspections was the compilation of a list of needs for drawing and more intensive study
in future years.
3. Theexamination of surfacedistributions
alongtheentireridgeofAnoEnglianos.On the basis of
this inspection we concluded that it would be necessary to include within the compass
of our investigationsof this area a program of coring and geophysical prospection.
DEFINITION OF THE STUDY AREA

A general problem of regional surface survey is the difficultyof defining a study area
that is equallyappropriatefor the investigationof all periods of the past. This is particularly
true in mainland Greece, where the borders of past polities only seldom coincide from
one period to the next, whether prehistoric or historical. In our choice of study area,
although the location of the Palace of Nestor was a sinequanon,we effected a compromise
work was completed according to the terms established in permits issued by the Central Archaeological
Council of Greece (KAE). We would like to express our appreciation to the staff of the 7th Ephoreia of
Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities at Olympia, Xeni Arapoyianni, Yioryia Hatzi, and their successive
representatives in Hora: Ourania Vyzyinou, Maria Fouzeti, Sophia Iliopoulou, Kalliope Kaloyerakou,
Maria Antoniou, and Evangelia Malapani. We also thank the staff of the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine and
Post-Byzantine Antiquities at Sparta, particularlyAimilia Bakourou and ParaskeviKalamara, as well as
Kallimahos Antonakos, representativeof the Byzantine Ephoreia at Kalamata. The guards at the Hora
Museum and at the Palace of Nestor (particularlyhead guards Yiannis Gliatas and Dimitris Kayias) did
everything in their power to make our working conditions satisfactory. Finally, we thank William D. E.
Coulson, director of the ASCSA, for his interest in the progress of our fieldwork, and both him and his
staff for facilitating our research in every way possible; his constant moral support and guidance have been
much appreciated.
21
See, for example, Cherry 1983, p. 394.
22
This database was assembled at the University of Wisconsin byJohn Bennet, assisted by a National
Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipend (FT-35124). A second invaluable resource was a
compendium of historical, archaeological, and epigraphical sources relevant for the study of Greek and
Roman antiquity in western Messenia, compiled by Nigel Spencer during his tenure as a postdoctoral
assistantto Susan E. Alcock at the University of Reading.
by selecting a zone in which we could be assuredof collecting data relevant to a number of

interestingproblems for all stages of human occupation in the region.
On the basis of evidence available in 1991, we hypothesized that the Palace of
Nestor site, before it became an administrativecenter for the entirety of the southwestern
Peloponnesos, was only one of many roughly equivalent and competing emergent centers
ofpower in the region. The most authoritativediscussionofthese issueshad been offeredby
Oliver Dickinson, who contrasted the situation in Messenia with that in the northeastern
Peloponnesos. In the former case, Dickinson envisioned a situation during the critical
period of state formation where "many,perhaps rather unstable, principalities emerged,
and the rise of Pylos may have been accompanied by a good deal of warfare."23 Since
we wanted not only to date more preciselythe beginning of the ascendancy of the Palace of
Nestor but also to understand the process by which it prevailed over its competitors, it
was imperativethat we chose an overallsurveyarea of sufficientsize and scope to embrace
the territoriesof these neighbors. We could not limit ourselves to a notional "prepalatial"
territoryof the Palace of Nestor alone.
Because of the preceding considerationsand as a result of the reconnaissance under-
taken in 1991, we decided to select a very large study area, approximately equal to that
encompassed by Figure 2. This area was originally approximately 250 km2 in size and
was largely a self-contained unit, blocked at the north, east, and south by high hills that
separateit from the Kyparissiaplain, the valley of Kalamata, and the peninsula of Methoni
and Koroni (Fig. 3); it is, for the most part, geographically oriented toward the coast at
the Bay of Navarino. The selection of this large studyarea allowed us to include significant
regional centers of all periods of the past, together with secondary settlementsand isolated
habitationsin their hinterlands. Apart from at least a half dozen of the subregionalcenters
that would initially have challenged the Palace of Nestor for dominance, our original
study area included the Classical center of Pylos at Koryphasion (P1.85:b), Hellenistic
and Roman Yialova, and villages, such as Pyla or Kremydia, which are known to have
formed part of the estates of the famous Acciajuoli family in the mediaeval period. Such a
territory was, of course, too large to study intensively in its entirety, and it was always
our intention to select sample microregionsfor such examination.
As can often happen, however, external factors worked to prevent the complete
realizationof our originalresearchdesign. Althoughin 1992 we were allowed to investigate
the totality of our defined study area, in subsequentseasons our operations were restricted
to approximately one-third of the territorywe had originally envisioned: in the end, to
a continuous block of land that included the entirety of the Englianos Ridge, coastal areas
north of the Bay of Navarino, and several valleys east of the Aigaleon range. Omitted,
among much else, was the hinterlandof modern Pylos and thus the ancient city of Pylos at
Koryphasion, the Hellenistic and Roman settlement and cemetery at Yialova, the citadel
of Paleonavarino,and the villages of Pyla and Kremydia.
These restrictions forced a readjustment of our initial plans midstream. Although
the project did in the end cover a valid and interesting sample of the Pylos area, there
is no doubt that the reduction of our study area made several of our original and most
23
Dickinson 1977, p. 94; also Dickinson 1982, p. 127.
pressing research goals impossible to pursue. We can claim no clear picture of overall
patterns of settlement in very significantparts of tfie Hither Province of the kingdom of
Nestor, in much of the chora of the Classical polis at Koryphasion, or in the mediaeval
estates of the Acciajuoli. Out of necessity, however, we redesigned our field strategy to
identify alternative areas upon which to concentrate, which would still allow us to draw
significantconclusions about the history of settlement in western Messenia.
Whereas it had been the plan to study in detail the territory of one of the several
major Mycenaean centers to the south of Englianos (e.g., Iklaina or Koukounara), we
shifted emphasis to prehistoric centers farther north (e.g., Ordines). Historical studies
now concentrated on the large ancient coastal towns between the Bay of Navarino and
Marathoupolis(e.g., Romanou and Dialiskari),since investigationof the best-documented
settlement of the region, Koryphasion, was not allowed. Likewise, inability to work at
mediaeval sites such as Pyla or Kremydialed us to explore more thoroughly the important
Byzantine and post-Byzantineremains in the vicinities of Metamorfosi and Hora. Finally,
the redefinitionof our study area allowed us to investmore resourcesthan we had planned
in the examination of areas to the east of Mount Aigaleon, such as the valley of Maryeli.
This redirection gave us the opportunityto consider whether these eastern zones, lying in
a different drainage system and quite probably forming part of different political units
in the past, followed a differentdevelopmental trajectoryfrom the rest of our study area.
Within the area ultimately covered by our permit, we reaffirmed our intention to
reexamine all previously reported sites and to select sample areas to be surveyed by
intensive methods. These sampleswere chosen so as to achieve a balance between cultural
and environmental considerations: areas for examination were selected, first, so that all
major soil and landscape types were included and, second, so that they encompassed
ancient centers that must have figured large in the political and cultural development of
the region. In the firstcase, we were guided in our choice of target areas by relief, soil, and
bedrock maps prepared by Zangger; in the second, by extensive prior study of historical
sources and the conclusions reached as a result of previous archaeological research in
western Messenia.
SURVEY METHODS
The proceduresused in the intensive surveyare those that were first introduced in Greece
in the course of surveywork on Melos (1976), in Boiotia (1979-), in the southern Argolid
(1979-1983), and on Keos (1983-1984) and were further developed in the Nemea Valley
(1984-1989) under the direction of Davis, Cherry,and Eleni Mantzourani. The general
methods have been briefly described in a number of preliminarypublications24and were
discussed in detail in the final report on the survey on Keos;25 they are, by now, so well
known that they should need little further discussion.
24 E.g., Cherry et al. 1988; Wright et al. 1990.

25
Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani 1991.
PROJECT:PARTI
THE PYLOSREGIONALARCHAEOLOGICAL 401
Our field walkerswere spaced about 15 meters apart as they walked transects: parallel
lines across the landscape. The basic unit defined and mapped by team leaders was the
"tract", often coextensive with a cultivated field but in any case rarely larger than one
or two hectares.26 Total numbers of sherds, tile fragments, and other artifacts were
recorded for each 100-meter segment of a transect. All "feature"artifacts (in the case
of sherds, all but coarse, undecorated body sherds) were collected and brought to our
workrooms, where they were identified and, at the end of each season, permanently
stored by tract as a reference collection in the Museum of Hora. Within the samples
selected for intensive survey the entire landscape was examined, barring impassable or
fenced-off areas. Subsequent to initial tract walking, denser concentrations of surface
finds, designated as Places of Special Interest (POSIs), were examined in greater detail.27
For this purpose, however, the transect-and-grabmethod of "site collection", pioneered
in the southern Argolid and a mainstay of survey strategies on Keos and at Nemea, was
abandoned in favor of techniques that would give us more spatial control over variation
within sites.28
At many of the sites investigated by our teams, the field methods used fall under the
heading of "large-site survey". We knew before our first field season that the ancient
settlement surroundingthe Palace of Nestor was simply too big for useful information to
be gathered by means of simple techniques that had originallybeen designed to investigate
the remains of much smaller sites, such as, for example, Classical farmsteads. What was
not foreseen, however, was just how many other extensive prehistoric and historical sites
we would discover. Fortunately,on Keos, in the Nemea Valley,and also in Boiotia, methods
had begun to be developed to deal with such situations,29and these strategieswere adopted
and modified for our work in the Pylos area.
It was also clear afterour 1991 reconnaissanceseason that surfacecollection of artifacts
alone would not always produce data sufficient to address the problems that concerned
us. This was especially true at the Palace of Nestor. Extensive excavations in the past
have greatly altered the character of the surface deposits in parts of its immediate vicinity,
26 The borders of tracts were in the first instance recorded on Greek Army topographic maps at 1:5,000
scale, reduced to 1:10,000. The project also had access to 1:50,000-scale topographic maps (Greek Army)
and 1:50,000-scale geological maps (Institutefor Geological and Mineralogical Exploration of Greece).
27 In so far as is possible, use of the term "site", as it has traditionally been employed in archaeological
survey,was replaced by the term POSI in the internal records of PRAP. In our view sites are not, in any
regard, "natural"components of a landscape but are, instead, constructsthat archaeologistschooseto define
within a continuum of artifactdensities that range in any Mediterraneanregion from very low to very high.
Our use of the term POSI is intended to emphasize this relativecharacterof site definition. POSIs described
in this report are locations that we have studied in detail because of the specific problem-orientationof our
research. They are usually, but not always, places where surface artifactual densities are higher than in
adjacent areas and are clearly bounded. We recognize that another project might well choose to define a
differentset of POSIs were they to resurveyour study area or even to reexamine our own data. In this report
POSI precedes the name of all sites defined by PRAP. Sites listed in Hope Simpson and Dickinson 1979
are prefixed with GAC. Sites catalogued by UMME are distinguishedby the prefix UMME.
28 Types of transect-and-grabsystems are described injameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, pp. 225-
227, and in Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 28-31.
29 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988 (Boiotia);Whitelaw and Davis 1991 (Keos);Alcock 1991a (Nemea).
402 J. L.DAVIS,S. E.ALCOCK,J. Y.G.LOWS,ANDC. W SHELMERDINE
BENNET,
in ways that reduced the value and amount of information that was accessible without
subsurfaceinvestigations. The situation of the palace on a high hill surroundedby steep
scarps itself created furtherdifficulties:Blegen'svarious test trenches around the palace in
the so-called "LowerTown" revealed evidence of considerable erosion of archaeological
deposits from the citadel above, particularlyin surfacelevels.30To the northeast, between
the palace and Tholos Tomb IV,the problemwas compounded: very deep soundingsthere
suggested to Blegen that most of the soil deposit above bedrock had been redeposited as
the result of the erosion of soil from a tumulus once heaped over the tomb. What we
only came to discover later, however, was the extent to which soil erosion has affected
our picture of other sites within our study area, such as KoryfasioBeylerbgy (POSI I I)A3
Consequently a program of geological and geophysical studies was designed to cope
with such difficulties, at the Palace of Nestor and elsewhere. The goal of this research
was to assess the extent of buried architecturalremains and to estimate the role played
by secondary geological processes in disturbing the archaeological record. The results
of this work frequentlyproved very useful. At the Palace of Nestor, for example, augering
defined specifically which areas around the citadel have most likely been the recipients
of redeposited earth; thus the probability that material collected on the surface actually
reflectsthe presence of insitusubsurfacedeposits can be evaluated. At the site of Romanou
Glyfadaki(POSI E1), a combination of techniques such as proton magnetometry and
electrical resistivitydelimited the remains of a buried building of Hellenistic date.
Methods for the inventory survey consisted of the following routine procedures:
(1) Sites were located on a 1:5,000 map. This may seem a simple step, but the regional
significance of the data available from older excavations and surface reconnaissance
was often difficult to comprehend, not least because sites had never been precisely
marked on published maps. This work was facilitated by our access to a set of aerial
photographs, prepared by UMME and now in the archives of the ASCSA, on which
many sites investigated by UMME were indicated.32 (2) Surface collections were made
in an attempt to determine more clearly the size of previouslyknown sites and to establish
with greater precision the extent of surface distributionsof material of particularperiods.
Such fieldworkoften resultedin radical revisionsto our understandingof their history and
function. Systematic collection procedureswere employed, identical to those practiced on
newly discovered sites.
30
ylos III, pp. 47-68.
31
See Zangger et al., forthcoming.
32 We are grateful to the former archivist of the ASCSA, Carol Zerner, for arranging the production of
copy negatives and prints from each of these photos, and to Craig and Marie Mauzy for manufacturing
them. A full set of prints and negatives is now part of the PRAP Archivesat the University of Cincinnati. In
addition to these aerial photographs (taken in the 1960's) we have also in the PRAP Archives prints from
a set of photographs taken by the Royal Air Force under combat conditions in 1943 and now housed at
the University of Keele in England. We are grateful to Sheila Walton, the archivist, for providing them
and to Nigel Spencer for his help in acquiring them. Finally, we have been able to obtain recent aerial
coverage of much of our study area through the courtesy of the Greek Ministry of the Environment and
Urban Planning.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH STRATEGY33
Full-scalefieldwork,the resultsof which constitute the basis for this report, began in 1992
and continued for three seasons;it was followed by one large-scalestudy season (1995) and
subsidiarystudy in 1996.34
THE1992 SEASON
In the firstseason offieldwork, two teams offield walkersexamined the entire Englianos
Ridge, from the outskirtsof the town of Hora to the village of Koryfasio, as well as parts
33 It is a pleasure to acknowledge the assistance that we have received in fieldwork from members
of the University of Minnesota Archaeological Researches in the Western Peloponnese (MARWP) team,
particularlyits director, FrederickCooper, and project membersJane Carter, Diane Fortenberry,Charles
Griebel, and Michael Nelson. In conjunction with their preparation of an actual-state plan for Blegen's
excavations, MARWP members offered us an invaluable service by establishing grids at several sites
investigatedby our teams, notably in areas around the Palace of Nestor and at KoryfasioBeylerbey.
34 Each summer an average of 35 individualsparticipated in the project. These included approximately
20 field walkers, a museum staff, natural scientists, and the project directors. We would like to express
our warm appreciation to all those who joined PRAP in the field: Susan Alcock (1992-1995), William
Alexander (1991-1995), Luanesha Alexander (1995), Maria Antoniou (1992-1994), Tarek Arafa-Hamed
(1995), Oliver Baumer (1995), Emilia Banou-Vassilas(1993-1994), Yiannis Bassiakos (1995),John Bennet
(1991-1995), Ian Bennet (1992-1995), Emmett Bennett (1994-1995), Ina Berg (1994), Andrea Berlin
(1995), Ebe-Karsten Blohm (1995), Michael Boyd (1994), Kate Bracher (1995-1996), Ulrich Brandes
(1995), Lyla Brock (1992-1993), Cyprian Broodbank(1992), ChristopherBryan (1993), Bryan Burns (1994),
John Cherry (1991, 1993-1995), Christina Clark (1992, 1994), Eric Cline (1992), Patrick Cronin (1992),
Tracey Cullen (1992), ChristopherDavis (1995),Jack Davis (1991-1996), Philip Davis (1995), Siriol Davies
(1995), Ellen Dallagher (1993), Laura DeLozier (1993-1994), Roberta Dupuis-Devlin (1993-1995), Helen
Dizikes (1993-1994), Birgitta Eder (1995), Fred Fieberg (1994-1995), John Fischer (1992-1994), Michael
Galaty (1993-1995), Kirsten Gay (1994), Sharon Gerstel (1993-1995), Carla Goodnoh (1993), Matthew
Gonzales (1994), Helge Grasshoff(1994-1995), Deborah Harlan (1992-1995), Ann Harrison (1993-1996),
Sebastian Heath (1993-1995), VolkerHeinz (1995),Jorn Helbert (1995), Nicolle Hirschfeld (1992), Stephen
Hodkinson (1993), Susanne Hofstra (1992-1995), Gulnara Ismail-Zade (1992-1993), Hans GunterJansen
(1992-1993), MarianneJansen (1992-1993), MarthaJenks(1992), Kalliope Kaloyerakou(1992-1994), Axel
Kampke (1994-1995), Jost Knauss (1995), Cynthia Kosso (1992), Maria Kottaridis (1993), Falko Kuhnke
(1994-1995), Wayne Lee (1993-1995), Hauke Loebert (1995), Yannos Lolos (1991-1996), Susan Lupack
(1993-1995), Timothy McKern (1992-1993), Kostalena Mihalaki (1992), Sarah Monks (1992), Joanne
Murphy (1993-1995), Priscilla Murray (1993-1994), Georgia Nakou (1992, 1994), Danielle Newland
(1994), Son Nguyen (1993), Emil Obermayr (1995), Carsten Othmer (1995), Holly Oyster (1993), Patricia
Parker (1994), William Parkinson(1992-1995), Paula Perlman (1992), Richard Pianka (1992, 1994), Jens
Poppensieker (1995), Aristea Poulaki (1994), Whitney Powell-Cummer (1995), Kate Pretty (1995), Betsy
Reichert (1993-1995), Joe Remy (1994), Rosemary Robertson (1992-1995), Curtis Runnels (1993-1994),
Michael Sage (1994), Robert Schon (1993-1995), Susan Seidenberg (1992), Cynthia Shelmerdine (1991-
1996), Kim Shelton (1994-1995), Kathleen Slane (1993), Nigel Spencer (1992-1994), Sharon Stocker
(1992-1996), David Stone (1993-1994), Amanda Sutphin (1993-1994), Lauren Talalay (1992), Steven
Thompson (1993), Michael Timpson (1994-1995), Jan Verstraete(1995), Christian Vocks (1995), Martine
Wagenaar(1992), GuinterWagner(1995), CharlesWatkinson(1992-1994), SilkeWeddig(1995), EricWetzels
(1992), PeterWiedelt (1994), Sergei Yazvenko(1992-1993), Aidonis Yiotis (1995), EberhardZangger (199 1-
1994), and FrankZeroch (1995). Participantsrepresented several dozen different universities and research
institutionsin Canada, France, Germany,Greece, Holland, Ireland, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.
404 J. L. DAVIS,S. E. ALCOCK,J.BENNET,Y. G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE
of the Tragana and Kaldamou areas. It was our assumptionthat this block of land would
include much of the territoryunder control of the prehistoricsettlement at Ano Englianos
in the time before it became a regional center of power (i.e., before it was "The Palace
of Nestor"), including borders with adjacent pre- and Early Mycenaean polities. We
hypothesizedthat this area would also include parts of territoryprobably controlled by the
once independent polities that there is reason to believe existed at Koryfasio, Tragana,
Myrsinohori, and Hora. It also touched on the southern edges of the modern town
of Hora, mediaeval Ligoudista. Virtually all of the area examined by these two teams
is geologically homogeneous and consists of easily erodable Pliocene marl bedrock with
deep deposits of alluvium in valley bottoms.
The second focus for intensive survey,the valley of Metaxada (P1.85:c), contrasted
in its geology with the Englianos area and was chosen partly for this reason. Its slopes
consist of older Pleistocene soils formed on limestone bedrock, and there is relativelylittle
alluvium in the bottom of the valley. The valley was also selected for culturalreasons, since
it is situated on the other side of Mount Aigaleon, a mountain range generally accepted,
on the evidence of the Linear B documents,35as forming the boundarybetween the Hither
and FurtherProvincesof the kingdom of Nestor; it is also the location of a Middle and early
Late Bronze Age site, Kalopsana, already known from the reports of UMME. This area
was later,under the palatial system, to become part of the FurtherProvinceof the kingdom
of Nestor; the effects, if any, of the formation of a Mycenaean state centered at Englianos
on patterns of settlement here were of considerable interest. While prehistoric-research
concerns largely dictated fieldwork in the first season, the limits of the large mediaeval
and Early Modern site of Metamorfosi Skarminga (POSI A4; P1.87:b) were defined at the
southern end of the Metaxada valley,near the modern village of Metamorfosi.
In addition to the three teams engaged in intensive survey, a fourth was assigned
to investigate previously known sites, principally in the area of the modern villages of
Romanou and Koryfasio. At Koryfasio, our goal was to determine more precisely the
size and date of occupation of the Mycenaean sites at Koryfasio Portes(POSI 13) and at
KoryfasioBeylerbey (POSI II; P1.86), one north, the other south of the so-called Osmanaga
tholos tomb at Koryfasio Haratsari(POSI 12), the oldest known Mycenaean tholos tomb
in Greece. At Romanou, and nearby at Petrohori, we also investigated locations where
historical remains had been reported by earlier archaeological projects. In all cases, the
histories of the sites investigated turned out to be much more complex than previously
suspected and their size much larger.
THE 1993 SEASON

In response to the restrictions imposed by our 1993 permit and on the recommen-
dation of Zangger, research in 1993 concentrated on areas of Pleistocene soils along
the Ionian coast between Osmanaga Lagoon and the town of Marathoupolis (P1.85:d).
Archaeological remains on these stable soils will not have been subject to the virulent
erosion typical of many locations explored in the previous year. Our strategy was to
define three transects, approximately a kilometer wide north-south and separated one
35 E.g., Chadwick 1972 and 1973.
from the other by about a kilometer. These transects ran east from the sea, terminating
approximatelyat the 100-meter contour,west of the tfownof Gargaliani and the village of
Lefki. Our goal was to sample a significantfraction of the coastal area west and northwest
of the Palace of Nestor, so that patterns of settlement could be compared with the results
of the 1992 season. Unlike the areas of Pliocene marl farther inland, the existence of
very old and stable soils along the coast suggested that we might find in situ even the
remains of Pleistocene occupation, not previouslydocumented in Messenia. At the same
time, the position of the northernmost transect was chosen to include two sites already
known in outline from the researchof others, viz., MarathoupolisDialiskari(POSI GI) and
Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI D 1; P1. 87:a). The former was of special interest because of
the extensive Roman remains observed there by the Swedish scholar Valmin.36
Our fourth team in 1993 again concentrated on the Romanou-Koryfasioarea. Areas
between the various sites investigated in the previous year were intensively studied, thus
creating a continuous block of surveyed territory. Subsequently,attention turned to the
systematic collection of the extremely large prehistoric and historical site at Romanou,
which had been definedin the course of fieldwalking,usinga "large-site"collection method
that employed what we called microtracts. Systematic investigation of the prehistoric
town around the Palace of Nestor also began, although here collection of surface remains
was organized according to a 20-meter grid in areas northeast and northwest of the
palace.38 In conjunction with surface collection, geophysical and geomorphological
research commenced at several locations northeast of the palace. A similar gridded
collection of surface remains was conducted at Kanalos and Glyfadaki(see pp. 467-469,
459-465 below). Geophysical and on-site geomorphological research was also extended
to the site of KoryfasioBeylerbey.
THE 1994 SEASON

The focus of research in 1994 was on the completion of systematic collection of large
sites defined by field walking in previous years and on the detailed mapping of standing
surface features at a number of historical and prehistoric sites. To this end we completed
gridded collection on the Englianos Ridge; collected the extensive site at Metamorfosi
Skarminga(POSI A4; P1. 87:b); gridded two new sites discovered north of Gargaliani
Kanalos(POSI Dl) in 1993, both within the area known as Megas Kambos; and mapped
and collected the totality of the impressivesite at MarathoupolisDialiskari(POSI GI), after
36 Valmin 1930 and 1938. Research at Kanalos began in 1993 but was discontinued in 1994 when the
area covered by the surveypermit was curtailed.
37 The basic units for site collection were the tracts establishedat the time the site was initially defined by
fieldwalking. Generally,if the originaltractwas largerthan half a hectare in extent, it was subdividedin order
to achieve greaterspatialcontrol over artifactualdistributions.At some sites, within each of these microtracts
total (vacuum)collections were made by gathering all surface artifactsfrom long parallel transects;in other
instances, all artifacts were collected from 10 m2 circles at the notional center of the microtract. In the
remainder of the microtract, grab samples of potentially diagnostic artifacts were collected. See Alcock
1991a for the rationale behind this and similar site-collection strategies.
" The grid employed by PRAP for surface collections on the Englianos Ridge is an extension of that
established by the MARWP project for mapping remains of the Palace of Nestor itself.
some supplemental field walking to determine its northern limits. Mapping of standing
featuresat some of these sites and laying collection grids at others was greatly accelerated
through the use of a Sokkia Set 5 TotalStation.39 In addition to these time-consuming
commitments, as labor was available we continued our inventory of other known sites
in our permit area.
At the same time the area intensively surveyedwas expanded considerably in three
disparate locations. Northeast of Hora, a continuous block of land was examined around
the modern village of Maryeli and the alreadyknown prehistoricsite of Maryeli Koutsouveri
(POSI LI; P1. 87:c). We had several reasons for choosing to explore the Maryeli area.
Like the Metaxada valley,it lay in the FurtherProvince of the kingdom of Nestor and was
home to an area of stable Pleistocene soils; but, unlike Metaxada, it is situated within the
drainage of the Pamisosvalley and partlywithin view of Kalamata. Forthat reason we also
hypothesized that the occupational history of the area was likely to reflect developments
at the historical center of Messene or at prehistoric Thouria (Ellinika)and thus follow a
trajectory contrasting with that of the remainder of our study region, oriented, as it is,
toward the Bay of Navarino and the Ionian coast. Moreover, this eastern part of our
survey area lay nearest the territoryof the military conqueror and controller of Messenia
in the Archaic and Classical era, the city-state of Sparta.
Other areas targeted for intensive survey in 1994 included a final kilometer-wide
coastal transect at the northernmost limits of our permit area, just south of the Lan-
gouvardos River. This transect was chosen so as to incorporate the location of several
known prehistoric sites, notably Gargaliani Ordines(POSI Kl; P1.88:a) and Valta Kastraki
(POSI K3). After tract walking, the former was examined in detail by gridded surface
collection. The completion of this transect thus provided us with additional detailed
information about two extensive prehistoric sites that at some point in their history were
absorbed into the palatial system administeredfrom Ano Englianos. The settlement tra-
jectories of Ordines and Kastrakican now be compared and contrasted with those of sites
like Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI II) and Metaxada Kalopsana(POSI A2) that are oriented
to the Bay of Navarino or are nearer to the Englianos ridge, or both. The transect also
revealed the existence of several small, humble, hitherto unknown historical settlements,
the type of site most often missing in previous archaeological studies of Messenia. The
final area for intensive survey,the uplands between the town of Gargaliani and the village
of Lefki (P1.87:d), was chosen to add greater geographical diversity to our samples. In
elevation this area is remarkablydifferentfrom the coastal areas farther west; at the same
time the existence of Pleistocene soils on limestone bedrock differentiatedit significantly
from the marly uplands of the Kaldamou and Englianos ridges farther south. No sites
had previously been reported in these uplands.
THE 1995 SEASON
All sites defined by our teams in 1992-1994 were systematicallyreexamined in 1995.
The purposes of revisitation were as follows: (1) to write instructions and to draw
39 We are gratefulto the InterdepartmentalProgramin ClassicalArt and Archaeology at the University of
Michigan for the loan of this equipment and to David Stone, Michael Galaty, and Sebastian Heath, who
supervised its operation. A TotalStation is an instrument that measures both distance and elevation by
shooting an infra-red beam to a reflecting prism; these measurem'entsare then recorded on a hand-held
computer attached to the machine.
accompanying sketch maps to assist archaeologists in reaching each site;40 (2) to draft
a description of the site for inclusion in an illustrated descriptive gazetteer of sites;41
(3) to take supplementaryphotographs;(4) to prepare additional drawingsof architectural
features;(5) to determine if there had been any substantialchange in the condition of the
site since the time of its initial collection and to inform officialsof the GreekArchaeological
Service about antiquitiesin immediate danger of destruction;and (6) to evaluate, without
collection, the date and function of any new artifactsnoticed on the surfacein the course of
revisits. Revisitationand reinspection of our data led us in 1995 to define several new sites.
Such, then, is a sketch of the development of fieldworkin 1992-1995. The overall
strategy of selecting nonrandom samples stratified by landscape type seemed to us ap-
propriate in an area such as western Messenia, where a great deal was already known
from the results of previous research.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND MAPPING
DATA MANAGEMENT42
Fromthe beginning of the project PRAP has been committed to electronic storage and
management of data generated by field and museum personnel. For our reconnaissance
season in 1991, John Bennet created an electronic database containing basic information
on all known sites in the survey region, based primarily on the research of UMME but
including subsequently published material. Nigel Spencer later updated this database to
include all post-Bronze Age sites.
During our three field seasons, electronic data files reflected the distinction between
field and museum operations. In most instances, specific electronic files mirrored to
varying degrees paper versions of data collection and summary forms, thus ensuring a
hard-copy backup in the event of a major electronic data loss.
Fieldwork generated, on a daily basis, data concerning the numbers and types of
artifacts observed within each unit (tract)walked. Each field walker summarized these
data on stampedpaper pads. At the end of each day,these slips-sometimes more than 100
per day-were collected by each team and submitted to the project's database manager.
They formed the basis for the data compiled in the main field-data file: Master Tract
40 These sketches and instructionshave been privately published and copies deposited with the ASCSA,
the University of Cincinnati, the 7th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities at Olympia, and
the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities at Sparta: see Bennet 1995a.
41 This gazetteer is now publicly available on the WorldWideWeb(see note 1 above).
42 This section of the report is the work of Debi Harlan, University of Wisconsin, Madison. In the 1992
season, a Macintosh? ClassicTMwith 4 MB of RAM and a 40-MB hard disk and a PowerBookTM140 were
used for most electronic data management. In all seasons, a Personal LaserWriterwas used for printing.
In 1993-1995, hardwarewas augmented by additional PowerBooks. Since 1991 our database application of
choice has been FilemakerProTM(now in version 3.0). The application is easy to use, thus making it possible
to delegate data-entry duties to other staff members, without losing much time in training them. The
program also offers comprehensive layout features that expedite the creation of paper forms with almost
exact on-screen parallels. Furthermore, it has allowed stable export of data in a number of formats for
manipulationwithin other applications,chiefly those associatedwith our Geographical Information System
(GIS), ARC/INFO (see pp. 412-413 below). Finally, by means of its scripting facilities and the use of
Apple Events, Filemaker databases were linked to our in-field geographical display application, MapInfo
(see pp. 41 1-413 below).
Area KiLl Yr 94i Tract478 I Date 18/8/94 Association L007SA
Pass# Length# TM# Length Pottery Tile Stone 165 35 21 0

1 1 93 30 8 7 0 TotLgth TotPot TotTil TotSt
1 1 89 45 9 0 0
1 1 2 25 3 2 0 TotArea 495 Coordinates:
1 1 7 25 8 6 0__ _ _ _ _ _ _
6 DenPot 707.07 E-W |10190

1 1 92 40 7 0
DenTil 424.24 N-S 120076
DenSt 0.00
Average 10 %
Visibility
Vegetation Pass Visib%

straw and weedy olives, bushes 1 10
NB page# Map NB page#
F111:65 FI1:,.-
6, =
Photo Ref.
Features
Comments
good scatterof sherd and tile
FIG. 4. Page from Master Tract Data file (Deborah K. Harlan)

Site # F V 7 Area Year Tract(s) Map Coordinates

L{J 1 < 94 1 477, 478,479,492 E-W 135202 1
Team Leader, then members in transect assignment order Start Time 8:20 N-S 126931 |
End Time 11:30 Date | 10/8/94 |

Nearest Village Toponym
|Ayioi Apostoloi Palaiospitia
Location (NOTE:please relate to (1) tractswalked in region&(2) local topography)
Site is .along.N.side .of-.roadfrom.Ay. Apostoloi-to.M.iliotLSite. center.-is in tract 478 (approx. 183m and 54 degrees from.
the.churchand cemeterycomplex). The three parallel.fieldsrunningN fromthe road.tothe.knoll.(maquis.covered
.).
........
7 4788,.479.fr.omthe.main.grid area .-------------------------
walke.d.as .tracts.477, . ..... ... .... ... ...... ..... ..
Site Description (NOTE:please includea sketch planof the site gridon the reverse of form)
Tracts477 and 479 are cultivatedwith.youngolives and.deeply plowedor rototilled. ...Thefindsare especiallythickin
tho.se.areas..Tract.478.isweedy with.lowvisibilityalthoughitstillhas a fairnumber.of.finds.In.tract48.1, to the N in the
maquis,foundationwalls of largecut stoneeare visible..Note thattotalstationteam used variantof gridsystem, switching.
the.Xand.Y coordinates................................................... . ..
Surface Cover Other Modern Features
Orchard/Grove O N MY Inhabited Bldg M N LIY
Vineyard M N LY Road/Path L N MY
Other Cultivation M N LIIY Abandoned Bldg M N zi'Y
(specify surface cover) Other (hab) M N OY
Woodland M N IY (specify feature)
Grass/Weeds n N OY Visibility| 601 %
Scrub/Maquis N N Li Y
Barren 1 N I Y (e.g. bedrock,riverbottom,disturbedsediment) Size Max. 130 m.
Other (veg.) MN L Y Size Min. 90 m.
(specify vegetation) - Approx Total Size 1.17] ha.
Artifacts Observed (A = abundant; S = some; F = few; 0 = absent)

Pottery Tile Grndst Chipst Bone Archit Other artifact glass, jewelry?Turkish
|A D] Fl IN A D]F
D
rg
A 0 F FC1 A D]F FC1A D F FC1 A D]F FC1A MF coin?
Dl S 0
ODl ES DS1 C1?lDO DCES ?0 NS E D? IO S 0 DlS El1_
# of bagged Samples for: Size of Grid Squares | m.

01 [07 02 [Ci7 03 [jy7 04 [ft7 Compass Bearing Ti l77j?
Artifacts visible in vert. section? M N L Y
Note: 01 is imm. E of Ti Surface scatter only? i N M Y
Are scatters of different date localizable? Li N M Y Ancient Use? |cemetery?

If YES,: explain possible that HL-Rstuff is only turningup in deep plow.areaswhile surface scatter is largelyByz
Probable Chronological Periods Represented:

Y E HOFY MH Y LH Y GOFY AO Y LilY LOiY
O Y HO Y E OR LilY T Y
NOF
NO? EHO? MHOL? HOG? A? ? M HWY ER LR BYZ TRK
Notebook
Page # IL94 11:70-71, 74, 80, 82; H941:131-33_ Map Page # IL94H:74
Photography:
Roll # 72 Neg #10-11 PhotographerTM57 Log Page# 11:63-64 | Recorder TM
Threatened? L N M Y plowingwillcontinueto reveal more artifacts
Disturbed? L N M Y plowing
FIG.5. Sample POSI record form (Deborah K. Harlan)

Data (Fig. 4). Within this file, each tract has a single record indicating the numbers of
artifacts(pottery,tile, stone) observedin the course of systematicfield walking. In addition,
team leaders maintained a daily logbook in which was transcribedadditional information
about each tract, such as average visibility, land use, and any manmade features (e.g.,
structures)within it. These data were systematically added to the Master Tract Data
file over the course of the season, then checked and augmented in the U.S.A. during the
fall and winter. Basic arithmeticaloperations availablewithin the database automatically
generated totals for each artifactcategory and computed densities for each tract. This file,
therefore, now contains all the basic data collected in systematic field walking and can
be used (see pp. 411-413 below) for geographical display. A total of 4,385 tracts were
defined and examined in the course of the field seasons in 1992-1994.
When additional work was scheduled at sites, two sets of paper forms were used, each
with an electronic version. A POSI Record Form (Fig.5) contains basic information about
a site: its number; its name (nearest village and specific local toponym); its geographic
coordinates;a brief description of its character,location, and the archaeological research
conducted; the probable date of artifactscollected and their types and relativeabundance;
and logbook and photographic references. A Grid Square Collection Form records
quantities of each type of artifact in each grid square at the site.
Museum records were designed to record and describe all artifacts collected in the
field, either in tractsor at sites. Since a number of personnel contributedto the completion
of a form, each record was maintained in paper format with an electronic counterpart.
Data were entered daily into a computer file so that they were immediately available for
electronic searches and for the production of electronic maps; on return from the field
they could thus also be rapidly disseminatedto project members.
The Artifact Summary Form (Fig. 6) provides a brief overview (counts and weights)
of the finds from each collection unit (e.g., a tract or grid square). The availability
of this information frequently allowed us to correct at a later date the confusions over
provenience that can always arise when labels are misplaced or destroyed. All finds from
tract collections and a selection from each site were described, dated, and illustratedand
the resultsthen entered in the Master Catalogued Potteryand Tile database. By the end of
the 1996 field season, a total of 12,737 fragmentsof pottery and tile had been so recorded.
A parallel set of records was generated for nonceramic material: the Small Finds file.
This file, to date, contains records for 1,656 objects, approximately 70 percent of which
are chipped stone. Finally, a narrative summary for each site was composed: the POSI
Museum FeedbackForm;here can be found readily interpretablebasic information about
the nature and chronology of all finds.
In addition to the preceding files, electronic versions of photographic and drawing
records (both field and museum) also exist and are linked to all other databases. It is
thus alreadypossible for researchersto move seamlesslybetween visual, geographical, and
narrative representations of aspects of our results. Photographs themselves and inked
drawingshave been scanned and can be automaticallyaccessed.43
43 In additionto promoting
use of the WorldWideWeb
for publicdissemination
of results,PRAPis
seekingto providea model for the use of the Internetto facilitatecollaborationamong membersof an
Area Year-Collection Unit

|IL 194 1|478Total Number Total
0.500--
Weight Page lj
Assocato1878
Assocatio
1~iz
SRecorderSE
DIMIY 115/7/
Vessels Tile Other Info
FVes No. 2 GTII No.

FVes wt. 0.05 GTiI Wt. Other Ceramic No. Wt. Other Objects No. Wt.
NFVes No. 5 UGTiI No. 1
NFVes Wt. .25 UGTII wt. .20
Tot Ves No. 7 Tot Til No. l | |= - l
Tot Ves Wt.F0.300| Tot Til Wt. 10. 2 0 0
FIG. 6. Sample Artifact Summary form (Deborah K. Harlan)
DATA MAPPING44
In the field, PRAP employed a Geographical Information System (GIS) to help
implement the in-field collection strategies of the project. To this end, PRAP had
developed by 1994 a custom application that integrated MapInfoTM,a desktop mapping
package, with FileMaker?.45 Because FileMakerwas the database used by the project for
daily data entry and reporting, MapInfo was able to provide a cartographic front end
for all PRAP data, thereby avoiding the necessity of converting data from one format
to another. Finds could thus be plotted on preexisting digital maps shortly after they
were collected and analyzed. In particular, this fast turnaround was invaluable in the
definition of sites and in the planning of intensive site-collection strategies. Of course,
the implementation of an in-field mapping capability still does require the investment of
considerabletime and equipment if it is to contributeto the daily progressof any project.46
The ability to represent visually the progress of the survey was the result of three
parallel efforts: the processing and identification of all material collected by each team,
the entry of all density data recorded by field walkers,and the digitizing of tract locations
so that the attribute data for each tract could be displayed on an electronic contour map
archaeological project. Currently, members of PRAP share files among themselves through the use of
serversat the University of Michigan and the University of Cincinnati. Initial reports and preliminarymaps
are available through File Transfer Protocol (FTP), while virtually all photographic images, as well as a
growing percentage of drawings,are available to project members using the WorldWideWeb.
44 This section of the report is the work of Sebastian Heath (InterdepartmentalProgram in Classical Art
and Archaeology,University of Michigan).
45 MapInfo runs on Apple Macintosh- as well as WindowsTM-compatible machines.
46 A digitizing tablet and one Macintosh PowerBookwere given over almost exclusively to the input of
spatiallyreferenced data and the creation of maps.
?? ? o? ??+ *'110+**+? ** i*Portes

0 % , *1 **
O S
O* I*{O ?? O1:Rmnuo;
O* * o, , * t
*~~~~~1
O 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A ?? 111 *F? oIriatDni .
O 8S *****
0 4 *~~~~4
O Oo
bloadakie a n 4r Beyl be
O o *0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*75t 5
O00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
an *a ito
the s4hemrdo ~ ~ %
~*est~ arudRmnuRmnu(OII)*wt
~ rcscnann oeta
9hrdpe
300~ ~ etr*,04 niae ysa-hpdsybl.I ojnto ihposo
F7Af POSo
be4n dnie
andorte
at invicinityi(ebastn
its Hithih
(atDigitapplEleationMod [DM]M7 5tyially, the data tract in

project. Whl~ MpnohssrePRPwlbeasitusonotartifmacthDnesit
~ S
tile ensiy, tis.7 in-ifieldemapingecatPabIitygranditly facility(eatedthen
deateriain)fst
tefield,its centroida(i..,it gegaphicain enter)ton wsloedigtied.4 Mapsshrctowing artifct

Wigh the cupomltio of fritisEldwThey pialy the ofcoury
af t Iats is toponvden.
thishapplicationthe
densitiaes) DEMun
and distriuinse hoasenouse
ofro sherdosttomanugmentI
from 14wthe
paticulphsiar dracta colletedforg
periodetiscudahn be each tracin
supprtbsenaons of
eAnslticemald mhers inol prinut ofuld
pulcation the resl prdde
fof uced
huc
immedAcotely. mafigure
thle dniyths'-field 7RA
istuan
byatoaiallpaluaing eampea oftew
uptahtMasf
eaablevtion slope,y Itogenerated.
shiialvainMdlofwestr
fcltaspect (the ditrecntion infwhiche
trunactfaes), a ndedistanc
300sherds,preprhectarsae firom sthge prcast.
indicated0 by Tonthensie
phscallecpropeten
starshaed symbols. cnb.dddsc
(in Achaonjntony wnith plotesit of
mrmadiatay.
WithA he agow
cotour cmapletofnhbeen imported
toa
PRA stuldywarea e works
the actiuonas GI,ari ACnFOtM. WI
thi
was genearate furomoasigita ElevatIon'iMode pofiwestr
Bimngam),ca wituspport frotemthmeBritshAcadlemyad intheSocietcfantiquaie of Londsutson.th
48i appschatioereettino the n

locatiobe
uetof eachmetrath
waseestatcledcythened for
eactrt qick
turmngaround ino the

wetarepnowt process ofaditznghem acdtualbounaiesyof tracts.on
Anqarlls
All LH A-C HL R Byz

Quartile
Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 28 93 20 1 20 11
3 80 136 23 21 61 252
4 285 138 136 190 189 396
Maximum 839 463 561 483 483 492
Total Sherds 172 25 16 47 73

Total Tracts 3532 45 16 11 36 46
TABLE 1. Table generated from ARC/INFO showing the number of sherdsfound off-site,grouped by period
and by meters above sea level. Numbers in columns indicate elevations that divide sherds of each
period into numerically equal quartiles
cultural factors as distance to the closest site, calculated either as a straight line or as a
reflectionof the effortrequiredto traversethe interveningtopography. In conjunction with
chronologicaland typological studyof artifacts,these calculatedvariableswill contributeto
identification of cultural patterns in the diachronic history of the study area. Preliminary
results are already demonstrating the value of using GIS in the study of a consistently
collected surface assemblage.
For example, Table 1 shows the elevations at which off-site pottery ranging in date
from the Late Helladic to the Byzantine period was found. It was possible to generate
the individual columns of this table because the PRAP GIS and its artifact databases can
respond quicklyto such requestsas "listall off-siteHellenistic sherdssorted by the elevation
of the tractsin which they were found." Such a query combines into a single report artifact
density data generated by field walking, dates determined by ceramic specialists,and tract
elevations interpolated from the DEM. This is only possible, however, because PRAP
databaseswere specificallyconstructed to reflect the overall researchdesign of the project.
Indeed, the accurate recordingand collection of off-sitedata necessarilyslows the progress
of fieldwork;thus a major purpose of the PRAP GIS is to justify this sacrificeby facilitating
the study of the collected material.
From the table, it can readily be seen that one-half of the Roman off-site pottery
was found below 61 m, and three-quarters, below 189 m, while, in striking contrast,
one-half of the Byzantine off-site pottery comes from elevations above 252 m. To be
sure, certain unique factors, specific to a single period, can influence such statistics: e.g.,
a small number of tracts near the Palace of Nestor but not within the area defined
as the site proper lie between 136 m and 138 m and account for one-quarter of the Late
Helladic sherds. Similarly, one quarter of all Hellenistic sherds (four of only sixteen!)
were found at an elevation beneath one meter, and these in the same two tracts. The
differences between the Roman and Byzantine periods appear, however, to be more
significant and command attention.
Other studieshave shown that monocausal explanationsfor light artifactscattersfound

in Mediterranean landscapes are often inappropriate and can too narrowly define the
range of mechanismsthat may resultin the deposition of culturalmaterial off-site.49These
same studies have also emphasized that detailed study of specific artifactscattersis needed
before one attempts to argue for specific causes. Still, a few preliminary observations are
possible. While only a small percentage of off-site finds is represented in the table (viz.,
those artifactsthat can be relativelynarrowlydated), it is clear that the elevation of a tract
is sometimes a good predictor of the date of the off-site artifacts likely to be found in it.
The shift between the Roman and Byzantine periods (mean elevations of 61 m and 252 m
respectively)is an excellent example. The significanceof this reorientationis clearer when
the elevations of off-sitefinds are compared to those of on-site finds (with mean elevations
of 20 m and 451 m), indicating a strong correlation between the elevations of on-site
and off-site material. Such a trend toward higher elevations, not only for settlements but
also for off-site finds, is consistent with Gerstel'ssuggestion that, in the Middle Byzantine
period, inland and elevated sites were preferredowing to the threat of piratical raids and
implies that activities other than settlement were also focused at inland locations.50
PREHISTORY
LITHIC STUDIES AND PLEISTOCENE SITES51
Regular tract walking,collection at sites, and limited special-purposesurveyproduced

a modest sample of 1,099 chipped-stone artifacts.52Of these, 189 (17%) are of obsidian
(almost certainly Melian), a couple of quartz, and the remaining 908 (83%) of chert.
Although there is a surprisingvariety of color and knapping quality among the cherts,
there is no reason to suppose that any of the raw material derives from outside the general
area of the survey;most of it has eroded from the limestones of the Aigaleon ridge and was
exploited in the form of nodules collected from streambeds. Densities of lithic artifactsare
nowhere very great but are higher in areas of stable Pleistocene soils (e.g., the uplands
between Gargaliani and Lefki, and the coastal plain between Marathoupolis and the
Osmanaga Lagoon) than in areas of Pliocene marl farther inland. The most striking
aspect of spatial distributionconcerns obsidian: fully 40% (including all the cores found)
comes from the single site of Romanou Romanou (POSI 14),with very little from tracts close
to the Palace of Nestor, suggesting some interestingregional patterns of access and supply
to be explored further.53
49 Alcock, Cherry,and Davis 1994, p. 164; Wilkinson 1989, p. 31.

50
See pp. 474-475 below.
51 This section is the work ofJohn F. Cherry (Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan)
and William A. Parkinson(Museum of Anthropology,University of Michigan).
52 For comparison, the overall density of chipped-stone items per km2 for the Keos survey is about four
times the value for PRAP,and for the Argolid survey,about seven times greater;the Nemea survey,however,
produced even less than PRAP.
53 For initial attempts to do so see Parkinson 1996 and Parkinsonand Galaty 1996.
At least a quarter of the material comprises retouched pieces or tools. Few of them
are closely datable, either by context or by morphology and technology, but most fit
comfortablywithin the general range of types documented from the Neolithic and Bronze
Age in southern Greece.54 Most common are notches, becs,end- and sidescrapers,burins,
and arrowheads;sickle elements, denticulates, and pergoirs occur less commonly and only
in chert. Since these are relatively well-known types, we concentrate in what follows on
the new evidence provided by PRAP lithics for a human presence in Messenia during the
Palaeolithicperiod. It is worth emphasizing that until 1993 no site predating the Neolithic
was known anywhere in the southwest Peloponnesos.55
As in other survey projects, an attempt was made to identify the geological settings
most likely to yield Pleistocene deposits and to conduct in those areas extensive survey
for artifact-bearingdeposits.56 Two main areas were singled out in this way: a series
of preserved fossil dunes extending along the present coastline, and a number of karstic
rock shelters along the Gargaliani escarpment. Our effortsyielded two Palaeolithic sites
(Romanou Rikia,POSI I18, and Vromoneri Vergina Rema,POSI I28), both located on the
present-day coast. It may be noted that the only other Palaeolithic artifacts discovered
by PRAP came from tracts in this same part of the study area, on the coastal plain south of
Marathoupolis,a distributionthat is not the resultpurely of sampling bias, since in routine
tract walking all lithic items were collected.
Of all the chipped-stone artifactscollected during tract walking,less than half a dozen
can tentatively be attributed to the Palaeolithic on the basis of their typology and/or
technique of manufacture. Fourbelong to the Middle Palaeolithic (a possible Mousterian
point, a Levallois core on a flake, and two Levallois flakes), the remaining artifact (an
Aurignacian-typeendscraperon a thick trapezoidalblade) probably being of early Upper
Palaeolithicdate.57 All these items are made of local chert, heavily patinated or chemically
altered, stained with red soil, and were found on soils that appear to be Pleistocene in
age. These few artifactsprovide the most fleeting of glimpses of a human presence in the
area during parts of the Pleistocene, which, happily,we are able to confirm with evidence
from two sites.
Workat SelectSites
ROMANOU RIKI4 (POSI I18). A lithic scatter was found during the 1993 season
eroding out of a Pleistocene soil matrix, about one meter thick, that had formed atop a
fossil dune a few dozen meters from the coast and just north of where the Selas River
54 The best comparandafrom Messenian sites are at Nichoria (Nichoria II, pp. 712-756) and Malthi (Blitzer
1991); the stratified sequence of Bronze Age flaked-stone industries at Lerna (Runnels 1985) and the full
publication of the lithic artifactsfrom the Argolid survey (Runnels,Pullen, and Langdon 1995, pp. 74-139)
are also important.
55 Runnels 1995, esp. figs. 1, 6, and 9. Korres (1981a, p. 456) mentions several possible locations of
Palaeolithic finds in Messenia (including the hill of ProfitisIlias, northwest of the Bay of Navarino and the
Bay of Voidokoilia),none of which, however,have been confirmed by expert autopsy.
56 E.g., Runnels 1988;Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994.
57 SF0335, SF0393, SF0290, SF0584, and SF0329, respectively. For typology see Bordes 1961; Inizan,
Roche, and Tixier 1992.
empties into the sea. Collection at the site (using both grab sampling and a 5-meter
grid) indicated that, while many artifactscame from directly within or below the eroding
deposit, some of the lithics had been washed as far as 15 m down the collapsed talus in
front of the scarp. Since few of the 58 artifacts collected were actually found in situ in
the scarp, one cannot be wholly certain of their context; but the material comprises a
relatively homogenous assemblage and seems to reflect a single period of deposition (or
even, perhaps, a single event). The raw material is highly tectonized chert, not heavily
patinated, and consists of small cores (8), small flakes (48), and small lamellar flakes (2);
retouched flakes are rare (4) and 'includea single becor perfoir and two backed lamellar
flakes. The very small cores (all less than 5 cm in length) include two unifacial chopper-
cores, a "bladelet core", and a discoidal flake core; together with the cortical flakes, they
all appear to have been made by direct percussionapplied to small stream-rolledpebbles,
probably from the Selas River itself.58 Due to the expedient nature of the assemblage,
its small size, and the high frequency of cores, we are inclined to believe that this was
probably a single-use raw-materialexploitation site. Unfortunately,the assemblage bears
absolutely no typological or technological resemblance to the Middle Palaeolithic site
(POSI 128)nearby,nor does it contain any of the backed blades which characterizeUpper
Palaeolithic assemblages in southern Greece.59 It could, therefore, belong to almost any
time during the later Pleistocene, and it may be that the assemblage can only be dated
via direct thermoluminescence dating of its soil matrix.
VROMONERI VERGLIAREMA (POSI I28). At a location 4.5 km to the north of
POSI I18, we identified and collected a large scatter (ca. 120 x 40 m) of chipped stone
eroding from a deflated layer of deep-red soil, no more than ca. 15 cm thick. This soil
was formed from a Pleistocene beach fascia that has been partially protected from wave
erosion by its position on top of a cliff of Pliocene beach sandstone (P1.88:c); some lithics
were also found stratifiedin a colluvial deposit next to this cliff. The site yielded 124 stone
artifacts, 6 of obsidian and the remainder of local cherts, heavily patinated to white.60
The assemblage is dominated by flakes (71), with thick blades occurring only rarely (8).
Retouched pieces include a small biface, denticulates on large flakes, notched pieces, and
sidescrapers on both flakes and thick blades.61 There are a number of flake cores (12),
including 4 core-choppers that were created by removing alternating flakes from a single
platform. That the Levallois technique was employed at the site is indicated by the pres-
ence of Levallois flakes, cores, and a single point (P1.88:b)62 There are no backed blades
in the assemblage, and the presence of the Levallois technique, in addition to the den-
ticulates and sidescrapers,suggests a Middle Palaeolithic (Mousterian)association for it.
58
Curtis Runnels, who has examined all of this material and was present for the initial collection of
POSI I18, suggests that the "bladelet core" and small bladelike flakes are more likely to be the result of
expedient flaking than of any intentional effort to produicebladelets.
59 Runnels 1995, pp. 714-719.
60 The five obsidian blades and one obsidian secondaryflakewere restrictedto a small area at the southern
end of the site and were found 'inassociation with a few tiny sherds of a fabric like that at the Early Helladic
site of VromoneriNozaina(POSI I20), ca. 300 m farthersouth; except for this obviously later component, the
remainder of the artifactsseem to be Middle Palaeolithic in age.
61 SF1195 (smallbiface), SF1117 and SF1200 (denticulates),SF1215 (notched piece), SF1172 and SF1159
(sidescrapers).
62 SF1229 and SF 1143; SF1106 (Levalloiscore, not in P1.88:b); and SF1210.
THE PYLOSREGIONALARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROJECT:PARTI 417
A few blades do occur at POSI I28, of kinds more commonly associated with Upper
Palaeolithic assemblages;and since most of the material came from a deflated soil layer,
it remains possible that the site was used more than once during the later Pleistocene
and might contain material of both Middle and Upper Palaeolithic date. A complete
reduction sequence is represented at the site, and it seems most probable that it served
as an ephemeral camp used while exploiting the chert nodules in the Vergina streambed.
NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SrrEs AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS63
OverallPatternsand TheirSvificance
Neolithic material in the survey area comes from excavations at Petrohori Caveof
Nestor4and Voidokoilia65 and within the town of Hora itself(HoraKatavothra).66In addition,
a number of sites investigated by PRAP have produced material that may possibly be
assigned to the Neolithic period (see pp. 438-439 below). Collections around the Palace
of Nestor yielded sherdsof this type, while additionalexamples were found in the northern
part of our study area, at Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI DI), Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI),
and Gargaliani AyiaSotira(POCSIK2), and in the south at Koryfasio Beylrbey(POSI I1).
All these sites were used in later prehistoric periods. As yet, however, it has not been
possible to confirm the presence of definitely Neolithic finds at any location where they
were not previously known.
Unlike the Argolid, Messenia is not richly endowed with Early Helladic (EH) sites.
The main EH site previously known within our survey region is that beneath the burial
tumulus at Petrohori Voidokoilia (GAC D8),67 while one needs to go some way outside our
area to find larger sites of this period: e.g., Lepreon AyiosDimitrios(GAC D24568) and
Kalamata Akovitika (GAC D 5 1). Recent excavationsby Yioryia Hatzi have also revealed
a site at Filiatra Stomio(GAC D65).69
To this number PRAP has added at least one entirely new EH (probably EH II) site
at Vromoneri Nozaina(POSI I20). The site lies on a conglomerate cap, overlying clay
deposits that are being eroded, resulting in the superimposed deposits tumbling into the
sea. Material on the site consisted of an extremely dense but small scatter of coarse to
semifine pottery with a few intermixed lithics (obsidian and chert). The area available
for gridded collection was only 0.01 ha, but it is likely that the site has been damaged
by erosion, and more material may exist in the dense surroundingmaquis.70 The material
fromNozaina belongs exclusivelyto the EH period, with a few diagnosticshapes suggesting
a closer dating of EH II. The location of the site in antiquity, on cliffs above the coast,
resembles that of Voidokoilia, Stomio, and other EH sites in Messenia.71
63 This section of the report is the work ofJohn Bennet,Jack L. Davis, and Cynthia W Shelmerdine.
64 Sampson 1982.
65 Korres 1990, pp. 1-2.
66
Lolos 1994, p. 45.
67 Korres
1990, pp. 2-5; 1993, p. 234 [3].
68
Zachos 1987.
69 Hatzi 1991.
70
It should be noted that the EH site at Voidokoilia was also small, only 0.09 ha in extent; see Korres
1990, p. 3.
71 Korres 1993, p. 231.
..............~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...
........ ': '
) J
0
? 5 KilometersA
FIG. 8. Distribution of finds of the Early Bronze Age, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
About 300 m north of Nozaina, EH pottery of the same fabric was found in the
southern part of POSI 128 (Vromoneri Vergina Rema),other finds from which were almost
exclusively lithics of Palaeolithic date (see pp. 416-417 above). Similarities between the
two ceramic assemblages suggest an EH date for the 128 material also, and five obsidian
pieces found there are better associated with these ceramics than with the rest of the
artifactualassemblage.
EH material of similartype was also identified at POSI MI (GargalianiKalantina[1]),
an inland site situated on thin deep-red soils to the south of modern Gargaliani on the
slope of a steep valley that links the coastal plain below and to the west with the uplands at
the foot of Mount Aigaleon (P1.87:d). The whole area was generally rich in lithic material
(both worked and unworked), suggesting that humans may have come here in part for
access to raw materials. The ceramic material on the site was less abundant than that
at POSI 120 (VromoneriNozaina)but did include a diagnostic EH II incurving bowl rim,
while 63 pieces of lithic debitage were collected. Although not highly diagnostic, the lithic
material would not be inconsistent with an Early Bronze Age date.
In addition to sites of predominantly EH date, EH material has been identified on a
limited number of sites also occupied in later phases (Fig.8). Most notable among these is
PROJECT:PARTI 419
POSI I4 (Romanou Romanou), where diagnostic EH II was present. EH II is also possibly

attested at Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI Dl), Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI; P1. 88:a), and
Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSII1). The location of these sites in the vicinity of the coast fits
well with the attested distributionof EH II sites in western Messenia, which during this
period appears to have a much strongercoastal bias than do many other parts of southern
Greece. That settlement at this time was not confined to the coast, however,is clear from
the presence of pottery very similar to the Nozaina assemblage well inland at Gargaliani
Kalantina(1).
POSIs I20, I28, and Ml did not continue in use into the Middle Helladic (MH)
period, possibly not even into EH III. Probable EH III is attested, however, in limited
quantities, at POSI KI (Gargaliani Ordines)and, it seems, in the area of the town that
later surrounded the Palace of Nestor (POSI B7); EH III is possibly also represented at
POSI II (KoryfasioBeylerbey).POSIs B7, Dl, II, and KI continued to be occupied in
the MH period, and MH is also now attested as a component on a number of new sites
in the region. Most significantis that it representsthe earliestmaterial attested on two sites
beyond the Aigaleon range: POSIs A2 (Metaxada Kalopsana[P1.85:c]) and LI (Maryeli
Koutsouveri [P1.87:c]). West of Aigaleon, apart from those sites already occupied by late
EH, including the settlement at the site of the later Palace of Nestor, MH appears at a
number of smaller sites: POSIs C3 (Tragana Voroulia), K2 (GargalianiAyia Sotira),and
K3 (Valta Kastraki).Occupation seems more extensive in MH than in EH at the Palace
of Nestor and Beylerbey.72 POSI I4 (Romanou Romanou), at which there is no definite
MH material, representsan exception, implying that the site shrankconsiderablyafter the
EH phase.
An importantfeature of MH Messenia is, of course, the phenomenon of burial tumuli,
such as those at Petrohori Voidokoilia (GAC D9), Papoulia AyiosIoannis(GAC D52), and
the recently excavated Kaloyeropoulou tumulus near Myrsinohori Routsi.73 All such
monuments within our study region were examined as part of our "inventory"survey.
Several aspects of this investigationare discussed in the Appendix to this report.
The end of the Middle Helladic and the beginning of the Late Helladic period is a
crucial phase in the development of social complexity in the region of Messenia. Of the
sites studied by PRAP,very few can be said categoricallyto have begun in the LH I period,
although it is possible that the MH III-LH II dating of many ceramics may obscure an
"EarlyMycenaean" first phase on some (Fig. 9). It can plausibly be suggested that some
new sites came into being within MH III-LH II, namely POSIs D2 (Gargaliani Megas
Kambos(1) [P1.85:d]), G3 (VromoneriPigadia),13 (KoryfasioPortes),and I21 (Ambelofyto
Lagou);and POSI I4 (Romanou Romanou) may have been reoccupied in that phase. On
the other hand, all MH sites continue into this phase except perhaps POSI K2 (Gargaliani
AyiaSotira).
72 It would be rash, however, to claim continuity of settlement at these sites simply because both the
EH and MH phases are represented. So little is known at present about the end of the EarlyBronze Age and
beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in Messenia that it is not possible to determine if all phases of settlement
are present in our surface assemblages. On the EBA-MBA transition in Messenia see Stocker 1995.
73 Korres 1993, p. 235.
.~~~~~9
+~~
\.....,..... , ..+. -
o - A
)?l5Kilometers
%
FIG. 9. Distribution of Middle Helladic III-Late Helladic II finds, on-site (circles) and off-site (crosses)
(Sebastian Heath)
It is in the MH III-LH I period that the firsttholos tombs were constructed, the earliest
being that at Koryfasio Haratsari(GAC D5, POSI I274),which is probably contemporary
with the so-called "Grave Circle" (almost certainly, in fact, a tholos tomb) on the spur
immediatelysouthwestofthe Palace of Nestor.75Most of our settlement sites have material
assignable to this date range, but it is noticeable that the Palace of Nestor and Koryfasio
Beylerbey,the largest two sites within our area (at perhaps 5.5 and 1.7 ha respectively in
MH, 7.0 and 3.3 ha by LH I-II), have the earliest tholos tombs associated with them.
A second phase of tholos-tomb construction took place in LH I, when Tholos IV was
constructed northeast of the palace.76 In addition, the two tholos tombs at Myrsinohori
Routsi(GAC D54) were built, on the next ridge to the south of the Englianos ridge, and
(GACD8; P1.85:b),77which was inserted into the existing MH
that at Petrohori Voidokoilia
tumulus. Shortly afterward, in LH II, the tholos tombs at Tragana Jiglitsa(GACD 1 1,
74 Lolos 1989.
75 PylosIII, pp. 134-176.
76 PylosIII, pp. 95-134; Llos 1987, pp. 184-188.
77 Korres 1990, p. 8.
PROJECT:PARTI
POSI 16) were constructed, perhaps set into the remains of a LH I settlement, as well
as Tholos III at Kato Englianos, some 900 m southwest of the palace structures.78 It
is tempting to see the second and third phases of tholos construction as expressions of
control by the center located where the Palace of Nestor was later built.79
By LH IIIA there is evidence from excavations at the Palace of Nestor for a monu-
mental predecessor to the LH IIIB palace, suggesting that the site had come to exercise
some central administrative functions by this period.80 The LH IIIA phase is widely
attested on sites defined by PRAP, although it is difficult to assess the extent of the ter-
ritory then controlled by the Palace. Some indication of the evolution of power structures
within the region is afforded by the continuities and discontinuities in the use of tholos
tombs in the region. It seems that most tholos tombs had gone out of use by the end of
LH IIIA, namely, Koryfasio Haratsari(by LH IIA), Tragana Viglitsa(by LH IIIA2; reused
in LH IIIC-Submycenaean), Myrsinohori Routsi(by LH IIIA1), and Petrohori Voidokoilia
(predominantlyLH I, but one LH IIIB stirrupjar was found in the tomb).8' In the vicinity
of the palace, the "Grave Circle" went out of use in LH IIIAI, and Tholos IV, perhaps
by the end of LH IIIA, while Tholos III continued in use into LH IIIB.
A plausible interpretation of this pattern is that Pylos was restructuring its power
within its immediate region, effectively demoting the local centers it had promoted in
LH I-II. It is perhaps in LH IIIA that we see the Palace turning its attention to the wider
region of western Messenia, the area later known as the Hither Province. At the highest
level of society, display shifted from conspicuous investment in burial architecture (and
exotic objects, especially those of Minoan origin, but also including, for example, Baltic
amber82)by local elites to a palace-based system involving, for example, state-sponsored
conspicuous consumption in the form of feasts associatedwith important transitionsin the
control of power or as offeringsto deities at particulartimes of the year.83The operation
of this system can only be confirmed for the LH IIIB period, when we have the evidence of
the Linear B documents, but it seems highly likely that, perhaps beginning in LH IIIA, the
Palace reconstructedpower configurationswithin its region along these lines. As the elite
developed palace-based ritualsof displaywithin the community (suchas feasting),it would
seem that the function of tholos tombs changed from highly visible markersof elite burials
(as perhaps tumuli had been earlier?)into more private markersfor elite burialsassociated
only with major centers.84
78
PylosIII, pp. 73-95.
79 Bennet 1997.
80
Bennet 1995b; Kilian 1987, p. 209.
81
Lolos 1987, pp. 172-178 (Haratsari),pp. 182-183 (Viglitsa),pp. 208-210 (Routsi);Korres 1990, p. 8
(Voidokoilia).
82
Hagg 1982; Harding 1984, pp. 57-60.
83 Killen
1992 and 1994; also McCallum 1987, pp. 68-141 (for representationsof such festivals).
84
The construction of a new tholos tomb at Nichoria in LH IIIA2 (Nichoria II, pp. 231-344) may appear to
contradict such a proposal, because it has been argued that its constructionreflectsthe incorporation of that
site into the Pylos polity as one of the centers of the FurtherProvince: e.g., Bennet 1995b, pp. 598-599. We
would argue, however, that the construction of a new burial structure would be appropriate for a newly
tS I~~~~~
.?~~~~e
0\t J ? 5 KilometersA
FIG. 10. Distribution of Late Helladic III finds, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
Construction of the palace at Ano Englianos in its most recent (and most familiar)
form seems to have commenced at the beginning of LH IIIB, by which time it almost
certainly controlled all of western Messenia and had probably incorporated the Further
Province,comprising the PamisosRiver valley and including sites such as Nichoria (Fig.3).
It is perhaps only at the beginning of LH IIIB that the influence of the Palace of Nestor
came to extend over the Pamisos valley to the east, the Akritas peninsula to the south,
and (at least) the Kyparissia and Soulima valleys to the north, in all an area of nearly
2,000 km2.
Almost all sites occupied in MH III-LH II continued into LH III, most with diag-
nostically LH IIIB material contemporary with the palace at Ano Englianos in its latest
phases (Fig. 10). Preliminaryexamination of the phasing and extent of sites in this period
allows us to make some significantstatementsregardingsettlement hierarchy.The largest
site in the region, by quite some margin, was the palace itself (ca. 18 ha, including the
dominant elite group at this site, which lay at some distance from the center at the Palace of Nestor, probably
on the boundary of the newly incorporated FurtherProvince.
palace structures85). One might have expected this, but it was not obvious before our
own detailed work in the immediate vicinity (see pp. 427-430 below). The next largest
sites within the region are KoryfasioBeylerbey (POSI I1; >3.52 ha) and Gargaliani Ordines
(POSI Kl; 2.1 ha), which reached its greatest extent in this phase.
In the vicinity of each of these large sites there are sites of lesser,but not insignificant,
size. Inland from POSI KI lies K3 (Valta Kastraki), situated on an excellent vantage point
overlooking the mouth of the Langouvardos gorge. Three sites lie on the coastal plain
west of modern Gargaliani(P1.85:d):POSIs D 1 (GargalianiKanalos),D2 (GargalianiMegas
Kambos[1]), and G3 (VromoneriPigadia;not labeled in the photograph). In the vicinity
of the palace lay the site of Hora Volimidia (GAC D20), whose extent is difficultto estimate,
and to the north, POSI I21 (AmbelofytoLagou),a site now nearly completely destroyed
through cultivationbut apparentlybelonging almost exclusivelyto the LH period. Finally,
a string of smaller sites extend from POSI II (Koryfasio Beylerbey) north of the Bay of
Navarino toward the coast: POSIs 13 (Koryfasio Portes),14 (Romanou Romanou86 ), and
(perhaps) Romanou Viglitsa(UMME 400), in the vicinity of which a small quantity of
LH III material was found in tract walking. It is perhaps too early to discuss in detail
the relationshipof these smallersites to the major ones within our region, but it does seem
that most were already occupied by LH I.
One area in which it seems that MH-LH settlement patterns differed is that east of
Mount Aigaleon. Two majorMH-Early Mycenaean siteswere alreadyknown there before
our work: Metaxada Kalopsana(GAC D22, POSI A2; P1. 85:c) and Maryeli Koutsouveri
(GAC Dl 16, POSI LI; P1. 87:c). The vicinities of both these sites were intensively
surveyed,but no smaller sites of MH-LH date were defined, in contrastwith the situation
in areas west of Aigaleon. Workon both sites confirmed the existence of MH-LH artifacts
over quite extensive areas (2.5-3.0 ha, perhaps slightlymore in the case of Kalopsana), but
in relativelysmall quantities.
One strikingfeatureof our investigationsof the area "beyondAigaleon"is the relatively
limited extent of LH III material identified in those areas examined intensively. Material
recovered at POSIs A2 and LI is almost exclusivelyMH-LH II, suggesting that the use of
these sites declined significantlyin the LH III period. Our original hypothesis to explain
this feature of the material record was that the upland area east of Mount Aigaleon,
but still west of the Pamisos valley, may have formed a boundary zone between the two
provinces and may have been deliberately depopulated (a kind of "no-man's land") or
had its population drawn away by the attraction of the center at Ano Englianos. The
presence of one or two LH III sherds, however, suggests that the area was not entirely
depopulated, although it may still have formed a boundary region, perhaps fulfilling
specialized functions (stock-rearing?bronze working?)within the Pylian system. A further
explanation for its limited settlement might be that, with the incorporation of the Further
85
SpecificallyLH IIIA and IIIB pottery is attested over an area of 12.4 ha, but this should be regarded as
an absolute minimum size, since much of the relatively undiagnostic LH III material probably belongs to
this phase. The same goes for size estimates for POSIs II (Beylerbey)and KI (Ordines)in the same period.
86 This extensive post-Bronze Age site appears to have been quite large in EH but shows no definite
evidence of occupation in MH and minimal evidence for LH I-II (0.5 ha?). It only reached a significantsize
again in LH III (2.5 ha?), still smaller than its neighbor, POSI II (Beylerbey;Bennet 1997).
Province and (apparently)the construction of a road taking a southern route from the
Soulinari-Kazarma region to Nichoria, the area became economically isolated.87 If the
equation of Nichoria with Linear B ti-mi-to-a-ke-e is secure,88then there is textual evidence
for close links between the Hither Province and Nichoria, as the first of the seven chief
settlementsin the Further Province listed on tablets (and presumablyalso the closest).
LH IIIC-Geometric materialis quite rare on sites within our surveyarea (see pp. 451-
453 below). LH IIIC is attested by only a few sherds, including three swollen kylix stems,
two from the vicinity of the palace (see p. 452 below). Furthermore,only at a very few sites
has a Submycenaean-Geometric phase been recognized.
TheMycenaean Toponymy of Western Messenia89

One of PRAP's major research goals has been to try to elucidate the relationship
between archaeologicallyobserved settlement patterns and the textual evidence afforded
by the Linear B documents from the Palace of Nestor, all the latter dating to the late
LH IIIB period. Recently,Joan Carothers reported the results of a systematic attempt
to relate the archaeological evidence (chiefly that collected by UMME) to the picture
provided by the Linear B documents within the entire polity centered on the Palace of
Nestor.90 The PRAP study region was defined partly with a view to including sufficient
territoryaround the center at Ano Englianos to encompass rival Early Mycenaean centers
(see p. 400 above), and it is likely that by LH IIIA these centers had been incorporated into
the Pylian polity. We are, therefore, in an excellent position to refine and correct the
picture drawn by Carothersfor the specific area studied by PRAP.Because our study area
extends beyond the immediate vicinity of the palace, we have probably explored some of
the major sites whose names are included in the fixed lists of the nine Hither Province
place-names in Linear B texts (Fig. 11).91 A second project goal was to extend the study
area sufficientlyfar northeast to sample some of the territory east of the Aigaleon range
(see p. 10 above),92plausibly equated with the boundary between the Hither and Further
Provinces of the Pylian state, as exemplified in the terms de-we-ro-a3 -ko-ra-i-ja("this side
of Aigaleon": e.g., Ng 319) and pe-ra3-ko-ra-i-ja ("beyondAigaleon": e.g., Ng 332).93
In relation to the first goal, the greater confidence with which we can now estimate
the size of LH settlements within our survey region has made the possibility of clearly
identifying the chief settlements much easier. As already noted above, it seems that two
settlements stand out as being of considerable size in this period (in addition to the center
at the Palace of Nestor itself): POSI KI (Gargaliani Ordines),in the north of our survey
87 On Mycenaean roads in Messenia see McDonald 1964.
88
Shelmerdine 1981.
89
This section of the report is the work ofJohn Bennet and Cynthia W Shelmerdine.
90 Carothers 1992; Bennet 1995b.
91 The chief evidence for the fixed list of nine place-names in the Hither Province is the following tablets:
Jn 829, Cn 608, Vn 20, and Vn 19 (fragmentary).For a discussion of all relevant texts see Bennet 1995b,
pp. 588-596 and Bennet, forthcoming.
92 Farthersouth, the probable boundary lies beyond the maximum area examined by PRAP (Fig. 11).
93 These two texts give the totals for flax production in each territory: 1,239 units for the Hither Province,
with 457 missing (Ng 319), and a minimum of 200 units (maximum 899) for the Further Province, with
an unknown amount missing (Ng 332).
A ' N\ KJ.a 03( $C002l.N
|~~~ I) -t- . e wo' @ ,<
trta3**a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.....
--
i!;..ie
/',i.r
X-\-,< <.i9
5XF
_g\
:' \ N
i_i=
_-
'p-on//+per3k-qia +\
ftM,~~.vIMada -'ra
-DI~~~~ /GA ~~~~~~~

(GC5
P.d.t.rI 'V 3. (tAC '46)
'J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bennet)~~~~~~~~~f
Fio 11TentativeMycenacan toponymy of Messenia (John
KaI.pma~ ~~~IG 1+.Tna;eMcncntpnTyo 4sei Jh ent

426 j L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y. G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
area, and POSI II (KoryfasioBeylerbey), in the south. With the identificationby our teams
of MH III-LH II material on the site of Beylerbey,we can now demonstrate that this
site and the Palace of Nestor were the largest settlements in the region at that time and
that Beylerbeyis likely to have been associatedwith the Osmanaga tholos tomb, Koryfasio
Haratsari(POSI 12), in contrast to the views of Marinatos and the UMME team.94 If
linked with the tholos, it is very likely that it was an early Mycenaean center that rivaled
the emergent center on the Englianos ridge to the northeast, where the "Grave Circle"
was constructed at approximatelythe same time as the Osmanaga tholos.95 Beylerbey's
long settlement history resembles that of the palace in the presence of possible EH III
material. Given the size of Beylerbey in LH III, it is a highly plausible candidate for one
of the place-names recorded in the Hither Province lists. POSI K1 (Gargaliani Ordines)
would be a logical candidate to match up with another place-name, perhaps the next
major center to the north, excluding the Palace of Nestor itself.
Indeed, in the list of the nine Hither Provinceplace-names, which appear to run north
to south,96those places in positions 3 through 6 probablylay within the north-south limits
of the PRAP study area, and the following equations between archaeological sites and
toponyms would be possible:
No. in List LinearB Place-Name PossibleArchaeological

Site POSIIGAC
3 pe-to-no Gargaliani Ordines POSI K1
4 pa-ki-ja-ne Hora Volimidia?97 GAC D20
5 a-Pu2-we Iklaina Traganes98 GAC D46
6 a-ke-re-wa KoryfasioBeylerbey POSI I1
94 Marinatos 1966a, p. 197; McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 242.

95 Some confirmation that the palace and Beylerbey lay in distinct topographic zones is offered by the
history of the region in the 19th century after Christ, immediately after the War of Independence, when
the uplands around Hora and Gargaliani are referred to as the "Kambos",while the lowlands around the
bay belong to the "Navarino"region.
96 See Bennet, forthcomingfor a summaryof the evidence for the place-name order and for more extensive
discussion of Pylian geography.
97 Scholars have differed on the location of the specific site of pa-ki-ja-ne,while agreeing that it must be
closely linked to the palace on the basis of the offering text Tn 316 and the E-series land-tenure documents
(e.g., Ventris and Chadwick 1973, pp. 232-274, 286-289). Chadwick (1972, p. 109) and Stavrianopoulou
(1989, pp. 140-141) associate the name with Hora Volimidia (GAC D20), while Carothers, because she
ignores major sites with primarily mortuary as opposed to settlement remains, rejects this identification
and associates the place-name with Metaxada Kalopsana (POSI A2), a site unlikely to have been extensively
occupied in LH III (see p. 33 above; also Carothers 1992, pp. 233-234; Bennet 1995b, p. 593). A location
somewhere in the general vicinity of the Bay of Navarino, ratherthan to the east of Mount Aigaleon, is made
attractive by the possible identification of the name pa-ki-ja-newith the Greek place-name 2pcaytaveqand
the fact that Strabo (8.4.2) says that Eyayta is the name applied to the island of Sphaktiria;the toponyms
E3qoayta and HIUXoc would both have moved down to the coast in the post-Bronze Age period. If we imagine
the Palace extending its control to the coast as early as LH I (see p. 421 above), then these names would have
migrated within the same territory,not moved from another region.
98 This site lies outside our area of study to the southeast, but because the Hither-Further Province
boundary ran from northwestto southeast, it almost certainlylay within the Hither Province. Its importance
The district centered on pe-to-noappears to have been a large one, since it has the
highest assessment among the Hither Province place-names on the Ma taxation texts.
Gargaliani Ordinesis well positioned to have acted as a center for a large district. If the
equation is correct, the district might have extended along the coastal plain from the
Mati stream north, as far, perhaps, as modern Filiatra. It would presumably have been
a focal point for smaller sites such as Gargaliani Ayia Sotira(POSI K2), Valta Kastraki
(POSI K3), Vromoneri Pigadia(POSI G3), GargalianiKanalos(POSI D 1), and Gargaliani
MegasKambos(1) (POSI D2). It is intriguing,however,to note that the texts have little else
to say about pe-to-noexcept to identify it as a taxation center and one of the nine chief
places in the Hither Province. This fact may suggest that pe-to-no'sstatus was relatively
new, a possibility that finds some support in the archaeological record of Ordines, which
doubles in size, according to our estimates, between LH I-II and LH III (from 0.9 to
2.1 ha).
a-ke-re-wa,on the other hand, appears quite frequentlyin the archive. It is mentioned
in a series of texts that apparently list contingents (the Linear B term is o-ka)watching
the coast.99 a-ke-re-wais one of the headquartersfor an o-ka,as well as apparently being
the location for one of the actual contingents. If the interpretation of these documents
as relating to coastal guard posts is correct, then this would imply that the coast was
visible from a-ke-re-waor from within its territory. There is, however, nothing necessarily
coastal about the other activities and commodities associated with a-ke-re-wa,including
bronze working (more than 28 smiths), plowland, and sheep (more than 250). The site
of Beylerbeywould be a suitablelocation for all these activities,lying, as it does, on the first
low ridge rising from the coastal plain, just inland and slightly north of the Osmanaga
lagoon (P1. 86). It therefore had ready access to the coast and, without the extensive
modern cover of olive trees on the ridge itself, would have affordeda good view of the bay.
In relation to the second goal, our examination did not extend far enough east to
include any of the major centers of the FurtherProvince. Nevertheless, it is interesting to
note that the area immediately east of Mount Aigaleon appears to have been occupied
only on a very small scale, compared with the coastal strip (see p. 423 above).
Workat thePalaceofNestor
One of the initial goals of PRAP was to examine the area on the Englianos ridge
immediately surrounding the Palace of Nestor in order to try to determine (1) the size
of the settlement that existed around the palatial buildings and (2) changes in the form
and size of this settlement from its earliest manifestations until its desertion, some time
after the destruction of the palace. An additional aim was to place the area immediately
surroundingthe palace in context by examining the entirety of the Englianos ridge from
Hora on the northeast to the point where, on the southwest, it reaches the coastal plain
just north of modern Koryfasio.
is suggested by the excavations carried out there by Marinatos in the 1950's: Marinatos 1957, pp. 309-311.
UMME estimated its size at 3.0 ha, larger than its estimate for Gargaliani Ordines(McDonald and Rapp
1972, s.v. nos. 46 and 57).
99 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, pp. 184-189, 427-430.
With the express purpose of addressing these goals early in the project, the palace
region was targeted in 1992 (see pp. 403-404 above) for intensive coverage by two of our
teams. Team C began near Tragana and ultimately investigated all of the northwestern
half of the Englianos ridge, west of the asphalt road leading from Hora to Koryfasio and
modern Pylos. Team B began from Hora and explored the southeastern half of the ridge,
remaining south of the asphalt road. This initial coverage allowed the density of material
within the entire palace region to be mapped and provided a context for already known
archaeological sites, chiefly the palace but also chamber tombs in the ravine immediately
west of the palace: Tholos III (the Kato Englianos tholos [POSI C5]), the so-called "Grave
Circle", now completely destroyed,and the Protogeometrictholos at the southwesternend
of the ridge (again, now completely obliterated).1 00 In the course of this work, the poorly
preserved remains of two more chamber-tomb cemeteries (POSIs B4 and B5) were also
located, within a few hundred meters of the palace structures.
Plots of artifact densities determined on the basis of tract walking in the vicinity
of the palace (Fig. 12) provided an initial estimate for the dimensions of the settlement
surrounding the palatial structures. Remains appeared to extend approximately one
kilometer southwest-northeast along the ridge and ca. 200-300 m across its width, a
maximum area of some 20-30 ha, far in excess of the (admittedlyconservative)estimate of
6.5 ha proposed by UMME. 0' What is perhapsmore surprisingis that no other significant
densities of artifacts were discovered on the Englianos ridge except the extensive spread
of material from before 1700 to the present around Hora to the northeast and, to the
southwest, at KoryfasioPisaski(POSI B6), a small site of the 18th to the mid-20th centuries
that lies immediately upslope from the Kokkevischamber tomb.102One possibilityfor the
absence of small LH III settlements on the ridge is that the local population had become
highly nucleated at the palace site, although it is also possible that severe erosion has
removed traces of some smaller settlements.103The absence of LH III material elsewhere
on the ridge strongly suggests that the Kato Englianos tholos (Tholos III) is associated
with the palace, despite being nearly a kilometer distant.
On the basis of the data gathered in 1992, we determined that the best means to
refine our picture of the extent of the settlement surroundingthe palace and to document
variation in its size through time was to investigate more intensively the entire area
defined in 1992 as having the highest artifact densities. Accordingly,a 20-meter grid was
establishedin 1993, extending northeastfrom the fence around the modern archaeological
site; a similargrid was laid out in 1994 coveringareasto the southwest. Withineach of these
20-meter grid squares, all artifactswere collected, and remote sensing was subsequently
employed in an attempt to detect buried remains.'04 In 1993, 184 squareswere collected
and in 1994, 290, making a total of 474 20-meter squares, covering an area of 19 ha,
100 See Pylos III, figs. 300, 301 for these features. The "Grave Circle" was destroyed by agricultural
activities;the PG tholos was bulldozed when the road from Koryfasio to Hora was recently redirected.
101 UMME 1.
102 PylosIII, pp. 224-237.
103 See Zangger et al., forthcoming.
104 Ibid.
i~~~~~~~M
M Nko *Grave *
IIIV
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~N
Aff.FEf:._
__~~~~GV
a_o _ - :_MOW
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~L 11 1''IA I
FIG12 Ariatd _ste n h nlansRdeintevciiyo hePlc f etrb pro JhnBne).2-ee

corrcspond. to denstie of135.7-5,7010,ad1 +sed e a
excluding, of course, the fenced area surroundingthe palace itself, a further 1.7 ha. The
further refinement of a grid, therefore, allowed us to refine our original estimate based
on tract walking.
As is clear from Figure 12, prehistoricmaterialis abundantin the collections, covering
an area of nearly 16 ha. More significantis the pattern of expansion that the plots reveal.
Before MH, the extent of material is tiny, but within MH, perhaps mainly in its later
phases, settlement expanded over some 5.5 ha all around the later palatial structures
and northeast along the ridge. LH I-II material is more dense and still more extensive,
covering an area exceeding 7 ha. The density of settlement in the vicinity of the palace
by this period may explain why a new funerary structure, Tholos III, was built farther
down the ridge in LH II Material specifically assignable to LH IIIA and/or LH IIIB
is attested in an area of 12.4 ha, although less diagnostic prehistoric material also may
belong to this period; we prefer, therefore, to regard this size estimate as a minimum for
the latest palatial phase. It is worth pointing out that the area of the earlier "GraveCircle"
was quite extensively settled at this time, perhaps after the tomb had collapsed.'05 By
contrast, the area between the palatial structures and Tholos IV to the northeast was,
to judge from Blegen'stest trenches, apparentlydevoid of architecturalremains but rich in
kylix fragments;106it may have remained an open area, dominated by the mound over the
tomb.
Detailed examrinationof the immediate vicinity of the palace has, therefore, clearly
demonstratedthat the palace settlement reached a considerablesize by the end of the MH
period, when it was the largest site in the region, and that this growth continued in LH I-
III. Against this background,we can better understandthe prominence of the settlement
at the Palace of Nestor within its region, and situate the beginning of its preeminence
at the very beginning of the Mycenaean period, not in LH IIIA or LH IIIB.
CONSPECTUS OF NEOLITHIC TO GEOMETRIC ARTIFACTS107

NeolithicPottery
No pottery can definitively be dated to the Neolithic period, although some sherds
of a distinct class of coarse ware may be of that date (see pp. 438-439 below, under Middle
Helladic).
EarlyHelladicPottery
VROMONERI NOZAL/A(POSI 120). The ceramic material from Nozaina looks
consistently Early Helladic and is very likely to be completely free of earlier or later
admixtures. Most, if not all, should be assigned to EH II. This coastal group is thus
a welcome addition to other EH II pottery groups already known from Messenia. No
elements in it can be classed as EH III as we know it from the western Peloponnesos: e.g.,
at the Altis at Olympia, at Nichoria (Howell's Group A and early Group C of MH I),
105
PylosIII, pp. 155-156.
'r Ibid.,pp. 64-68.
107
This section of the report is the work of Yannos G. Lolos, Cynthia W Shelmerdine, and Sharon R.
Stocker. Unless the text indicates otherwise, fragments cited in notes are representative examples, not
complete lists.
and, arguably,at the Deriziotis Aloni near the Palace of Nestor.08 On the other hand,
close parallelsfor the main pottery shapes present in the Nozaina group exist in the EH II
pottery from Voidokoilia,Akovitika,and Lepreon AyiosDimitrtios. 109
The Nozaina pottery consists of numerous badly worn and fragmentary sherds. It
is so homogeneous in its range of shapes and fabrics that it appears to be a one-phase
assemblage. The great majority of sherds is in a distinctly gritty fabric ("Nozaina ware"),
whose color ranges through shades of orange, red, and brown. Some pieces (including
three rim and wall fragments of burnished bowls with incurving rims, a fragment of a
probable sauceboat, and one or two other bowl rims) are of a finer, brown to red-brown
fabric that contains few gritty inclusions. Seven soft, fine, yellow/white sherds resemble
local LH IIIB and Dark Age wares; they may, however, be of EH II date, inasmuch as
they are not dissimilarto a fine, pale EH II fabric known in other regions.
At least six vase types are certainly representedin the assemblage from Nozaina:
Bowl. Rim and wall fragments of bowls with (a) straight spreading sides (Fig. 13:3);110
(b) incurving rims (Fig. 13:4, 8);"1' and (c) one T-rim (Fig. 13:2).112
Sauceboat.A possible rim fragment of a sauceboat, with a simple curved band in relief
just below the rim (Fig. 13:1; P1. 88:d).113 Two round handles in the fine, yellow fabric
mentioned above may come from sauceboats if they are EH and not LH in date.
Basin. A body fragment of a basin with slightly carinated profile.
Wide-mouthed vesselwithtwohortizontalhandles.A rim and a wall fragment of a wide-mouthed
vessel with horizontal handle (oval in section)"14 and a second similar handle.115
Amphora.Four neck and shoulder fragments of amphoras (Fig. 13:7).116 Belly handles
include two complete examples'I7and one fragmentary.Body sherdswere recovered from
most parts of the site. There are three raised-basefragmentsof closed vessels:jars, perhaps
amphoras (Fig. 13:5).118
Pithoidjar orpithos. Body sherds from pithoi were present in most parts of the site, but
only a single possible base was recovered.
OTHER FINDS. A small group of diagnostic EH II pottery is represented among
finds from Romanou Romanou (POSI 14).119Small shapes (P1.89:a) include a rim fragment
108 Stocker 1995.
109 Korres 1993; Themelis
1970; Zachos 1987.
110 I93-920111-11.
III Fig. 13:4: I93-920411 -01; Fig. 13:8:
I93-920111-02; I93-920111-01 (black slipped?). I93-920243-01
has a thickerwall.
112 I93-92041 1-02.
13 I93-920111-09.
114 I93-920111-05.
15 I93-920 1 1-08.
116
I93-920111-12.
7 I93-920111-07 (crescent shaped);I93-920111-06 (round).
8 E.g., I93-920111-03; Fig. 13:5: I93-920111-10 (Diam. 0.06 m, with a woven-mat
impression).
119 EH II sherdsalso occur in the fill of two
nearby tholos tombs: KoryfasioHaratsariand Tholos Tomb 1 at
Tragana Viglitsa.We thank George S. Korres for this information.
1 ~~2 3 '/4
5 7 / 8
If~~~~~~~~~~~~~1
9 10
11/ ' ' /13
14 15 16 17 18
/~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14 1
21
19 I 1 20
22
23 23 1 -;)/ i 2 4 6 8 0 24
2
~~~~0 10
0 2 m .cm
\_ . < 25 26 27
FIG. 13. Early Helladic, Middle Helladic, and Early Mycenaean pottery (RosemaryJ. Robertson).
(1) I93-920111-09; (2) I93-920411-02; (3) I93-920111-11; (4) I93-920411-01;
(5) I93-920111-10; (6) 192-024-05; (7) I93-920111-12; (8) I93-920111-02; (9) C92-166-04;
(10) D93-901133-01; (11) D93-901133-02; (12) I92-9010463-03; (13) B93-90721310-01;
(14) C92-163-02; (15) C92-149-01; (16) D93-901121-01; (17) C92-133-04;
(18) I92-9014464-01; (19) B92-115-06; (20) A92-171-14; (21) A92-171-02; (22) A92-171-01;
(23) A92-171-06; (24) A92-171-05; (25) K94-901141-04; (26) A92-171-15; (27) C92-158-07
of a sauceboat in a fine, light grayish fabric (Munsell 7.5YR 7/3);120 a rim-and-wall

fragment in a fine pinkish yellow fabric (IOYR 7/4), probably from a shallow bowl or
saucer;121and two fragmentsof conical pedestaled bases from bowls or sauceboats (1OYR
7/3;122 Among coarse wares are a bowl rim;123a slightly flaring rim-and-neck fragment
from ajar (Fig. 24:15);124a raised base; and six horizontal belly handles from medium- to
large-sizedjars (three round or oval in section,125three crescent shaped and triangular
in section126).The jar base and the handles are in gritty Nozaina ware.
Probable or certain EH II sherds also occur sporadicallyelsewhere within the survey
area. Finds from Vromoneri VerginaRema (POSI 128) and Gargaliani Kalantina(1)
(POSI MI) are few in number, but each site yielded a homogeneous group very similar
to that from Nozaina. The fabric is Nozaina ware; the only shapes are a rim fragment
from a T-rim bowl from Vergina Rema, and a rim fragment from a bowl with incurving
rim from Kalantina (1).127 In the same fabric is part of a wide (0.038 m) vertical strap
handle from Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI), with six parallel, lightly incised lines on its
outer surface(P1.89:c).128Fromother sites come two swollen rim fragmentsfrom bowls or
similar open shapes in a reddish gritty fabric (Fig. 13:6),129and a body sherd, smoothed
but with brush marks or striations on its exterior.130Various other fragments of coarse
vases with horizontal relief bands may be dated provisionally to EH II-MH (e.g., a rim
fragment of a probable open shape with a plastic band bearing two finger impressions,
from Koryfasio Beylerbey [POSI Ii]13 ).
The range of pottery at Nozaina, Romanou, Ordines, and Vergina Rema is likely
to be typical of small- and medium-sized EH II coastal sites in western Messenia. Such
sites appear to have been relatively common: in addition to the sites investigated by us,
EH establishmentshave been reported at Ancient Koryphasion, Voidokoilia, in a coastal
location southwest of Petrohori, at Marathoupolis,and at Filiatra Stomion(GACD65).132
Similarassemblageshave been reportedfrommany of the smallerand largerislandsthat lie
off the coast, e.g., Proti, Sphaktiria,Tsihli Baba,133Sapienza, Ayia Mariani, and Shiza.134
120 I93-9040436GR- 10. For fabric-colornumbers see MunsellSoil ColorCharts,Baltimore 1975.

121 I93-9040436GR-09.
122 Fig. 24:22, P1.89:a: I93-9040436GR-01; P1.89:a: I93-9040551VC-01.
123 I93-9040261VC-03.
124 I93-9040542GR-01 (grayishblue core and reddish orange surfaces).
125 I93-9040436GR-07; I93-9040436GR-08; I93-904026 1VC-02.
126
I93-9040261VC-01; I93-9040481GR-01; I93-9040436VC-01. Cf. I93-920111-07 from Nozaina.
127 I94-928000GR-01 (POSI I28); M94-901000-01 (POSI MI).
128 K94-901452-04.
129
A92-182-01(contiguousto POSIA3);Fig. 13:6:I92-024-05(POSI14).
130 I92-133-03 (POSI I23; unusual fabric, red brown with large bluish stone inclusions).
131 I92-9010192-02 (grayishcore with reddish surfaces).
132
In 1995 George S. Korres and Yioryia Hatzi kindly supplied information about these sites.
133
Korres 1994, p. 3.
134
The Early Bronze Age site on Shiza (EH II?) has recently been identified by Elias Spondylis of the
Ephoreia of Underwater Antiquities.
From Ordines and other locations came several pierced, crescent-shaped, horizontal
lug handles, triangularin section (Fig. 13:17),135mostly in fine fabricsand apparentlyfrom
closed vessels; these find good parallels among lug handles from Deriziotis Aloni (near
the Palace of Nestor) and from Nichoria and are of EH III-MH II date.136A flaringrim of
a cup or small bowl in the local Black Minyan class is of approximatelythe same date.137
MiddleHelladicPottery
All phases of the Middle Helladic period are represented in the PRAP survey area,
although much of our ceramic material cannot be dated more closely than to the MH
period in general. Among the more closely datable pieces are two fine rim sherds from
highly burnished cups from the Palace of Nestor (POSI B7), probably of MH I date; they
have parallels among the early MH material from Nichoria and may be considered a
local variant of Gray Minyan.138 MH II is representedby two rims, both of which have
highly burnished outer surfaces and belong to a local Red/Brown Burnished ware.139
Of MH I-II date is a rim with a lower handle attachment from a cup or kantharos also
in Red/Brown Burnished ware.140 The bulk of the Middle Bronze Age sherds can be
attributedto a MH II-III horizon.
MH ceramics can be grouped into nine different categories on the basis of surface
treatment. These include: (i)local Gray Minyan (or Minyanizing);(ii)local Black Minyan;
(iii)YellowMinyan; (iv)Red/Brown Burnished;(v)Dark-coated;(vi)Matt-painted;(vii)fine
plain; (viii) plain semicoarse and coarse; and (ix) coarse incised 'Adriatic". MH is well
represented at Hora ThePalaceof Nestor(POSI B7; Fig. 13:9, 13, 14), Gargaliani Kanalos
(POSI D 1; Fig. 13:10), Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI I1; Fig. 13:18), and Gargaliani Ordines
(POSI KI).
Numerous fragments of open vases, mostly small, are of local Gray Minyan. On the
other hand, canonical Gray Minyan ware, soapy to the touch and of the sort common
in the Argolid, is extremely rare in Messenia. Our only example was found at the Palace
of Nestor.141In contrast, most local Gray Minyan sherdshave a soft, powdery fabric, with
a core that is homogeneously gray in appearance (1OYR5/1); surfacesmay have originally
been highly lustrous but are now much worn. Harder-firedexamples do preserve bur-
nished surfaces. Local Gray Minyan ware also occurs in large quantities in excavated MH
settlementlevels at Nichoria,142the PalaceofNestor,143and FiliatraStomion (GAC D65),'44
and complete vases of this type have been found in MH Messenian graves.145
135 B94-90741105-0 1; Fig. 13:17: C92-133-04 (POSI B7); K94-901141-02 (half-preserved;very fine,
pinkish yellow fabric, 7.5YR N5), K94-901465-01 (POSI KI).
136 Stocker 1995; Rutter 1993, p. 773.
137 B94-90740609-0
1.
138 B94-90741107-01 (Diam. 0.070-0.075 m); B94-90741107-02 (Diam. 0.10-0.12 m).
139 B94-90740417-03 (est. Diam. 0.13 m); D93-901272-01; see Howell 1992, P2514, fig. 3:45 (MH II,
plain ware).
10 B94-90740817-01.
141
B94-90741414-01.
142 On the development of Minyan ware at Nichoria see Howell 1992, pp. 44,46-47, 48-49, 50-53 (MH I),
58-60 (MH II), 66 (MH III).
143 Among MH material in the Petropoulos Trench and other trenches from Blegen's excavations at the
Palace of Nestor (now being studied by Sharon R. Stocker). See PylosIII, pp. 63-64, fig. 159, p. 104.
144 Hatzi 1991, p. 84.
145 A complete shape (cup strainer)in this ware, found by Korres in the KaloyeropoulosTumulus at Routsi
near Myrsinohori (now stored in the Hora Museum, inv. no. 3692).
PROJECT:PARTI
Shapes in local Gray Minyan are typical of those represented in the northeastern
Peloponnesos and central Greece. Sherds from PRAP include several wall and rim
fragments of cups/kantharoi, most preserving in part or entirely an attachment for a
high-swung strap handle;146a tall flaring rim of a deep open jar or kantharos (Diam.
0.135 m);'47 one strap handle, slightly concave on the outside, apparently coming from
a cup or kantharos;148 a bowl rim;149 and several body sherds.150
A few. sherds from open vessels are characteristicof local Black Minyan ware. All
have black, highly burnished surfaces,while cores vary in color from very dark brown or
very dusky red to black (1OYR7/3, 2.5YR 5/2, 5Y 6/1). Shapes include cups/kantharoi
with high-swung strap handles,151 bowls,152 and other open shapes.'53 Local Messenian
versions of Black Minyan154are also documented in excavated MH settlement contexts
at Stomion,155the Palace of Nestor,156Methoni,157and Nichoria and are found in MH
tumuli.158
Local versions of MH-type Yellow Minyan ware (5YR 8/4) also occur but are rarer
than the local Gray Minyan and Black Minyan wares;two good examples are a flat cup or
bowlbase and a dipperfragment,both fromPOSI B7.159
More common than local Gray,Black, and Yellow Minyan is a variety of pottery that
we have called Red/Brown Burnished, a type closely paralleled in the MH pottery from
Nichoria and representedin Blegen'sexcavationdump at the Palace of Nestor.160 All such
fragments come from handmade open vases, mostly of fine or semifine fabric. Outer and
146 B92-103-01; B93-90721109-01; B94-90741107-12 (W. of handle 0.063 m); D93-901133-12;

K94-901223-02.
147 B94-90740417-01 (gray core; surfacesmottled very pale brown and gray).
148 B93-90721209-10.
149 B93-90721109-01.
150 B92-103-02; B93-90721208-09; B94-90740705-01; B94-90741107-13; C92-903331-01. Also three
uncatalogued sherds from KoryfasioBeylerbey (POSI II).
151 D93-901353-01 (wall fragment with upper attachment of a high-swung strap handle); Fig. 13:14:
C92-163-02 (wall fragment with the lower attachment of a high-swung strap handle); B94-90740516-06
(evertedrim);B94-90740613-14 (shoulder);Fig. 13:18: I92-9014464-01 (slightlyraised base; Diam. 0.04 m).
152 L94-9012672-02 (small sharply curved strap handle).
153
E.g., an uncatalogued wall fragment from POSI DI.
154 The typical Argive Minyan fabric, commonly used for festooned bowls, is represented among the finds
from Blegen's excavations at the Palace of Nestor (see note 156 below) but is not present in our survey
material. See Caskey 1973, p. 119; French 1972, p. 24; Zerner 1978, p. 145.
55 Hatzi 1991, pp. 83-84, fig. 3, right (kantharoswith sharply carinated profile).
156 Among MH material from the Petropoulos Trench and other trenches excavated by Blegen at the
Palace of Nestor. Three fine Black Minyan sherds (two of them with incised festoons), found in a pit under
Corridor 25 of the Palace of Nestor, are on display in Case 33 in the second room of the Hora Museum.
157 In the MH material from the underwater settlement site in the Bay of Methoni, now stored in the
Neokastro in Pylos and kindly shown to us by Elias Spondylis in July 1996. We thank him for allowing
us to make reference to the unpublishedfinds from the site in this article.
158 Examples include a Black Minyan kantharoswith a sharply carinated profile from a pithos burial in
the tumulus at Ayios Ioannis near Papoulia (now stored in the Hora Museum, inv. no. 3163; see Korres
1982, p. 132, fig. 2:a, pl. 111:b) and two Black Minyan kantharoi of an early type found inside two burial
pithoi in the tumulus at Voidokoilia: Korres 1980, p. 354, pl. 212:a; Korres 1981c, p. 144, pl. 112:b, right.
59 B93-90710505-01 (dipper);B94-90740617-09 (cup or bowl).
160 Shown to us by FrederickCooper in July 1995 and July 1996. We thank him for this kindness and
for allowing us to make reference to these finds here.
436 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W. SHELMERDINE
inner surfaces(red, reddish yellow,light reddish brown, pale brown, or brown in color)161
are burnished to varying degrees; some are almost Minyanlike in appearance. Charac-
teristic shapes include cups/kantharoi with high-swung straphandles;162cups/bowls with
slightly outturned rims;163bowls with rims thickened at the outer edge and flattened on
top (Fig. 13:9, 13);164bowls/basins with rims thickened at both edges and flattened on
top;165jars with flaring rims;,66and other open shapes.167
A few sherds with a semicoarse fabric and lightly burnished interior and exterior
surfaces are covered with a dark wash that varies in color from brown to black. This
category has been recognized at Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7) and KoryfasioBeylerbey
(POSI II). Shapes include straightflat-topped bowl rims and other open shapes.
Matt-painted ware is sparsely represented: only a few pieces have been recognized.
These include five body fragmentsand three handle fragments,bearingbands (or remnants
of bands) in dark matt paint.168 Another sherd, from an open(?) shape, carries a wavy
band in semilustrousor matt paint.169 In Messenia, as in the northeastern Peloponnesos
and elsewhere, Matt-painted ware survivesinto the initial phase of the Late Bronze Age,
on the evidence from pottery deposits at Peristeria (East House), Tragana Voroulia, and
Koukounara Katarrahaki.
Fine plain ware includes numerous fragments of bowls or basins in a reddish yellow
fabricwith a rim profile that is characteristicallyMH: flat at the top and thickened at both
edges.170 This type of rim is paralleled in MH deposits from Blegen's PetropoulosTrench
on the Englianos Ridge'7l and as noted above, is represented in the survey material in
Red/Brown Burnished ware. Other fine plain shapes include a bowl that tapers sharply
toward the rimland is paralleled in MH II plain ware at Nichoria,172bowls with everted
rims,173and kantharoi. 7
161
Munsell 2.5YR 6/8; 5YR 7/8; 5YR 6/3; IOYR6/3; 7.5YR 5/4.
162 K94-901151-02 (rim with lower handle attachment);K94-9034924GR-02 (lower handle attachment);
B93-90721510-01 and I92-9014453-01 (flat and slightly raised bases of kantharoi[?]; Diam. 0.06 m and
0.045 m respectively).
163 B94-90740615-01;
C92-150-22.
164 Fig. 13:13:
B93-90721310-01; Fig. 13:9: C92-166-04; C92-120-01.
165 B94-90740612-12 and B94-90740712-01 (compare192-9014423-01, for type of rim; also Howell 1992,
P2693 [x], fig. 3:64 [MH II, coarse ware]).
166
B93-90710503-01 and B93-90721309-03 (POSI B7); one sherd in D93-901133, uncatalogued
(POSI Dl).
167
B93-90720406-12, B93-90720202-01, B93-90721209-01, and B93-90720506-07 (rim fragments);
B94-90740610-01, B93-90721210-04, and D93-901381 -01 (wall fragments).
168 B92- 108-02 (jar handle, round in section);B92- 108-03 (jar handle, oval in section);B92- 108-04 (coarse
jar handle); B94-90740417-02 (wall fragment of cup/kantharos); B94-90740318-01, B94-90740516-15,
B94-90740615-12, and D93-901152-05 (body sherds).
169 B94-90730414-0 1.
170
E.g., B93-90710204-03; B94-90730514-01; B94-90740217-01; B94-90740717-09; K94-901372-03;
I92-9010442-01.
171 PylosIII, pp.
63-64, figs. 104, 159.
172 I92-9010141-04; see Howell 1992, P2511, P2512, fig. 3:45.
173 E.g., B94-90741107-04.
174 B94-90741107-15.
Plain semicoarseand coarse waresare the most common varietiesof MH pottery found
by our surveyand are well representedat Metaxada Kalopsana (POSI A2); Hora ThePalace
ofNestor(POSI B7); Tragana Voroulia (POSI C3); GargalianiKanalos(POSI D1); Koryfasio
Beylerbey (POSI II); Gargaliani Ordines (POSI K1); GargalianiAyiaSotira(POSI K2); Valta
Kastraki(POSI K3); and Maryeli Koutsouveri (POSI LI). Large grog and stone inclusions
are common. Surfaces may be reddish yellow, pink, pinkish gray, light gray, or gray in
color and are usually unslipped and often smoothed; only rarely have they been lightly
burnished.175 Cores may be shades of gray,brown, black, or red.176
Shapes in plain semicoarse and coarse wares include
Pithoi.Pithoi alwayslack handles and often have plastic bands on their necks, at the base of
their necks, or on their shoulders. Necks may be splaying or even form an S-curve with
the body. Rims may be flaring or thickened, with flat or rounded surfaces. One nearly
complete base is 0.1 13 m in diameter.177 Decorative relief bands of varying width and
thickness are quite frequent on neck and shoulder fragmentsof coarse pithoi and include
varieties with round or oval finger impressions;178diagonal oblong finger impressions;'79
diagonal incisions or grooves in imitation of rope;180deep holes, perhaps punched by a
stick but not perforatingthe wall of the vessel;181incised herringbone;'82and overlapping
half disks.
jars. Closedjars have two cylindricalhandles set horizontallyon the belly. A deep open or
wide-mouthedjar, of a particularlycommon type, has one raised strap handle; rims may
be straight, spreading, or everted and are sometimes flattened on top (Fig. 13:10, 11).183
This shape is closely paralleled by complete examples excavated at Malthi, Nichoria,
and the Palace of Nestor.184 A body sherd of a large coarse jar from Gargaliani Kanalos
175 Munsell 5YR 6/6-6/8, 5YR 7/4, 5YR 7/2, 2.5Y 7/2, 2.5Y 6/1.
176
Other coarse fabrics recognized elsewhere in Messenia are largely absent from our collections. These
include a distinctive yellowish white or pinkish "oatmeal"fabric represented in the pottery excavated from
the submergedMH settlement in the Bay of Methoni. On the other hand, the coarse fabric called "oatmeal"
by McDonald and Hope Simpson in their reports (1969, p. 172; Matson 1972, p. 203) is probably to be
equated with a coarse late MH-early LH fabric characterized by its high content of grog inclusions and
found in quantity at several sites surveyedby PRAP (see p. 441 below).
177 D93-901 152-03.
178 E.g., K94-9034924-01 and L94-9013681-02. Finger impressions appear on a few pieces other than
pithos bands: three finger impressionsor indentationswere used to decorate an almost vertical lug handle of
a thick-walledMH vase from the Palace of Nestor (B93-90721410-05), while finger impressions,arrangedin
three rows, are present on a body sherd of a pithos of late MH-early LH date from Beylerbey (I92-9010477,
uncatalogued).
179 E.g., L94-9012681-02.
180 E.g., A92-172-02; D94-902425-02. Cf. Fig. 13:26: A92-171-15 (MH III-LH II).
181 E.g.,K94-901334-04.
182 K94-901223-03.
183
E.g., Fig. 13:10: D93-901 133-0 1; Fig. 13:11: D93-901 133-02; D93-901323-01 (withknob on shoulder);
D93-901143-01 (this "squared"type of jar rim finds good parallels in MH jar rims from the Petropoulos
Trench at the Palace of Nestor and the underwatersite at Methoni); K94-083-0 1; K94-495-0 1.
184 See Valmin 1938, pls. 1:1, XVI:1, p. 103 (MH); PylosIII, pp. 25, 28 (CM 2669), figs. 133 (MH), 234:5
(LH I?); Howell 1992, P2685, P2686, fig. 3:62 (MH II, coarse ware), P2851, P2852, P2853 (X), P2854,
fig. 3:78 (MH III, coarse ware).
438 J. L. DAVIS,S. E. ALCOCK,J.BENNET,Y.G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE
(POSI D1) has a relatively thin arclike lug similar to one on a small MH pithos from
Methoni Nisakouliand to that of another example from an MH deposit at the Palace of
Nestor.185A rim-and-shoulderfragmentof a coarsejar from ValtaKastraki (POSI K3) with
a horseshoe-shapedlug set high on its shoulderhas a good MH counterpartat Nichoria.186
Jars of this type may also have decorativeknobs on their shoulders,as does a fragment of a
rim and shoulder found by our teams at GargalianiKanalos.187
Cups,bowls,andbasins. Among the many bowls and basins is one particularlydiagnostic
type with a straightvertical rim that is flattened on top; it is closely paralleled by bowl rims
at Nichoria.188
At least sixteen sherds have incised decoration and belong to Valmin's so-called
'Adriatic" ware, a MH ceramic category well known from excavations at Messenian
centers such as Peristeria, Malthi, the Palace of Nestor, Nichoria, and Filiatra Stomion
(GAC D65).'189 Sites where pottery of this type has been found by PRAP are the
Palace of Nestor (POSI B7; Fig. 13:15; P1. 89:b: B94-90741107-l 1, B94-90741107-09,
B94-90741107-07, B94-90741107-08), GargalianiKanalos(POSI Dl; Fig. 13:16; P1.89:b:
D93-901252-02), Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI), and Maryeli Koutsouveri (POSI LI).190
Most examples seem to be body fragmentsof thick-walledhandmadejars. Some, however,
may be from deep open cups/jars with one raised flattened handle, a type found at
Malthi, the Palace of Nestor, and Nichoria. In all cases, the incision consists of simple
linear patterns, including variouslyarranged groups of parallel lines. The decoration of a
broad flattened handle from Kanalos (POSI D 1; Fig. 13:16) consists of oblique parallel
lines arrayed in two vertical zones, a scheme closely paralleled on a coarse handle from
an excavated MH deposit at the Palace of Nestor.191 A body sherd from Koutsouveri
(POSI LI) bears a comparable motif.192
Another group of approximately three dozen semicoarse and coarse sherds, very
homogeneous in appearance, is much more difficult to date than material from the
preceding nine categories. This group could be compared to Marinatos' Smoked Ware
(KocTvtvLaY Kepoc,eLx5) category,193and severalsherdsfind parallelsamong Late Neolithic
pottery (a group of ca. 150 sherds) from his 1955 excavation in the entrance of the
185
D93-901143-02; Nisakouli: on display in the Pylos Museum (Room 1); Palace of Nestor: on display
in the Hora Museum (Room II, Case 33).
186 K94-9034941GR-01 (coarse fabric with both stone and grog inclusions); see Howell 1992, P2854,
fig. 3:78 (MH III, coarse ware).

187 D93-901323-01; see Howell 1992, fig. 3:62, P2684 (x) (MH II, coarse ware);Korres 1978, p. 273, fig. 2,
top right; also jar fragmentswith knobs from Blegen's excavation dump at the Palace of Nestor. This shape
continues into LH I (see p. 441 below).
188 E.g., B94-90740712-02; 192-9014423-01; see Howell 1992, P2693 (x), fig. 3:64 (MH II, coarse ware).
189 See Valmin 1938, pp. 136-239, 284-290; Rutter 1983, p. 460, note 5.
'90 B93-90721309-01; B94-90741106-01; P1.89:b: B94-90741107-07, B94-90741107-08 (neatly incised,
of semifine fabric), and B94-90741107-09; B94-90741107-10; P1. 89:b: B94-90741107-1 1; Fig. 13:15:
C92-149-01; Fig. 13:16: D93-901121-01; P1. 89:b: D93-901252-02; D93-901251-01; D93-901332-02;
I92-9010442-01; K94-901452-03; L94-282-01; L94-9013681-01.
191 Fig. 13:16: D93-901 121-01; Palace of Nestor: on display in Case 33 in Room II of the Hora Museum.
192 L94-282-01.
193 Marinatos (1960, p. 246) gives a description of the ware.
Katavothra Cave in Hora (unpublished, in the Hora Museum).'94 Other Neolithic

parallels come from excavations by McDonald, Theocharis, and Sampson (in 1953 and
1980) in the Cave of Nestor at Ancient Koryphasion (now stored in the Neokastro of
Pylos);195from Korres' excavations at Petrohori Voidokoilia; and from trial excavations in
the Cave of Koufierosnear Maniaki.
Many of the sherds, however, also resemble Middle Helladic coarse wares from the
Palace of Nestor and from an underwatersettlement site in the Bay of Methoni, currently
under investigationby Elias Spondylis for the Ephoreia of Underwater Antiquities. Given
the numerous MH parallels, and the absence of more clearly diagnostic Neolithic pottery
in our collections, it seems possible that most of, or even all, the examples found by PRAP
are MH.
The sherds found by PRAP come from five different sites: Hora The Palace of
Nestor(POSI B7),'96 Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI Dl),'97 Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI I1),198
Gargaliani Ordines(POSI Kl),199 and GargalianiAy' Sotira(POSI K2).200 A few more
examples come from tracts not associated with any site.201 Many of the sherds have
black or yellowish brown cores. With few exceptions,202interiors are various shades of
black. Some have darkbrown to blackishexteriors,203although most are red to red-brown
outside. Surfaces are perfunctorily smoothed and, in a few instances, slightly polished.
Most fragmentsappear to belong to ill-shaped handmade deep bowls, wide-mouthedjars,
or other thick, open, medium-sized or large vessels.
MiddleHelladic1-Late HelladicII
Both fine and coarse wares of the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the initial stages
of the Late Bronze Age are represented in PRAP's collections. No fine pottery can be
dated specifically to MH III, but a few fine sherds fall into the MH III-LH II range.204
In contrast, examples specificallydated to LH 1-11are numerous (see pp. 442-445 below).
Coarse-ware shapes, on the other hand, can rarely be dated more closely than to
MH III-LH II; few new coarse-ware shapes are Introduced Into the Mycenaean ceramic
194 Marinatos 1960, pp. 245-246; Theocharis 1973, p. 350 (no. 106); Theocharis 1981, p. 74 (where the
group is assigned to the Early Neolithic period);Korres 198 la, p. 456; Lolos 1994, pp. 24-25, 45. Evidence
for Neolithic activity southwest of Hora is provided by the recent discoveryof a small stone celt of Neolithic
type on the hill of Ayia Marina, above the Yiftovrisispring (see Lolos 1994, p. 45).
195 Sampson 1982, pp. 175-187; Korres 1981a; Korres 1981b.
196 E.g., B94-90740616-14; B94-90740818-01; B94-907405 13-02; C92-153-03.
197 E.g&, D93-256-01; D93-901 124-01.
198 I92-9010151-01; I92-9010185-05; I92-9010192-01; I92-9010463-02.
199 E.g., K94-901322-01; K94-901341-02; K94-901452-02; K94-901462-01; K94-901462-02;
K94-901464-0 1.
200 K94-9024181 -01; K94-9024184-01.
201 C92-128-01; C92-147-03 (contiguous to POSI B7).
202 E.g., C92-147-03; I92-9010463-02 (both yellowish brown).
203 E.g., C92-147-03; I92-9010185-05; I92-9010192-01.
204 E.g., B93-90721410-03 (horizontalbowl with rim thickened at
both edges); B93-90710204-02 (goblet
rim with concave upper surface);K94-903495 1 GR-02 (high-swunghandle of kantharosor dipper).
1 2 34 5
7 67
/7'w .
) ~~~8
10 11 12 13
14 15
0 2 4 6 8 10
cm. I I I
16
FIG. 14. Middle Helladic III-Late Helladic II pottery (RosemaryJ. Robertson). (1) B92-096-0 1;
(2) C92-158-05; (3) C92-903111-01; (4) C92-155-04; (5) K94-137-03; (6) D93-901133-05;
(7) D93-901133-06; (8) K94-084-05; (9) B92-108-10; (10) D93-256-02; (11) B92-101-09;
(12) B92-097-02; (13) I92-005-07; (14) C92-156-04; (15) C92-132-01; (16) K94-901373-01
repertoire in LH J.205 The tripod cooking pot (FS 3202%6),a domestic shape of Minoan
derivation, is a particularlygood example of a shape that spans the transition between
the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Tripod legs (whole and fragmentary)have been found
at many sites, including Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7), GargalianiKanalos(POSI D 1),
205
Dickinson 1977, pp. 22-26.
206 For FS (Furumarkshape) and FM (Furumarkmotif) numbers see Furumark 1941.
PROJECT:PARTI
Ambelofyto Lagou(POSI I21), and Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI; Figs. 13:25, 14:8).207
Fabrics are semicoarse or coarse, often with large pebbles and/or tan grog inclusions.
The exterior profile of the leg may be straight, or it may curve slightly; its section may
be oval or a flattened oval; the leg tapers in thickness toward its base, which in some
examples splays slightly. The tripod cooking pot is well documented in later MH and
earlier LH excavated deposits at Nichoria and Peristeria.208 It is absent, however, in
the excavated LH I deposit at Tragana Voroulia, where the dominant cooking pot is the
coarse wide-mouthed jar with one vertical handle, a type also represented in our surface
collections (see below, with note 212).
The majorityof the other semicoarseand coarse pottery that we have dated to MH III-
LH II consists of sherds of handmade thick-walledvessels in a semicoarse or coarse fabric,
normally tempered with stone and especially grog inclusions. These wares are attested
at many PRAP sites, including Metaxada Kalopsana(POSI A2), Hora ThePalaceofNestor
(POSI B7), Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI DI), Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI), and Maryeli
Koutsouveri(POSI LI). A coarse, reddish yellow fabric with tan grog inclusions is common
(7.5YR 8/6-6/8) for both pithoi and smallerdomestic shapes (Fig. 13:20, 22, 26),209as is a
semicoarse light-grayware (1OYR7/1; Fig. 13:12).210 The high percentage of semicoarse
and coarse wares in our collections is a feature also of the major excavated Messenian
pottery deposits of this time, from Malthi, Nichoria, Koukounara Katarrahaki, Tragana
Voroulia,Hora Volimidia (GAC D20), and Peristeria.
Principal semicoarse and coarse-ware shapes represented in our collections include
pithoi (representedby thickened rims that are either rounded or flattened on top, bases,
shoulder fragments with relief bands, and body fragments);21' large closed jars with
horizontal belly handles, cylindricalin section (base, body, and neck fragments and round
belly handles);212and deep, open or wide-mouthed jars with flaring or everted rims and
a single raised vertical handle (Fig. 13:20-24).213 The last type has complete or nearly
complete parallels from excavated deposits at Nichoria and Tragana Voroulia.214
207 B94-90740517-07, B94-90740619-03, and two examplesfromB94-90740914, uncatalogued(POSI B7);

D93-901124-05 (POSI Dl); L94-170-02 (L. 0.093; POSI I21); Fig. 13:25: K94-901141-04 (L. 0.045;
POSI Ki). Other examples can be dated no more closely than MH-LH II: Fig. 13:27: C92-158-07
(POSI B7). The shape itself seems to have been introduced well before the start of the Late Bronze Age:
see our MH examples, B94-90740609-02 and Fig. 14:8: K94-084-05 (POSI Ki).
208
See Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, pp. 480, 488; Lolos 1987, p. 381.
209 Fig. 13:26: A92- 171-15 (pithos with raised-band decoration imitating rope) and
B93-90721208-01 (pithos);Fig. 13:20: A92-171-14, Fig. 13:22: A92-171-01, B92-299-03, and D93-222-02
(jars);B93-90721208-02 and K94-9034952GR-04 (bowls).
210 I92-9010463-03.
211 E.g., K94-137-01; K94-901151-03; K94-901122-02; K94-901221 -01; K94-901221-02;
K94-901222-01; K94-901241-06; K94-901251-01; K94-901251-02; K94-901252-05; K94-901261-01;
K94-901272-01; K94-901362-02.
212 E.g., B92-101-11, B92-101-12 (handles), and several other cylindrical belly handles at Gargaliani
Kanalos(POSI Dl) and Gargaliani Ordines(POSI K1), where there is much MH-early LH pottery like that
excavated at the Palace of Nestor by Blegen.
213 Among numerous examples are Fig. 13:22: A92-171-01; Fig. 13:21: A92-171-02; Fig. 13:24:
A92-171-05, Fig. 13:23: A92-171-06; and Fig. 13:20: A92-171-14 (POSI A2).
214 See Howell 1992, P285 1, P2852, P2853 (X),P2854, fig. 3:78 (MH III, coarse ware);Dickinson, Martin,
and Shelmerdine 1992, P3055, fig. 9:6, pl. 9:12 (LH I); Lolos 1987, figs. 83-85, 86:f-g, 90-94.
442 J. L.DAVIS,S.E.ALCOCK,J.
BENNET,
Y.G.LOLOS,ANDC.W SHELMERDINE
More specialized domestic MH III-LH II coarse vessel shapes are rare. Examples
include a wall-and-handlefragmentfrom a brazier(FS 312), with a parallelfrom the tholos
tomb at Koryfasio Haratsari(Fig. 13:19),215and a body sherd from a jar or cup-strainer
(FS 314) with three perforations, similar to excavated examples from MH deposits at
Nichoria, Petrohori Voidokoilia, Routsi Kaloyeropoulou Tumulus,and a LH I deposit from
Tragana Voroulia.216 A large fragment of a possible spinning bowl preserves part of an
interior handle (P1.89:d) and has parallels in finds from Volimidia Kephalovryso Tomb1,
Nichoria, and the Palace of Nestor.217Possiblyalso of MH III-LH II date is a fragment of
a thick-walledvessel with four deeply punched holes.218
Early Mycenaean fine wares that can be dated specifically to LH I-II are well
represented in the PRAP collections. The most common unpainted LH I shape is the
goblet, which is easily recognizable from foot fragments.219 LH I feet belong to one-
handled or two-handled versions of the short-stemmed goblet (FS 261, 263, 268, 270),
a vase type, undoubtedly of MH ancestry,that is exceptionally common among the small
open shapes made in fine plain wares during LH I in Messenia and elsewhere.220Most are
in a plain, soft fabric with a gray (5YR 4/ 1, 5YR 7/ 1) to very pale brown (1OYR7/3) core
and reddish yellow surfaces (5YR 7/6-6/8), although some are homogeneously reddish
yellow. Compared to those of later goblets, LH I goblet feet are generally low and usually
conical or splaying conical in form. Unlike the broader feet of their LH II descendants,
which are frequently hollowed underneath, they are solid, flat, or only slightly concave
underneath. On the whole, they are rather carelessly modeled, without a well-defined
stem (this being in many cases almost nonexistent). A small type, with a small (Diam.
0.025-0.045 m) concave or flat button base diagnostic of LH I, is present at Metaxada
Kalopsana (POSI A2), Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7; Fig. 14:1, 2, 4), GargalianiMegas
Kambos(1) (POSI D2), Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI II), and Gargaliani Ordines(POSI Ki;
Fig. 14:5).221
215 B92-115-06; see Blegen 1954, p. 161.

216 B94-90740616-18 (plain);see Howell 1992, P2033, fig. 3:lb (MH I, Group A), P2233 (3) and 2236 (3),
fig. 3:17 (MH I, Group C); Lolos 1987, fig. 86:e.
217 L94-9012664-01; cf. Hora Volimidia,KefalovrisoTomb 1 (Marinatos 1966b, pl. 90:e PlateMHJ; Lolos
1987, figs. 364, 365); and Nichoria (Carington Smith 1992, p. 710 [no. 2783], pl. 11:34 [LH IIA?]). Blegen
also found a handle fragment of a MH spinning bowl in Trench S at the Palace of Nestor (unpublished).
218 K94-901231-05 (of coarse fabric). Pieces of similar MH-LH vessels have been found in Blegen's
excavation dump at the Palace of Nestor.
219 E.g., B92-107-01, B94-90740612-16, B94-90740817-02), B94-90740619-02, and C92-156-08
(POSI B7); D94-902425-01 (POSI D2); I92-001-03 and I92-9010492-01 (POSI II); I94-9030181GR-06
(POSI I3); K94-901112-02, K94-901231-03, K94-901141-03, K94-901212-01, K94-901222-13,
K94-901222-14, K94-901232-02, K94-901346-01, and K94-901466-01 (POSI KI).
220 On the occurrence of LH I plain goblets in settlement and tomb contexts in the southwestern part
of the Peloponnesos see Lolos 1987, pp. 140, 340-342; Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, p. 478.
221 E.g., A94-9024792-01 (POSI A2); Fig. 14:1: B92-096-01; B94-90740612-15; Fig. 14:4: C92-155-04;
Fig. 14:2: C92-158-05 (POSI B7); D94-902342-01 (POSI D2); I92-9010144-01 (POSI II); Fig. 14:5:
K94-137-03 (with partial fingerprint preserved in bottom of bowl; POSI KI). Sites with parallels in-
clude Nichoria (Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3149, P3150, P3151, fig. 9:3), Katarrahaki,
Volimidia, and Peristeria,East House (see Lolos 1987, fig. 64).
PROJECT:PARTI 443
Many other fine unpainted sherds can be dated to LH I-II. These include ladles,222
dippers,223conical cups (FS 204; Fig. 14:11),224bowls/basins,225smalljars,226probable
kraters,227and cups/small bowls with everted rims and strap handles.228 Many base
fragmentsof short-stemmedgoblets can be dated to LH I-IIA (Fig. 14:12, 13),229as can a
strap handle fragment from a goblet/kantharos, coated with a purple wash on its exterior
face (Fig. 14:9).230Other goblets, with larger,more carefullyshaped feet are of LH I_II,231
and several feet (two of them well burnished)can be dated specificallyto LH IIA on the
basis of their size, shape, craftsmanship,and the fineness of their fabric (Fig. 14:10, 14).232
Also of specific LH II date are a horizontal bowl rim and a small cup,233 as well as a
number of plain goblet feet with deep central cavities beneath.234
The LH I Vapheio cup (FS 224), the most common fine decorated shape in all LH I
settlement deposits in the southwestern Peloponnesos,235is represented in our surface
collections by a single fragment, a base from Tragana Voroulia (POSI C3), a location where
similar examples have been excavated.236Like cups found there by Marinatos, it is white
slipped and has a dark brown band at the base outside, with the edge of the underside of
the base painted (Fig. 14:3).237The few LH I-IIA sherdswith lustrous-painteddecoration
include three Vapheio cup rims (FS 224). One, from Hora ThePalaceofNestor,preservesno
decoration other than the characteristicrim banding (Fig. 15:21).238The other two are
from Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI D1); one is decorated with reddish tortoise-shell ripple
pattern (FM 78; Fig. 14:7),the other with a poorly preservedmotif consisting of black dots
222 B92-108-09.
223 C92-166-20.
224 B92-101-08; Fig 14:11: B92-101-09; C92-156-09.
225
B94-90740617-05; B94-90740615-06; D93-901333-01; K94-9034953GR-03. B94-90740612-17, a
bowl with a horizontal rim (cf. FS 295), is also of this date.
226
B93-90720505-02, K94-901342-01 (neck/shoulders);K94-901142-01 (smalljar or alabastronhandle);
B92-114-09, I92-9010171-03 (bases).
227
B94-90740516-09 (rim);I92-023-02 (base).
228 D93-901121-05 (POSI DI); I92-9010145-02 (POSI II).
229
E.g., Fig. 14:12: B92-097-02 (contiguousto POSI B7); Fig. 14:13: I92-005-07; I92-016-08; I92-023-02.
230 B92-108-10. For purple wash in LH II at Nichoria see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992,
p. 488 (tripod legs).

231 I92-058-15 (foot);B94-90740708-02 (rim;Diam. 0.11Im).
232 E.g., B94-907407 16-01; Fig. 14:14: C92-156-04; D93-901281-01. Fig. 14:10: D93-256-02, a fragment
preservingpart of a foot and the lower body of a goblet, is a particularlyfine example; it has a light-brown
fabric with highly burnished surfaces.
233 B94-90741107-06 (cup);D93-901133-11 (bowl).
234 E.g., I92-9010151-05; K94-901454-01, K94-901252-01, K94-901111-01. On LH II goblets at
Nichoria see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, p. 486. Still other sherds of plain goblets and
other plain open shapes with strap handles can be dated no more closely than LH II-IIIA: e.g., B92-108-05,
B92-109-01, and I92-9014422-01 (goblets).
235 See Lolos 1987, pp. 240-260; Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, p. 474.
236
See Korres 1978, pp. 271-281; Lolos 1987, pp. 60-95.
237 C92-903111-01.
238 B93-90721612-01.
44471Iii
2 3
5 6
7 8 9
b 9.. __ {~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. ,,:::
s............ ..
X fl ~~~~~~~~~~
......... ~ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..
.......
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........... . . ..... ....... .........=.....
/ 7 15
.............
_ .......
lI ? ,_ - o .- 2 . __ 4 1i 8 lo ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-\~14 8 118
19 / = . | t 21~~~~
/I
20
1 __ 21
0 2 4 6 8 10
ru
~~~~~~cm. 2
23
FIG.15. Mycenaean pottery (1-12; 14-23); Roman (13). (RosemaryJ. Robertson).

(1) B93-90720606-01; (2) B93-90721611 -01; (3) B92-090-02; (4) B93-90721612-02;
(5) B92-109-02; (6) C92-166-08; (7) K94-901252-03; (8) B92-093-01; (9) K94-901131-03;
(10) D93-461-01; (11) C92-145-01; (12) B93-90710805-05; (13) B93-90722015-01;
(14) C92-166-06; (15) C92-166-07; (16) K94-901251-03; (17) B92-299-04; (18) B92-092-09;
(19) B92-110-01; (20) B92-101-03; (21) B93-90721612-01; (22) B92-114-04; (23) B92-092-03
(Fig. 14:6).239Lustrouspaint also appears on a rim fragmentof a semiglobular(?)cup with

a band at the rim240(FS21 1);a rim fragmentof a cup with a solidlypainted straphandle;24'
and a solidly painted body fragment from a small jar (FS 27) or alabastron (FS 80, 81,
83) preservingpart of a horizontal handle, its section a flattened cylinder.242Exceptional
among our Early Mycenaean lustrous-paintedsherds is a flanged handle fragment from
Gargaliani Ordines(POSI Kl; Fig. 14:16), probably part of a LH IIA bridge-spoutedjug
(FS 103, 104), with bars on its outer face and an applied clay "rivet"near its bottom.243
Some painted sherdsare clearlylater in date than LH IIA. Forexample, a rim fragment
in fine, pale-yellow fabric may be part of an Ephyraean goblet (FS 254; Fig. 14:15),244
a type-fossilof LH IIB that does not, however,appear to have been as popular in western
Messenia as in the northeastern Peloponnesos.245A body sherd with a red spiral motif
of LH IIB type (FM 47:2) from the Palace of Nestor is one of only a few Early Mycenaean
sherds collected by PRAP that preserve a recognizable motif in lustrouspaint.246
LateHelladicIIIA-B Pottery
LH IIIAI-2. Ninety percent of the clearly datable LH IIIA pottery found during
the surveycomes from Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7), but small quantities are present
at other sites (POSIs A2, C3, Dl, I1, I3, I21, Kl, and K3). More pottery from these
sites no doubt is also LH IIIA in date but, lacking good diagnostic features, can only be
assignedgenerally to LH IIIA-B (see pp. 449-451 below). The materialis overwhelmingly
of settlement character,with a wide range of large and small open shapes that are typically
Mycenaean in details of profile, fabric, and paint. Specifically LH IIIA1 material is
especially hard to distinguish. A body sherd from a cup (FS 219) with stipple above a
base band certainly belongs to this phase,247and so probably do several goblet rims from
POSI B7 (FS 255; Fig. 15:11).248 A somewhat larger number of sherds decorated in
good red paint can be dated to LH IIIA2. Decorated kylikes are represented by banded
stems and by one body sherd decorated with diagonal whorl-shell (FM 23).249 Coated
kylikesfrom POSI B7 and from Gargaliani Ordines (POSI Kl) belong to this period as well
(Fig. 15:8).250Also found at POSI B7 were the bottom part of an elegant stemmed bowl
239 Fig. 14:6: D93-901133-05 (dots);Fig. 14:7: D93-901133-06 (bands).
240 D93-901133-07(POSIDl).
241 B92-111-01.
242 B92-111-02.
243 K94-901373-01. On "rivets"and other metallic features of LH IIA vases see Mountjoy 1993, p. 38.
For a corpus of LH I-IIA vases carrying plastic "rivets"from sites in the southwestern Peloponnesos see
Lolos 1987, pp. 541-545.
244 C92-132-01.
245 There are several
examples from Nichoria (Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, pp. 481-482;
P3235, pl. 9:17; P3236, pl. 9:19; P3326, fig. 9:11; P3482, pl. 9:40; P3512, pl. 9:43; P3536, fig. 9:23, pl. 9:48;
P3537, pl. 9:48.
246 B94-90740616-07.
247
B94-90740516-01; see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3580, fig. 9:27.
248
Fig. 15:11: C92-145-01 (decorated);see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3563, fig. 9:24;
B94-90740617-02 (coated);B94-90740617-03 (plain).
249
C92-150-14 (stem);B94-90730120-01 (body sherd with whorl-shell).
250
Fig. 15:8: B92-093-0 1; see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3671, fig.9:41; K94-901262-04.
1 2 3 4
y 8 ) 910A\ 1
//
1
6
\/
4A117 \\
1377K
12 13 14 15
829-02300;()B49701-5 4 D9 9 103-6 F26 11
0 2 4 6~~~8 10 F10;()
~~~ ~cm.
16 17 18 19
FIG. 16. Late Mycenaean pottery and small finds (RosemaryJ. Robertson). (1) B93-90720506-2 1;
(2) B93-90721310-09; (3) B94-90740616-05; (4) D93-901133-16; (5) SF0108; (6) SF0206;
(7) SF0107; (8) C92-168-01; (9) B92-307-01; (10) B94-90740616-03; (11) B92-092-08;
(12) K94-901241-01; (13) B92-101-04; (14) L94-170-06; (15) B92-095-01; (16) B92-090-13;
(17) K94-901252RV-02; (18) B92-091-04; (19) B92-905000TB-01
with banded foot, its lower body coated inside and out (Fig. 16:13),251and a painted ring
base from a small closed shape, probably a piriformjar.252Two rim/handle fragments of
shallow angularbowls (FS 295) can also be dated to LH IIIA2 by their profile (Fig. 15:2).253
Material of general LH IIIA date includes kylikes,most of them plain but several coated
251 B92-101-04.
252 C92-144-02.
253 Fig. 15:2: B93-9072161 1-01; see
Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3730, P3731, fig. 9:48;
B94-90740317-07.
PROJECT:PARTI
bright red;254plain and painted teacups (FS 220);255a painted ring base probably from a
krater(FS 7, 8);256smalljar fragmentsalso with traces of red paint; a false neck with spiral
decoration from a stirrupjar; and a possible banded alabastron rim.257 A particularly
interestingfind was a tinned kylix stem from Ambelofyto Lagou(POSI I2 1);the practice of
tinning is most common in LH IIIA1 but continues in LH IIIA2.258
LH IIIA2-LH IIIB. This group includes pottery from the height of the Mycenaean
period, produced duringthe time a palace existed on the Englianos ridge. The designation
LH IIIA2-B covers pottery that is not specificallydiagnostic of either period but belongs
in the general category of standard Mycenaean pottery. It excludes distinctly early or
backward-lookingLH IIIA material, however,and emphasizes the later part of LH IIIA2
and LH IIIB. A few pieces can be specificallyassigned to LH IIA2, late, a few more to
LH IIIB1, early, and quite a number to LH IIIB. In this connection it is worth noting
that a true transitional LH IIIA2/IIIB I phase seems to exist at several sites. At Korakou
and Tsoungiza, deposits of this date have been described as early LH IIIB1, with some
characteristicsof late LH IIIA2.259At Nichoria the double chronologicallabel was chosen,
instead, to describe a genuine phase of mixed character.260The pottery there shows some
features that are typical of late LH IIIA2 deposits at Mycenae (diagonal whorl-shells and
rather naturalistic motifs, a high proportion of decorated kylikes and stemmed bowls),
and others typical of early LH IIIB1 deposits at that site (deep bowls, Zygouries kylikes,
and conical kylikes).
Obviously, surface finds cannot be treated or dated like an excavation deposit. It
is notable, however, that some of our survey pieces are datable on stylistic grounds to
the range LH IIIA2, late-LH IIIB1, and their best parallels come from such transitional
deposits. Most of the sherds in question are from the town around the palace, and they
attest to a variety of shapes. A deep bowl rim (FS 284) with typical rim profile has traces of
decoration, probably a spiral, below a rim band (Fig. 15:19).261 The reddish paint on
a pink/buff fabric (1OYR8/5) argues for a date very late in LH IIIA2 or early in LH IIIB;
later in LH IIIB the paint is consistently brown to black.262 Decorated kylikes are also
represented at Hora ThePalaceof Nestor(POSI B7) by banded rims and a black-banded
254 B94-90740914, uncatalogued (coated);B94-90740517-01, D93-901133-08 (plain).

255 B94-90740615-07, B94-90740617-04 (painted rims);B94-90740612-02 (exterior bands above coated
base).
256 C92-150-06.
257 B94-90740616-01, C92-151-04 (jar fragments with traces of decoration above bands);
B94-90740516-02 (stirrupjar neck);B94-90740612-06 (alabastronrim).
258
194-921000-01. On tinning in general see Immerwahr 1966; Gillis 1994, with references. Examples of
LH IIIA1 date come from a number of sites in Messenia and elsewhere;see the good discussioninAgoraXIII,
pp. 118, 127-128, 151, Tomb I-12 (pp. 164-165), Tomb III (pp. 171-175). Later examples do occur; there
are 19 in one tomb at Berbati (Holmberg 1983, nos. 31, 33-41, 45, 46, 49, 50, pp. 34-50; discussion p. 49).
A LH II1A2date is reasonablefor all examples illustratedby Holmberg (Mountjoy [1993, p. 75] refersto this
tomb as the source of 14 tinned vases of LH IIIA2).
259 Korakou, East Alley deposit: Rutter 1974. Tsoungiza, rubbish pit deposit in EU2: Wright et al. 1990,
p. 637; Thomas 1992; Thomas, forthcoming.
260 Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, p. 503.
261 B92-1 10-01.
262
It is now acknowledged that the deep bowl begins to occur already near the end of LH IIIA2, giving
further support to the notion of a transitionalphase: Mountjoy 1986, p. 91.
stem and foot, a feature typical of late LH IIIA2 and IIIB1.263 Another stem is more
finely slipped than is usual for plain ware in Messenia; thus it could be from a LH IIIB1,
earlyZygourieskylix, although not enough of the body is preservedto show decoration.264
Small cups and bowls are also attested in very small fragmentsat this site. Koryfasio Portes
(POSI 13) also yielded several cup and kylix fragments, including the banded rim of a
decorated kylix with the rounded profile that marks LH IIIA2, late-LH IIIB1, early.265
From Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI DI) comes a body fragment from a cup, preserving one
interior and three exterior bands.266
Clearly identifiable fine, small, closed shapes are rare, as one would expect from
predominantly settlement material. From POSI B7 come a number of banded stirrup-
or pithoid-jar shoulders, one with the edge of a decorative motif above thick and thin
bands (Fig. 16:1).267Two finds associatedwith tombs were also recoveredthat date to this
phase. One is the base of a piriform or stirrupjar, coated red, found near the palace
(Fig. 16:19).268 The other comes from a grave site at Valta Kastraki(POSI K3). The
mayor of Valta reported that a child's skull was found here some years ago. We were
pleased, therefore, to discover among the sherds collected amid the remains of the grave
the complete profileof a LH IIIA2 or IIIB1 child'sfeeding bottle (FS 160 or 161)decorated
with a filled tricurved arch (FM 62). Only the spout was missing, and UMME reported
finding a feeding-bottle spout at this site 25 years ago.269
A much larger amount of material could be assigned to LH IIIB than to LH IIIA.
Most common is plain ware, which bears a strongresemblanceto materialfrom the Palace
of Nestor. Included in this category is a soft greenish white/greenish yellow fabric (5Y
8/1, 8/2; 2.5Y 8/2, 8/4) very distinctive in Messenia in this period. LH IIIB material is
very common in surface material collected around the palace and in other locations as
well: Gargaliani Kanalos(POSI Dl), GargalianiMegasKambos(1) (POSI D2), Vromoneri
Pigadia(POSI G3), Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI11), Koryfasio Portes(POSI13), Romanou
Romanou(POSI 14), Ambelofyto Lagou(POSI I21), Gargaliani Ordines(POSI KI), and
Valta Kastraki(POSI K3). Painted ware is marked by dark brown to black paint. A
decorated body sherd from POSI D 1 with two vertical bands beside the stump of a round
horizontal handle probably comes from a deep bowl (FS 284; Fig. 16:4).270 A ring base
from POSI B7, with a black band around the interior as well as the exterior,is more likely
to be from a Group A deep bowl than a cup, in view of its 0.06 m diameter (Fig. 16:10),
while Group B deep bowls are represented by a base from POSI Il with coated interior
and a band above the base on the exterior.271 Similar handles and ring bases attest to
263 B93-90721209-03 (rim);B93-90711310-01 (banded stem, bowl coated on interior);B94-90740612-07

(foot).
264 B92-114-11.
265 I92-016-0 1.
266 D93-901132-09.
267 B93-90720506-2 1.
268 B92-905000TB-0 1.
269
K94-9035041TA-01; see McDonald and Hope Simpson 1969, p. 146.
270 D93-901133-16.
271 Fig. 16:10: B94-90740616-03
(Group A); I92-9010191-03 (Group B).
PROJECT:PARTI
the presence of deep bowls at POSIs I3 and KI as well. Two ring bases from POSI B7 are
coated inside and out, but it is not clear whether they come from coated or decorated deep
bowls. Other painted open shapes include kraters, cups with banded rims, bowls, and
basins (FS 294; Fig. 15:16).272There are also a few decorated body sherds: one with traces
of spiral decoration, one showing a tricurvedarch with spiralfill (FM 62:28), and one with
a lozenge or triangle beside a triglyphand metope.273Identifiableclosed shapes are quite
rare among painted ware, but some body sherds and belly handles clearly come fromjars.
POSI B7 yielded a banded jug rim, while the coated lower body of an angular alabastron
was noted at POSI 14.274
Plain ware exhibits the range of shapes usual in settlements and is well documented
from excavations at the Palace of Nestor. Kylikes are very common; rims are attested for
both the angular type (FS 267; Fig. 15:6)275and the rounded variety (FS 266; Fig. 15:12,
14).276Small feet, both string cut and hollowed, can be associated with the angular kylix,
and larger feet and tall straight stems, with the rounded-profilekylix.277 A large (Diam.
0. 13 m) torusbase belongs to a krater(FS 9; Fig. 16:18).278Among smalleropen shapes, the
shallow angular bowl (FS 295) is well represented. The rims are hard to distinguishfrom
the angular kylix, unless the horizontal strap handle is preserved (Fig. 15:1, 3).279 Bases
are typically flat and string cut, but an example from POSI KI has a concave underside
(Fig. 16:17).280 Several other rims belong to cups and bowls of various shapes (Fig. 15:17)
and to dippers with high-swung handles.281 Closed shapes are certainly present as well,
though in smaller numbers. Amphora handles and flat bases were noted at most sites,
but from such scrappy material no other shapes securely datable to LH IIIB could be
identified.
Apart from these more specifically diagnostic pieces, a great deal of pottery was
recovered that is generally representativeof LH IIIA-B ceramic styles. In painted ware
almost all the typical Mycenaean shapes are attested. Banded stems of decorated kylikes
were noted at POSIs B7, Dl, 13, and KI.282 POSIs B7 and KI also produced stemmed-
bowl stems (FS 304, 305) with a band of paint preserved on the exterior at the base of the
bowl (Fig. 16:12), and coated stemmed bowls are also attested, chiefly at POSI B7 but
in smaller numbers at POSIs Il, 14, and 121.283 Definite kraterfragmentsare scarce, but a
272 B94-90740712-03, I94-9030181GR-03 (krater rim and ring base); B93-90721109-02,
B93-90721109-03 (cups);B93-90721310-08 (bowl);I92-9010192-03, Fig. 15:16: K94-901251-03 (basin).
273 B94-90740518-01 (spiral);B94-90740616-06 (tricurvedarch);B94-90740615-10 (lozenge).
274 B93-90721209-04 (jug); I92-024-17 (alabastron).
275 B92-115-01; B93-90720605-03; Fig. 15:6: C92-166-08.
276 Fig. 15:12: B93-90710805-05; Fig. 15:14: C92-166-06; I92-9010914-03; K94-901241-02.
277 B93-90720505-09 (string-cutfoot of FS 267); B92-088-03 (foot of FS 266).
278 B92-091-04.
279 Fig. 15:1: B93-90720606-01, Fig. 15:3: B92-090-02, I94-921000-02 (rims with handles in
"palace
ware");see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3793, fig. 9:57.
280 K94-90 1252RV-02.
281
C92-166-1 1 (cup);Fig. 15:17: B92-299-04 (bowl);B92-1 10-03, C92-166-19 (dippers).
282 B93-90721208-06; D93-901134-01; I92-016-06; K94-901231-02.
283 B93-90721611-04, Fig. 16:12: K94-901241-01 (decorated);B93-90721310-05, I92-9010192, uncat-
alogued, 193-9040441GR-08, L94- 170-07 (POSI 121) (coated).
wide (0.045 m) vertical handle of FS 8, 9 should be mentioned: the sides of the handle
are painted, and there is a reserve stripe down the middle.284 Cup rims are small and
fragmentary,and most have the everted profile of the teacup (FS 220).285 A few small
ring bases probably belong to the same shape (FS 220), including one from the Palace
of Nestor with its exterior (as far as is preserved)coated darkbrown.286We noted a range
of small and large bowls. A rim fragment from POSI B7 with transversebands on the
upper surface has the profile of a LH IIIB basin (FS 294); it has a deep rim band on the
exterior, and the interior is coated.287 Also from Hora 7he Palaceof Nestorcomes a large
rim fragment in gritty fabric, coated red inside and out (Fig. 15:20).288Several rim sherds
with a band at the rim come from smallerbowls;289one with an additional band below the
rim may belong to the deep but small one-handled bowl (FS 283) of LH 11LA2.290From
the vicinity of the palace comes a rim fragment of a bridge-spouted bowl (FS 300, 301)
coated red inside and out (Fig. 16:8).291A body sherd with spiral decoration is probably
from a mug (FS 225, 226), given its concave profile (Fig. 16:2).292 Decorated dippers
(FS 236) are represented by a small fragment of rim and handle; there is brown paint
on and around the handle and two thin bands below the handle zone (Fig. 16:3).293
Closed shapes include both small and largejars. Usually on jugs andjars the only paint
preservedis secondary: a band at the rim, base of the neck, or on the shoulder or paint on
the exterior of a raised base.294 However, a few body sherds with traces of decoration
above bands also come fromjars.295 Several coated ring bases could belong to piriform
or stirrupjars; only one fragment is large enough to classify definitely.296A number of
banded shoulder fragments suffer from the same ambiguity, but a wide horizontal rim
with fugitive paint belongs to a piriformjar, and the false neck of a small stirrupjar was
also catalogued.297 All piriform- and stirrup-jarfragments but one belong to small, fine
versionsof those shapes and come from the elite center,Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7).
It is interesting that the one exception, from POSI I3, is the top of a false neck from a
much larger coarse stirrupjar, of the utilitariantransportand storage variety.298
Plain wares of general LH IIIA-B date are similarin their range of shapes and fabrics
to published material from the excavated Messenian sites of the Palace of Nestor and
Nichoria. They are common throughoutthe surveyarea, but it is no surprisethat they are
284 B94-907406 12-08.
285 B92-093-02 (decorated);B92- 114-13 (coated).
286 B92-116-04.
287 B94-90740717-01.
288 B92-101-03.
289 C92-154-01.
290 B93-90720406-07.
291 C92-168-0 1.
292 B93-9072 1310-09.
293 B94-90740616-05.
294 B94-90740716-03 (rim);K94-901242-03 (shoulder);B93-90720406-08 (base).
295 B94-90740517-09.
296 C92-150-07 (piriformjar).
297 B93-90721310-04 (rim);B93-90711308-01 (shoulder);B94-90730120-02 (false neck).
298 I92-016-05.
PROJECT:PARTI
especiallypredominantat POSI B7. As usual, kylikesare ubiquitousand easy to recognize,

both among rim sherds (Fig. 15:4, 15) and by their stems and feet (Fig. 16:14).299Kraters
are represented by rims, belly handles, and a few stems/feet of FS 8, 9 from the palace
and POSIs II (Beylerbey)and KI (Ordines).300 Small conical rim fragments could be
from cups or kylikes, but a few small flat bases confirm the presence of conical cups.301
Also noted were the everted rims, small vertical handles, and flat or slightly raised bases
(Fig. 16:16) of teacups (FS 220).302 Bowl rims come in a variety of shapes and sizes,
including rounded types impossible to classify securely (Fig. 15:5).303 Easier to identify
are a horizontal basin rim (FS 294) and several shallow angular bowls with horizontal
strap handles (FS 295); the base of the latter shape is also attested.304 A few dipper
fragments could also be identified (Fig. 15:18).305 More unusual are the lower body of
a rhyton from POSI B7 and a fine-ware tripod foot from POSI KI.3 Closed shapes are
distinctlyin the minority,but a number of horizontaland vertical round-sectionedhandles
come from jugs or jars, as do several flat and raised bases, as well as one with a slightly
concave underside,307 and rims of severaltypes (Fig. 15:7, 9).308In semicoarse and coarse
fabrics,309body sherds are common enough, but few shapes could be identified; these
include pithos rims (Fig. 15:23), tripod legs (Fig. 16:11), and a few bowl (Fig. 15:22) and
low-neckedjar rims.310More distinctiveare the stirrupjar mentioned above and a brazier
handle, pierced near the body end.311
LateHelladiclIC-GeometricPottery
Very little pottery found by the survey is distinctively LH IIIC in date, but approx-
imately 15 sherds fall in the range of late LH IIIB-IIIC. Most of these come from Hora
ThePalaceof Nestor,but isolated examples were noted at POSIs D2 and I3. The coated
deep bowl makes its first appearance in Messenia late in LH IIIB,312and some coated
belly handles and body sherds among our material could come from coated deep bowls
299 Fig. 15:4: B93-90721612-02, Fig. 15:15: C92-166-07 (rims); B92-090-01 1, B92-101-06, Fig. 16:14:
L94- 170-06 (foot with stem).
300 I92-005-09, K94-901352-01.
301 B93-90321209-07, C92-166-15 (rims);C92-151-02 (base).
302 B92-090-04, I92-9010141-02, K94-901121-04 (rims); D93-901132-02, K94-901272-03 (handles);
Fig. 16:16: B92-090-13 (base).
303 Fig. 15:5: B92-109-02; see Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3790, fig. 9:56.
304 B93-90721410-01 (basin); B93-90720707-05, B94-90740516-12 (shallow angular bowl rims);
D93-901133-21 (shallow angular bowl base).
305 Fig. 15:18: B92-092-09; B93-90720406-05; I92-9010145-03.
306 C92-150-12 (rhyton);K94-901121-06 (tripodfoot).
307 B92-093-05.
308 I92-005-04 (collar neck); Fig. 15:7: K94-901252-03 (horizontal everted rim); B94-90740612-11,
Fig. 15:9: K94-901131-03 (flaringrims).
309 Semicoarse: inclusions 0.01-0.04 m in length or diameter; coarse: inclusions larger than 0.04 m.
310 Fig. 15:23: B92-092-03 (pithos); Fig. 16:11: B92-092-08 (tripod);Fig. 15:22: B92-1 14-04 (bowl); see
Dickinson, Martin, and Shelmerdine 1992, P3741, fig. 9:49 (bowl), and P3871, fig. 9:70; B92-114-03 (jar).
311 Note 298 above (stirrupjar); B94-90740816-01 (brazier).
312
Examples are known from Nichoria, the Menelaion, and Korakou, among other places. See discussion
and references in JVichoria
II, p. 513 with note 8.
452 J. L. DAVIS,S. E. ALCOCK,J.BENNET,Y G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE
(FS 284).3'3 Kylix stems with bulges are unmistakablesigns of LH IIIC, but we recov-
ered just three of these, two of them from POSI B7 and the other from an isolated tract
(Fig. 16:15).'14 Also suggestiveof a LH IIIC or later date are a soft, white fabric and black
coating on painted pieces. On these grounds a small horizontal basin rim in a whitish
fabric (IOYR8/2), softer than the usual palace ware, may be LH IIIC, as may severalkylix
fragmentsand other body sherds coated black on the interior and exterior (Fig. 15:1O).315
Among our surface material, Submycenaean-Geometric pottery is similarly charac-
terized by its very soft fabric, colors more green or more white in tone than during LH IIIB,
and dark,often washypaint.316Isolated examplescome from most parts of the surveyarea,
but identifiableshapes are few: skyphoi,cups, and kraterspredominate,with a fewjugs and
jars represented. A few body sherdsfrom POSIs Il, I4, and K 1 are coated or banded in the
washy black paint typical of the Dark Age generally,from the Submycenaean through the
Protogeometricperiod (P1.90:a, left).317It is, however,impossibleon our evidence to show
continuity of occupation at Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7) from the Bronze Age to the
Geometric period.318After the two LH IIIC kylix stems mentioned above, only a handful
of pieces from this site appear to fall in the Submycenaean-Geometric range, and they are
concentrated in a small area just southwest of the site's fence, beyond the Southwestern
Building. These are a collar-neckedjar rim and a body sherd from a closed shape with
spiral decoration (P1.90:b; both Submycenaean-Protogeometricin date), a ledge-rimmed
bowl rim and a coated skyphosrim (Submycenaean-[Early]Geometric), a coated cup rim
(Protogeometric),and an everted bowl rim and a small oval strap handle (Middle/Late
Protogeometric-Early Geometric).319FourteenGeometric fragmentscome from a rather
wider area around the palace; they include the ribbed stem of a stemmed cup, several
coated bowl rims, and a thin body sherd, probably from a cup, coated on the interior
and decorated on the exterior with concentric semicircles above a thick band (P1.90:a,
at right).320 A similar concentration of seven Geometric sherds comes from Gargaliani
Ordines(POSI KI). Diagnostic pieces include an oinochoe rim with a flat strap handle
and black paint on interior and exterior, two coated krater stems, and a small shoulder
fragment from a closed shape with traces of thin vertical bands on the exterior.321Isolated
Geometric sherds were also noted at POSIs A2, Dl, D2, Il, and 14, while a number of
sherds from all over the survey area belong generally to the Geometric-Archaic range.
Apart from two or three amphora and otherjar rims, the identifiablesherds are from open
313 B94-90740616-10; C92-150-16.
314 Fig. 16:15: B92-095-01 (tract);C92-152-02, C92-166-26 (POSI B7).
115 Fig. 15:10: D93-46 1-01 (basin);B94-90740516-004, B94-90740616-11, I94-9030181 GR-01 (kylikes).
316 We prefer traditional terminology (DarkAge I-III) to the chronological scheme laid out and explained
in ViwhoriaIII, pp. 318-322. We are indebted to Dr. Birgitta Eder of the Osterreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaftenfor her assistance in analyzing our LH IIIC-Geometric material.
317 D94-902442-0 1.
318
The workof the Minnesota Pylos Project,however,may clarify'the question of post-palatialoccupation;
see Griebel and Nelson 1993.
319
C92-145-02 (jar rim); P1. 90:b: B94-90740708-01 (body sherd); B94-90740616-21 (ledge-rim bowl);
B94-90740613-17 (skyphos);B94-90740616-09 (cup);B94-90740613-18 (bowl);B94-90740613-19 (handle).
320 B94-90740910-01 (stem);B94-90740317-05 (bowl);P1.90:a: B94-9074041 1-01 (body sherd).
321 K94-901243-02 (rim);K94-901353-01 (stem);K94-901392-01 (shoulder).
PROJECT:PARTI 453
shapes (cup, stemmed cup, krater,plate, bowl, and skyphos). Only three sites yielded more
than three such sherds: Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI I1; four sherds), Romanou Romanou
(POSI 14; six sherds),and GargalianiKalantina(2) (POSI M2; six sherds). Of interestfrom
the last site are a profiled conical foot with two round moldings and a coated bowl rim
with a ridge on the exterior just below the rim (P1.90:c).322 From an isolated tract in
area B comes a cup fragment, coated on both interior and exterior and preserving the
base of a vertical handle (Fig. 16:9).323
PrehistoricArtifactsotherthanPottery
Several small finds and larger artifactsdating to the Bronze Age were also recovered
by the survey teams. (Chipped stone has already been reviewed above, pp. 414-417.)
Ground-stone tools include five sandstone saddle querns of normal Mycenaean type from
Gargaliani Ordines(POSI K1)324and isolated examples from a few other sites. Ground-
stone tools of note are a Late Neolithic celt and two EH-MH shaft-hole hammer axes, one
of sandstone from Romanou Romanou (POSI 14)and the other of polished green stone from
Gargaliani MegasKambos(1) (POSI D2; P1. 90:e).325 Eight terracotta loomweights were
recoveredfrom Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7). Two are perhaps Middle Helladic, to
judge from their fabric (P1.90:d: SF143 1, SF1387); the others are Late Helladic, of Minoan
discoid type (P1.90:d: SF1438, SF1419).326A coarse, gray,fragmentaryspindle whorl or
loomweight was found with Late Helladic pottery at Ambelofyto Lagou(POSI12 1), while a
steatite dress weight or spindle whorl of truncated cone shape, vertically pierced, came
to light at Koryfasio Beylerbey (POSI I1; Fig. 16:6).327The latter has a slight recession at
the edge of the hole on the larger surface, which may indicate wear. A bigger surprise
from the same site was a lentoid sealstone of serpentine (P1.90:f). A deer faces right with a
branch above its back, and there are two arc lines to the right of the branch. The sealstone
belongs to Younger'sMainland Popular Group, which dates to LH 111A2-IIIB,and there
is a very similar example from Nichoria.328
Four terracottafigurinesalso date to LH IIIA-B. From Beylerbey comes a cylindrical
fragment from near the base of a standing human figurine, with a black stripe of paint
down each side.329The other three fragmentsare from Hora ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7).
One is the body of a quadrupedwith the stumpsof the tail and rear legs and traces of black
paint preserved (Fig. 16:7).330Two are human: the lower torso and upper legs of a seated
322 M94-9023 11-01 (foot);P1.90:c: M94-236-01 (rim).

323 B92-307-01.
324 SF0747,SF0922,SF0926,SF0953,SF0955.
325 SF0885 (celt);SF0746, P1.90:e: SF1394 (hammer axes).
326 Also SF1392, SF1475, SF1486, SF1521.
327 SF1098; Fig. 16:6: SF0206. Two objects similarto the latter were found at Iklaina Traganes
(GAC D46):
Marinatos 1957, p. 310.
328 SF0091; see Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, no. 2001, fig. 10:6, pl. 10:29, showing a quadruped
with a branch before it. We thankJohn Younger for consultation about this sealstone; for definition of
the Mainland Popular Group see Younger 1987, pp. 66-71.
329 SF0018.
330 SF0107.
figure (Fig. 16:5)331and the torso and lower body of a standing woman with arms curved
below the breasts and traces of black paint (P1.91 :a).332 Quite a few fragments of wall
plasterwere also recoveredfrom POSI B7, especiallyto the southwestof the palace, outside
the fence that surrounds the archaeological site. Several of these have paint preserved
on them. A few are banded, and three show patterns, including one that resembles a
flounced skirt in blue-white-red-white-blue(P1.91 :b).333On a much larger scale are two
ashlar blocks of sandstone that perhaps originally came from the Palace of Nestor. They
were found at Hora Kalianesi(POSIB1),about two kilometersfrom the archaeological site
of the palace, and had been recut.334 The larger (SF190A) has three originally square
dowel holes; a round indentation and a notch carved in one long side are secondary cuts.
HISTORICALPERIODS
Historic Messenia has been something of an "alsoran"in terms of archaeologicalfieldwork

(see pp. 393-396 above), an undeserved fate given the compelling history of the region,
marked at points by developments unlike those in any other part of Greece. The
relative lack of work on Messenian historical sites has made study of the ceramics of
the periods discussed here a difficult task, and further analysis will no doubt refine the
patterns presented. One conclusion, however, does appear fairly firm at this point: for
certain historicalperiods, settlementpatternsin southwesternMessenia do indeed follow a
developmental trajectoryquite differentfrompatternsin other regions surveyedin Greece.
A predominant characteristicof our study area, for example, is the presence of relatively
large, often very long-lived sites as the focus for nucleated settlement, rather than the
pattern commonly seen elsewhere of cycles of settlement nucleation and dispersion.335
Atypical political and social conditions in Messenia are probably responsible for the
"peculiar"situationso far observedby PRAP.This pattern has had a direct methodological
impact on the project, forcing us to experiment with various strategies of "large site"
collection and analysis (see pp. 400-402 above).
A brief word should be said about the definition of the PRAP study area with respect
to the historical periods. Areas we had originally intended to explore intensively,such as
the Classical settlement at Ancient Koryphasionor villages such as Koukounarawith their
excellent mediaeval documentation, were ultimately not included in our permit area (see
pp. 399-400 above). As a result, our emphasis has of necessity become more an analysis
of the "hinterland"of political centers that lie outside our study region (Koryphasion,
Messene). For much of the historical era, of course, the entire territory of southwestern
Messenia formed only a smallpart of imperialstructuresruledfrom beyond the boundaries
of Greece itself: from Rome, Constantinople,Venice, or Istanbul. Given these parameters,
the area selected for intensive study,covering a variety of environmentaland geographical
zones, provides a valid sample of territory,suitable for a wide-ranging historical analysis.
331 SF0108.
332 SF1434; see Catling and Hughes-Brock 1992, nos. 2030, 2044, fig. 10:7.
333 P1.91 :b: uncatalogued, from B94-90740317; see PylosII,51 H nws, pp. 86-89, pls. E, 0. Other painted
fragments include SF1389, SF1390, and SF1391.
334 SFO19OA,SFO19OB.
335 Cherry,Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 458-462; Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994, pp. 258-
259; Runnels and van Andel 1987; Wagstaffand Cherry 1982.
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
. .. . .........,
+ .,.....
~~~~~~0 !
Kilometers A
FIG.17. Distribution of Dark Age and Geometric finds, on-site (circles) and off-site (crosses) (Sebastian
Heath)
In this report, the historical era in Messenia will be divided into two components:
Archaic through Roman and Early Christian through Early Modern. For each broad
period, a preliminary chronological overview of developments in the study region will
be outlined, before turning in more detail to several individual sites. The range of sites
discussed offers some preliminary sense of the variety of human settlement, and of the
material associated with these settlements, within this portion of southwestern Messenia
from the Archaic period to the 19th century.
ARCHAIC THROUGH ROMAN SiTEs AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS336
OverallPatternsand TheirSignificance
Compared to the evidence for the Dark Age and Geometric periods (Fig. 17), the
Archaic and Classical era (7th-early 4th century B.C.)witnessed an increase in settlement
336
This section of the report is the work of Ann Harrison (Getty Center for the History of Art and the
Humanities),Nigel Spencer (Instituteof Archaeology,Universityof Oxford), and Susan E. Alcock. We thank
Andrea Berlin (Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign),Sebastian Heath (Universityof Michigan), and
Kathleen Warner Slane (University of Missouri-Columbia)for their assistance in identifying many of the
historical ceramic finds.
.<,,,,,,,,,, 0 ,...
2 )> J 0 5KilometersA
FIG. 18. Distribution of Archaic and Classical finds, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
and exploitation in the region (Fig. 18). Undoubtedly one of the most intriguing aspects of
the historical results to date, however, is the still relative scarcity of Archaic and Classical
material, together with a lack of dispersed farmstead settlement, a pattern which has come
to be thought characteristic in Greek surveys for this general time span.337 The period from
roughly the 8th to the early 4th century, of course, was the period of Sparta's annexation
of Messenia. This is not the place to argue about the likely status (helot or perioikic) of our
study area, but the anomalous pattern we have detected must unquestionably be linked
in some fashion to Spartan domination and its effect upon local economies and social
structures.338
The impact of Sparta upon the Messenian landscape also seems confirmed by what
happened when that domination ended. Although our ceramic datingsagain are tentative,
it does seem that there was an efflorescence of activity in the Hellenistic era (here dated
337 Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, p. 139; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 327-347; Jameson,
Runnels, and van Andel 1994, pp. 383-394 and fig. 4.23 (for the Late Classical-Early Hellenistic period);
Osborne 1985; van Andel and Runnels 1987, pp. 158-160; Wright et al. 1990, p. 610.
338 For the best recent discussion of the potential impact of Sparta upon Messenia see Hodkinson 1992.
See also Cartledge 1979 and 1985.
an ol (Fg 113. ,,,u, v

ng':
KilometersA
FIG. 19. Distribution of Hellenistic finds, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
from the later 4th to the 1st century B.C.), following the liberation from Sparta and the
founding of Messene (some 20 km to the northeastof our surveyterritory)as the dominant
community in the region (Fig. 19). A similarpilctureof more intensive settlement and,land
use appears to characterizethe Roman era (1st century B.C. to the 6th century after Christ
(Fig. 20). Some emphasis on coastal settlement is also observed at this time, but even Hora
ThePalaceof Nestorproduced six Roman sherds, including fragments of amphoras, jars,
and bolFg.1 339 The prevalence of Roman-period finds is another intri
development that may possibly run counter to survey patterns elsewhere,340although
further study of these ceramics (not least to subdivide this exceptionally long period) is
necessary.
Two groups of sites will be examined in greater detail: three small sites (Meta-
morfosiAyiosKonstadtinos
[POSI A6], TraganaAladina[POSI C2], Romanou Glyfadaki
33 B93-90711810-02 (amphora toe); B94-90740616-17 (cooking-warejar rim with vertical oval handle);
Fig. 15:13: B93-90722015-01 (bowl, horizontal rim, traces of red paint on rim surface and on exterior at
rim, R?).
340 A possibilityalready noted through the workof the "FiveRivers"surveyaround the site of Nichoria: see
Lukermann and Moody 1978; Alcock 1993, p. 48.
458 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J BENNET, Y. G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
,.- . . .. .-t,; .
.. . .. {.."''
A'.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
9* ~ ~
^..,,.,-,,,.* ~ 7
KilometersA
FIG. 20. Distribution of Roman finds, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
[POSI El]), and three large (RomanouRomanou [POSI 4], GargalianiIKanalos [POSI D 1],
MarathoupolisDialiskari[POSI G1]). These latter sites, extensive, multiperiodentities,341
are clearly the dominant element in the Messenian settlement hierarchy, and, perhaps
not surprisingly,all had been noted in passing already through the work of UMME or of
earlier explorers such as Valmin. The first group of sites to be discussed, however, reveals
a previously unsuspected lower level of activity within the region's settlement hierarchy,
although each of the three small sites has a unique character.
Workat SelectSites
METAMORFOSIArIOSKONSTADTLKIOS
(POSIA6). Locatedon the east slope
of the Metaxada valley, the site lies immediately around the modern church of Ayios
Konstadtinos, about one kilometer north of the ancient settlement at Skarminga (see
pp. 477-480 below). Owing to conditions offeringpoor visibility,only a limited number of
surface ceramics and tile were collected (from tract walking in 1992 and from microtract
workin 1994);subsurfacematerialwas also revealedwhen a water channel was dug in 1992
341Historic periods are abbreviatedas follows: Classical (C), Hellenistic (HL), Early Roman (ER), Middle
Roman (MR), Late Roman (LR), and Roman (R).
across the northern part of the site. The area of surface scatter has been estimated, with
some difficulty,as approximatelyhalf a hectare. The material collected represents long-
term activity at this hillside location, with the Classical, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine,
and Modern periods clearly represented. Most ceramics belong to the Hellenistic period
and appear to represent a household assemblage; the other predominant period is
Byzantine, with finds of both table wares and coarse wares. Near the church are the
foundations of two abutting rectangularstructuresof mortared stonework,probably post-
Byzantine-Early Modern habitations,with severalevident phases of rebuilding. Built into
the west end of this complex were several small, squared limestone blocks; other blocks
and a very battered portion of a limestone column were found half buried within the
walls of the structure. A revisitationteam discoveredin 1995 that some clearing had been
done in fields around the church, and two large, well-cut limestone blocks were observed,
together with severalother smallerand less carefullyworkedones.342In this case, no single
determination of site function over time can, or should, be made; the extant foundations,
for example, are clearly residentialin nature,yet an ecclesiasticalstructurenow dominates
this location. Although the various architecturalelements observed scattered about the
site are suggestive of a "special-purpose",possibly religious function at some previous
point in its existence, it is also true that spoliafrom larger centers are known to have been
moved and reused throughoutthis region. Ceramic evidence, especiallyfor the Hellenistic
and Byzantine periods, points toward the interpretationof this site as a small, long-lived
residentialunit, overlookingthe Metaxada valley.
TRAGANA AL4DLVA(POSI C2). In 1992 tract walkers discovered a small, dense,
well-defined concentration of tile high up on a spur jutting eastward from the Tragana
ridge, commanding a fine view over the Alafinorema valley. The scatter of material was
some 35 m wide and extended downslope for approximately 65 m, eroding down over
three terraces cut into the soft marl bedrock. A 10-meter grid was imposed on the site;
all material was counted in each square, but only diagnostic pieces were collected. This
material was in poor condition, with several clean breaks testifying to recent plowing or
other agriculturalactivity in the area. One sherd of MH III-LH II date was discovered,
and modern material(potteryand tile)was found as well. Most ceramicevidence, however,
atteststo occupation of the site in Classical-Hellenistic times, possibly extending back into
the Archaic period. Fine wares, plain wares, and cooking wares were collected, as well as a
loomweight and glazed roof tiles, all of which argue for the identification of this site as
an isolated farmstead or seasonal base for agriculturalwork. As has already been noted,
this category of site is common in numerous other surveys in Greece; what is unusual
in the case of Aladina is its nearly unique status among PRAP sites.
ROMANOU GLYFADAKI (POSI El). On a slight rise, just 250 m inland from the
coast at Bouka and approximately a kilometer southwest of the modern village (and
ancient site) of Romanou (see pp. 465-467 below), tract walkers in 1993 discovered a
small (0.39 ha), extremely dense, and extraordinarilywell preservedceramic scatter. Later
342
The column fragment is approximately0.5 m in diameter, with an 8-cm square dowel hole cut in its
center. The exposed segment measured 0.65 m in length. The two blocks observed in 1995 measure 0.6
(L.) x 0.33 (H.) x 0.3 m (max. p.W) and 0.4 (L.) x 0.25 (H.) x 0.34 m (max. p.W), respectively.
Tile Density
01-50
9 51-100
- *~~~E151-200
E 201-250
* >250
FIG. 21. Romanou Glyfadah(POSI El). Density of tile (Sebastian Heath). 10-meter grid
in the 1993 season the site was collected on a 10-metergrid. Already during the course of
that collection, it became apparent that most pottery and tile was to be found within a
clearly demarcated linear strip that ran across the site and was densest in a rectangular
area approximately50 m long and 20 m wide, northeastand southwestof the center of the
site (Figs. 21, 22). Notable was the clear and abrupt drop-off in material outside the area
in which it was concentrated; for example, three adjacent grid squares held, respectively,
285 sherds and 395 tile fragments, 127 sherds and 362 tile fragments, and 14 sherds and
one tile fragment. This falloff pattern was also observed within individual 10-meter grid
squares. In some collection units, for example, almost all artifactswere located in only half
the square.
The site, largely situated in a relatively flat, open, fallow field, was agreed to be a
desirable candidate for geophysical work, in the hope that subsurface features might be
found to correspond with the distinct pattern in the distribution of surface material. In
1994 the geophysical team reestablishedour grid and examined the densest portion of the
site. Geophysical prospection mapped subsurfaceremains that, in their own distribution,
corresponded well with the pattern of ceramic densities. A series of anomalies was
discovered that can be interpreted as the foundations of a structurewhose south wall can
S-1_~ ME010
~
~~~~~~
5
Sherd Density
~~"~"~>'
~~ E
~150
51 -1 00
*151-200
~~~~ *~~~0201-250
U >250
FIG. (POSI El). Density of pottery (SebastianHeath). 10-meter grid

22. Romanou Glyfadaki
be traced for at least forty meters in the area studied.343 The weak signal strength of
the electromagnetic readings suggests that these walls have been robbed out; moreover,
coring at several points along the line of this anomaly struck no foundation blocks. Part
of the course of the west wall of the structure,as well as the position of a crosswall,was also
detected. The high surface densities of pottery and tile are found inside the area set off
by the lines of these walls.
The fragments of pottery recovered at Glyfadaki were both larger and in a better
state of preservation than is usual for the surface material in our area. A few Archaic
and possible Geometric sherds have been identified, as well as some Early Modern to
Modern material, but by far the dominant element in the collection is of the Hellenistic,
especiallythe later Hellenistic, epoch. The pottery of this period constitutesa recognizably
domestic assemblage, with amphora fragments (Figs. 23:7, 9; 24:18),3 cooking wares
343 Zangger et al., forthcoming.

344 Fig. 23:7: E93-235-02 (imported amphora, folded rim); Fig. 23:9: E93-235-01 (local imitation[?] of
Dressel IA amphora);Fig. 24:18: E93-901321-07 (twistedhandle of table amphora).
462
,/ 1 5 X}3
2
4 /5
6 '/ 7
10 11
S ..... _ _ ~~~~~~~~~14
:~pp 14.
15 ,
16
18
0 2 4 6 8 10
19 cm.
FIG.23. Pottery from Romanou Glyfadaki(POSI El) and Romanou Romanou(POSI14) (RosemaryJ.
Robertson). (1) E93-90141 1-10; (2) E93-901312-02; (3) 193-9041611GR-05;
(4) 193-9040471GR-05; (5) E93-901311-13; (6) E93-235-04; (7) E93-235-02;
(8) 193-9040471GR-11;(9) E93-235-01;(10)193-9040441GR-01;
I(1) E93-901312-05;
(12) I93-9040471GR-04; (13) E93-901312-04; (14) I93-9040321VC-01;
(15) 193-9040471GR-09; (16) 193-9040312VC-01; (17) 193-904047 1GR-01;
(18) 193-904047 1VC-01; (19) E93-901312-06
__ ~~~~~~~~~~~
2 '
3 4 5 6
0 1 2 3 4 5
cm
7 8 9 10 ' 1
12
/ 13 14 15
18 19 20
/21
22 23 24 25
m ~~~~~~~~~~~29
I1l ____} 28 30
26 27
_ 2 4 6 8 -i10
0~~~~~~~~~~~
_ = ~ =NO- cm. >
1-: 31 / 32 "
33
FIG.24. Pottery and small finds from Romanou Glyfadaki(POSI El) and Romanou Romanou(POSI 14)
(RosemaryJ. Robertson). (1) E93-901411-12; (2) E93-90141 1-11; (3) E93-901321-05;
(4) E93-901221RV-01; (5) E93-901411RV-01; (6) SF0357; (7) E93-901312-03;
(8) 193-9040263VC-01; (9) 193-9040453GR-06; (10) 193-9040441GR-02;
(11) 193-9040321GR-08; (12) 193-9040453GR-02; (13) E93-901221-01;
(14) I93-9040312GR-01; (15) 193-9040542GR-01; (16) 193-9040471GR-02;
(17) E93-901321RV-01; (18) E93-901321-07; (19) 193-9040471GR-19;
(20) 193-9040551GR-12; (21) E93-901122-08; (22) 193-9040436GR-01;
(23) I93-904047 1GR-14; (24) 193-9040471GR-12; (25) E93-901411-06; (26) SF0636;
(27) SF0954; (28) SF0394; (29) E93-235-20; (30) 193-9040441GR-11; (31) E93-901321 -01;
(32) E93-901411-01; (33) I93-9040471 GR-21
464 J. L. DAVIS,S. E. ALCOCK,J.BENNET,Y.G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE
(Figs. 23:6, 13; 24:7, 21),345fine wares, including black painted plates, bowls, and cups
(Figs. 23:1, 5, 11, 19; 24:13, 17, 25, 29),346 and a lamp fragment. Pithos rims and
large quantities of tile in several fabrics were also collected (Fig. 24:31, 32).347 Other
ceramic material consisted of a token or stopper and three pyramidal loomweights, one
with stamped palmette decoration (Fig. 24:6, 26-28).348 Six fragments of moldmade
bowls were also collected, including examples from long-petal bowls, an imbricate bowl,
and pieces with vegetal designs (Fig. 24:1-5).349 Overall, many of the fine wares from
this site resemble the pottery from Hellenistic levels at Messene. For example, a small
ointmentjar is similarin form to shapesfrom the bath at Messene that are dated to the mid
1st century B.C. (Fig. 23:2)o350Simple long-petal bowls are also found in the Hellenistic
strataof the Messene bath, and, in general, a similaroverall assemblageof fine-wareforms
is found in the Hellenistic pottery from the Sebasteion at Messene.351 While the pottery
from Glyfadaki requires much further study,so far its closest parallels appear to be from
Messene, and indeed our material probably comes from local Messenian workshops.352
More analysis of the pottery and geophysical evidence remains to be done, but some
conclusions can already be reached about Glyfadaki. It appears to have been a small,
independent site, lying near the large contemporary settlement of Romanou but not part
of it, and in close proximity to the coastline. Nothing indicates that Glyfadakipossessed
a ritual or other special-purposefunction; indeed, the ceramic material makes a very clear
case for identification of the site as a dwelling place, and a relatively short-lived one at
that. While it is difficultto assessthe social statusof the inhabitantsof the site from surface
ceramics alone, when taken in conjunctionwith the size of the structurediscoveredthrough
subsurface prospection, Glyfadaki emerges as the residence of a reasonably well-to-do
individual in the Hellenistic period.353
The remaining three sites to be discussed are larger,more substantial settlements; all
had been previously observed and to some extent recorded, either through the work of
345 Fig. 23:6: E93-235-04 (jar with rolled rim); Fig. 23:13: E93-901312-04 (bowed rim of stewpot);
Fig. 24:7: E93-901312-03 (triangularrim of jar); Fig. 24:21: E93-901122-08 (horizontal strap handle of
basin).
346 Fig. 23: 1: E93-90141 1-10 (bowl, traces of red on interior); Fig. 23:5: E93-901311-13 (pyxis, traces
of black glaze on exterior);Fig. 23:11: E93-901312-05 (bowl);Fig. 23:19: E93-901312-06 (saucerwith rolled
rim);Fig. 24:13: E93-901221 -01 (overhangingrim of krater,matt gray-blackslip on interior and top of rim);
Fig. 24:17: E93-901321 RV-01 (droopingrim of saucer,orange-red slip on interior and exterior);Fig. 24:25:
E93-901411-06 (ring foot of bowl, black glaze on interior and exterior);Fig. 24:29: E93-235-20 (bowl/cup).
347 Fig. 24:31: E93-901321 -01 (pithos);Fig. 24:32: E93-901411-01 (pithos).
348 Fig. 24:6: SF0357 (token or stopper); Fig. 24:26: SF0636 (conical loomweight); Fig. 24:27: SF0954
(pyramidalloomweight with stamped palmette on three sides);Fig. 24:28: SF0394 (triangularloomweight).
349 Hellenistic moldmade bowls: Fig. 24:1: E93-901411-12 (with grape cluster);Fig. 24:2: E93-901411-11
(floral decoration); Fig. 24:3: E93-901321-05; Fig. 24:4: E93-901221RV-01 (petal bowl?); Fig. 24:5:
E93-901411 RV-01 (imbricatepattern with leaves).
350 Fig. 23:2: E93-901312-02; Themelis 1993, pp. 66-67, pl. 41:a.
351 Themelis 1993, pp. 64-65, pl. 38:b; Themelis 1991, pl. 43.
352 Themelis 1993, p. 65.
353 Along the coast just to the west of the site of Glyfadaki, a small rectangularbasin (ca. 15 x 30 m) was
formed by cuttings thought (by Eberhard Zangger) probably to be anthropogenic in origin; the basin may
have served the area as a small harbor or dock, as a fishtank,or even as a quarry.
1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6-10
ArtifactDensity
11l-15
U >20
0 500 Meters
FIG. 25. Romanou Romanou

(POSI I4). Distributilonof Bronze Age finds (SebastilanHeath). Cross indicates
location of church
UMME or other, earlier topographical exploratilons.More detailed work has, however,

considerablyenhanced, and in some cases totally revised, our understand'ingof settlement
size, function, and periods of occupation.
ROMANOU ROMALNOU (POSI 14). To the north and east of the modern village
of Romanou, in the vicinity of a modern cemetery church, lies a major concentration of
material, measurilngin all some 38 ha. Part of the site is today undoubtedly lost below
the modern village, whose inhabitantsnow cultivate the surroundingfields. This area was
first explored by us in 1992 and was more intensivelycollected, with a microtractstrategy,
in 1993. While UMME had reported traces of human activity (and other random finds
have been reported from this location), our conclusions about the extent and longevity
of the settlement came as a major surprise.354 The ceramic material collected ranges
in date from Early Helladic through Modern. In this long occupation of the site, three
chronological stages are particularlynoteworthy: Bronze Age, Dark Age-Archaic, and
Roman.
354 UMME 400, 3102; Valmin 1930, pp. 146-148; Skias 1910, pp. 289, 291-292; Daux 1962, pp. 726,
728; Papathanasopoulos 1963, p. 92.
ArtifactDensity
2-5
i6-10
11l-15
U016-20
* >20
0 500 Mete rs
FIG. 26. Romanou Romanou(POSI 14). Distribution of Roman finds (Sebastian Heath). Cross indicates
location of church
Finds of the differentperiodswere concentratedin differentparts of the site. Moderate

quantities of Bronze Age sherds and lithics were found largely in a cluster to the south and
west of the modern church (Figs.25 and 24:15, 22, P1.89:a). While little Dark Age-Archaic
material has been found 'inthe study area generally (see pp. 452-453 above), Romanou
provided some finds of this time period, with material collected in the immediate vicilnity
of the church. The pottery consists chiefly of small worn sherds in a relatively soft fabric.
There is, however, a well-preserved fragment of a krater rim of Late Protogeometric-
Geometric date that finds parallels in the Dark Age pottery from Nichoria (Fig. 23:10;
p1. 91l:C),355and a bowl of the Submycenaeanperiod (Fig. 23:12).356Much of the pottery
collected, however, belongs to the Roman period (Fig. 26). A range of ceramic types is
represented: pithos and amphorafragments(Fig.24:30, 33),357 cooking wares (Figs.23:18;
35 193-9040441GR-01; Coulson 1983, kraterrim, type C, fig. 3:49.

356 Fig. 23:12: I93-9040471 GR-04.
357 Fig. 24:30: I93-9040441 GR- 11 (amphora toe, C-HL); Fig. 24:33: 193-9040471GR-21 (pithos with
double folded rim, R?).

THEPYLOSREGIONAL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROJECT:
PARTI 467
24:8, 9,10, 19, 20),358and fine wares (Figs.23:3, 4, 8, 14,15,16, 17; 24:11, 12, 14,16, 23,
24).359Two coins were also found at the site, including a bronze antoninianus of Aurelian
(P1.91 :d) and a bronze issue of Constantius II.360
Among other finds, large quantities of tile were collected from the site. While most
were quite fragmentaryand undiagnostic, some fragmentsof painted tile were also found.
In a field to the east of the church several worked blocks, including one more elaborate
architecturalelement, were discovered. Other finds included pieces of what appears to be
ore, collected from the northern part of the site. It is also possible that an area just to
the east of the church contained a kiln site. Material collected in a small discrete patch
here includes large quantities of chunky burnt clay and a possible kiln support. All these
discoveriesindicate that Romanou, lying in the hinterlandof Ancient Koryphasion some
3.5 km to the south, was a much longer lived and extensive settlement, with independent
industries,than had previouslybeen suspected.
GARGALIANI KANALOS(POSI D1). The site of Kanalos, previously known from
the work of UMME, was reexamined in 1993 as part of a more extensive program of
sampling in the coastal plain to the west and southwest of Gargaliani (P1.87:a).36' One
of the goals of the intensive work in this particulararea was to examine the wider region of
Kanalos, and indeed two additional sites (POSI D2 and D3) were identified on a series
of low knolls to the north in the Megas Kambos region.
The main topographical feature of the locale where Kanalos is situated is a deep
streambed running northeast-southwest, similar to many which dissect the whole coastal
plain and discharge their seasonal flows into the sea to the south of Marathoupolis. At
Kanalos the streambed splits, creating a tongue-shaped interfluve (approximately 15 m
high) that forms the acropolis of the site. The site was initially tract walked, before a
10-meter grid, in the form of an irregularrectangle approximately85 m by 130 m, was
laid over the acropolis and the immediatelyadjacentfields. Given increasingthreatsto the
358 Fig. 23:18: I93-9040471VC-01 (stewpot, R); Fig. 24:8: I93-9040263VC-01 (stewpot, everted rim,
MR); Fig. 24:9: I93-9040453GR-06 (cooking pot, C-R); Fig. 24:10: I93-9040441GR-02 (stewpot, ER);
Fig. 24:19: I93-9040471 GR- 19 (fryingpan handle, MR-LR); Fig. 24:20: I93-9040551 GR- 12 (fryingpan
handle, ER-MR).
359 Fig. 23:3: I93-9041611 GR-05 (beaker,ER); Fig. 23:4: I93-9040471 GR-05 (bowl, everted rim, black
glaze on initeriorand exterior, HL-R); Fig. 23:8: I93-904047 lGR- 11 (krater,everted rim and neck, black
paint on exterior, HL-R); Fig. 23:14: I93-9040321VC-01 (bowl, inturned rim, black glaze on interior and
exterior, C-HL); Fig. 23:15: I93-9040471GR-09 (plate, HL-R); Fig. 23:16: I93-9040312VC-01 (bowl,
inturned rim, A-C); Fig. 23:17: I93-9040471GR-01 (bowl rim, traces[?] of black glaze on interior and
exterior, HL-R); Fig. 24:11: I93-9040321 GR-08 (bowl, C-R); Fig. 24:12: I93-9040453GR-02 (dish, dark
red-black slip on exterior, possible imitation of Eastern Sigillata A Hayes form 33?, ER); Fig. 24:14:
I93-9040312GR-01 (krater,flattened and everted rim, black and red stripes on interior, A); Fig. 24:16:
I93-9040471GR-02 (bowl/plate, black glaze on interior?, HL-R); Fig. 24:23: 193-9040471GR-14 (ring
base of bowl, A); Fig. 24:24: I93-904047 lGR- 12 (ringbase of bowl, HL-R).
360 The coin of Aurelian (SF0029) bears the radiate image of the emperor on the obverse with the legend
IMP C AURELIANUSAUG;on the reverse is Sol Invictus with two captives (ca. A.D. 270-275). The coin
of Constantius II (SF0030) dates ca. A.D. 351-355 and shows the head of the emperor on the obverse, a
soldier spearing a fallen horseman on the reverse.
361 GAC
D15; McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, pp. 236-237, 252.
468 J. L. DAVIS,S. E. ALCOCK,J BENNET,Y.G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE
site, our intent in 1993 was to focus on the acropolis ridge of Kanalos as a first step in
site investigation;it should be understood that this grid collection did not embrace the
entire area of high surface densities at this location. The total extent of the settlement
cannot yet be defined since our permit did not include Kanalos in 1994 or 1995.
The intensive survey of both the immediate surroundingarea and the acropolis itself
proved particularlyrevealingof the fairlyrecent deteriorationof the site, demonstratedby
significantdiscrepanciesbetween our findingsand those of McDonald and Hope Simpson
some thirty-fiveyears before. First, the "Turkishbrickwork"that McDonald and Hope
Simpson saw surroundingthe spring at the foot of the acropolis is no longer evident.362
The "well-known"tumulus some 400 m southeast of the acropolis, suggested to be of MH
date by the Minnesota team and apparently still in existence thirteen years ago when a
brief report on the site was made by the Greek Archaeological Service, also seems now
to have been destroyed.363
On the acropolis,we noted three rock-cutrectangulartombs (allof differentorientation
and now empty) and a few large stone cover slabs lying nearby. In the eroded eastern
side of the acropolis scarp a fourth tomb, a disturbed tile grave with protruding bones,
was visible. These particular features may not have been noticed by McDonald and
Hope Simpson because of pine cover (now cleared) on the hilltop. A report by the Greek
Archaeological Service notes that the landowner at this site was said to have "uncovered"5
a number of very large stone slabs on the acropolis; these were probably the cover slabs
of prehistoric graves. Middle and Late Helladic ceramics and human bone were also
reported.364 An unfortunate consequence of the clearing of the acropolis has been the
encouragement of illicit activity at this site; since 1992 a number of freshly dug holes and
pits have appeared near the tombs.
Fragments of walling were also noted on the acropolis. The Minnesota team reported
stretches of possibly prehistoric walls along the east and especially the west edges, and to
the northeast lay a number of "good squared, hammer-dressed poros blocks," tentatively
identified as the remains of a Late Classical or Hellenistic temple.365 Many large boulders
belonging to UMME's "prehistoric fortifications" are still to be seen along the western
scarp of the acropolis, but it cannot be determined whether this is indeed a "Cyclopean"
wall, as indicated on McDonald and Hope Simpson's sketch plan, or merely a natural
formation. Along a terrace on the eastern edge of the acropolis, brush presently obscures
a line of stones, probably the remains of a wall, running for ca. 45 m. The dating of both
these possible walls remains open to question. As for the area of the potential "temple"
at the northern and highest end of the acropolis, McDonald and Hope Simpson had
described the poros blocks as forming a right-angledcorner. No such corner exists today;
it would appear that a bulldozer cut that created an agricultural terrace at this end of
the acropolis disturbed these blocks, a few of which we discovered tumbled downslope.
362
McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 237.
363
McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 237; Papakonstantinou1989.
364
Papakonstantinou 1989.
365
McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 236 and ill. 7.
THEPYLOSREGIONAL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARTI
PROJECT: 469
This acropolis area was occupied at various points between Neolithic and Early
Modern times (historical periods represented include Geometric-Archaic, Hellenistic,
Roman, Byzantine, and EarlyModern), although at present only a portion of the ceramic
material collected from Kanalos has been studied in detail. This portion does, however,
include some of the findsfrom the northernacropolis,the "temple"area in which the poros
blocks were found. Large quantities of tile were found in this location, much of which
was comparativelywell preserved,retaining large parts of profiles,and a large proportion
comprises painted red and black fragments.366The suggestion that a temple of historical
date stood at Kanalos is lent some preliminary support by these finds, although further
study of the material from this area and the remainlderof the acropolis is required. The
site continues to be threatened by the expansion of market gardening in this area and
by associated bulldozing of irrigation channels and access roads.
MARATHOUPOLIS DIALISKARI(POSI G1).367 The coastal site at Dialiskari, in
the northern part of our study region, has been known for nearly a century,if never before
systematicallystudied (P1.85:d). In 1929 Valmin recorded several ancient architectural
elements built into modern houses: in one case a column base supported the porch of
a modern house (the "Column House"); elsewhere ancient blocks and a Roman-period
mosaic have been integrated within another house (the "Mosaic House"; Fig. 27).368
Additional features were observed by tract walkers in 1993 and through more intensive
microtract collection in 1994. These include a limestone quarry some 500 m to the
south of the site, cuttings for salt production in the rocky coastline, a group of seven
rock-cut graves at the northern edge of the site, and several unfluted monolithic columns,
together with other architecturalmembers. Most impressive,perhaps,were the remains of
a polygonal brick structurewith at least four preservedsides and an exposed cross section
of a Roman hypocaust system.
The hypocaust structureseems to have been first uncovered by a bulldozer cut; other
dangers to this site are posed by increasing coastal development, especially in the form
of large holiday homes. Such destructiveactivities made careful and detailed work at Di-
aliskaria high priority. One component of our investigationwas the mapping of all extant
architecturalfeatures with an electronic TotalStation (Fig. 28). Geophysical prospection
was also undertaken at Dialiskari in 1994 and 1995. In the field directly next to the
exposed hypocaust section, geoelectrical techniques detected the existence of anomalies,
reflecting the presence of "caverns"or of preservedwalls of the hypocaust system.369
Intensivecollection of the site revealeda well-definedzone of artifactsand architectural
fragments some 600 x 1000 m in extent (approximately 35 ha), with a rapid falloff in
density characterizing adjacent tracts. Ceramic finds from Dialiskari date primarily to
366 As an indication of quantities, square 111 held 15 red and 2 black painted tiles; square 112, 2 red
and I black; square 1 3, 1 black; square 121, 10 red and 5 black; square 131, 7 red; square 132, 9 red
and 2 black.
367 This section of the report is the work of Sharon E. J. Gerstel (University of Maryland at College Park
and Dumbarton Oaks).
368 UMME 406; Valmin 1930, pp. 136-140. The site of Dialiskari has been linked to the settlement of
Erana mentioned by Strabo (8.348); Liritzis 1969.
I
n>el
3 columns supporting porch roof
tpilaster cementrp oic a
'. ......""..::..
... ... . . . . . . . .. .
0 le m en~~~~~~~pt
tre brc flo plasterefloor
_ z
cut rock base
key
flmodern
a ncient
wall1
| i _
| lit004400 mosaicj
0 1
__ ~~~~~~meters
5
/ /
FIG. 27. Marathoupolis Dialiskari(POSI G1). The "Mosaic House" (RosemaryJ. Robertson and Kalliope
Kaloyerakou)
THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT:PART 1 471
ADIALISKARI
......
..-.
.........-......,..
...................
,..."
............
.......
........ ,1
.........
.....
-.................
............
-- ......
..-.-1:.:,..-.:.......-. Cemetery
...::::.,::::;-
.... ......
........
::...,..'.,..,..,..".,..'.,.".
.............
:..........'..........
,:::;::::.-...-
:....
,-
-::::-...-.
......I
-...;]-'.N
..-:::...'.'....".,..'..ii]].,.i
.--..:.:.,.i.,.,.:.':",:..."::.....,i,:."'.
.:...:...:::,:.:::::::::::::,...
,::F :--1-
:.:.:::.:: .".:.:.::,:.:.::.::::::::::::.
........
-:--.-.,.:.:.:.. ......I
::. . : " ",::: :,7.X..:,:
,,::,
.:":,:.:.:... ,:,
'. -':'
::,,:..:..
,:::::. -::q..:I::.:.r-
- --
:: .::, .::::.
........ .11,w I..
. :;::
I. . . ::::. .... :::;::::;;
...... .......
11, ...
-X...1-:1 I.:-,.... ::::::., .,:::::: .:::::.:;::. '--'
I..".....................,,.,'.....,.,...'...,.,.,
................................ I...I...
F%Column Drums
1. ..,:,.. 1.11.
......1:1 .:.,::
:..--::,
: ..:::, ......I.,..::::
-.,.,.:::::,. .... .. ........
:--:-:-:--:.:::::::
.......
.... I. ...
...-..::::-::::::
::,:.;...:
.--.....i::`.i:
--Xx:.:.niim:.-
%:,-.......:w:..
.:.::.:.:...::::::,''....''.
... .....
:::::::::: :,:,.:..
....:. -.',,ai,
.:::::,::-'::..--::::-:-:..
.-...........1.,......1--- .....
:::::r"
:::::...]:::.'.i.'::::
.:::::::::::::::::::::::::.."''.::
.....,'.......,,.....
... --1-"'.
.:--,,
.:..:::X:: ...... .::..:.,.,:,.,::::::::::::::....,..
.,,.,..,.,.........:.:.....:.:....
....
i-.'--.'-,',`ii:
..:.
.:-:.::- --.:
.:::::::.... .-.-
----..
..,.,,.,-..,-
---...-: C,.. .11.. :.,..: : :.
I......
.'..........,..:.",.:..."...
-1 ......
-..........,
--.: -....,..r: ....::::::
..............
,:::::,-
-":.::. ... ...
..::....1.
,
.....-E:]-..
.,.:
....1-1-
.....
.:
:::].'.i:
-.-.-.:...:.::.1:.:
I.......-
.... ......
..........
.':iiiii].:i .-.
:!:.:.:..:.::.:"..:...::::'
::,.;
....::.::::;
%:;:.:,:
....
... -::.
-....
:- ..,:,
.:.
-:.-.-,-,.,.,.-:.:
.....
:..-.-X:..:::
-::,::
,
::]::-.-,:"
%. .
......
,:::,::::,::,:,...
....%:,.,..:......,.,...........
.......: .:-:,::..'..,:,.,:,:::::
.I......
.11--.1 ...1.1-
'"""".-
.......--.:....,..-..,q..
-..
--::::--''.-.-.
. ...... :::":::::.,..
.. -...
...
0,:::::::::;:.:1'::,;1:::,:
............-......-
..- ....:::::::-,:::::::]
..:.....
::X.
..,'...........
... -
....,
::..:...1-... x%.,j::.,
.
.:
.......
.::........,...-.....
,-X:.--:,;.:.--.-.:.-.
-.....I...-............
, , ..
-
X.:..:,:
.........
... -:::::....
-'............
.::.,:.:.:.:.:.'':
-
.XIx.-w ...
:.:.:: -..::..-.:.-:-:-::-:-:
-..:-:.:,:;:--.::-:.::::.!.
.... ......
.....
....
...-..
:.,.:,:-:::::-:-
......
::-.--::..-:::'..:.:-
.:,..-...::::.....::---:: Mosaic House
:.,:...
, ...
:.-....:--..- ...... ,:::::--
.:::,.,::::
......................:,.:,:...................:.,.,...:.:,.;;..-
-.::.,::,:::.:-x':::,. .-.....-'-..-..1
:- . ::.:::........
.
.....
. .........-
I- -.....
.....
....
::.,
::..
..:..::-.::.."::".:::,.:;::::,...::
:.-..-:,..:. :: -: .
,,:.:::.
::",
.................::
...., ::
......
.....
::,..:..'.'.".'.....................
:::::..:"::
... ...
:.. . .........
I....',-4..........
. I.......
....::..-- ---.. ': ......-
::::::;::
.
...:.:::::,:::.",.:....",.,:. ---.........
-,:,:::::;
-:,:
,x,::,'--,:,:,::..,::,.:::,..::.,.i:...::."i:..:]:]::::,'-::::::::.,:::::''",
:-
...:.:..X..:.:.:.1.: ; .:... .::.:
........
-;:-::,:......:.:...:::.,:...::::::: ...,.ff::1-, - ....-
...''
.'"'......:.....,.::::.,:::::.::::::::....,.:,::-:-:::::-:-:::-::-:'.'.'.:..,.:..:::::z...,..-.-,-.-.......
'.-
.-....
--:--:::-:X::::-
...........,
...
,.:....
::": :..,..,:;..::.
.W............ ":;::::
. ......
:..:%.,.::. ..-
::: "': ...
...%....::.:,::X...
-........... -:,::,..
::..,...I......,.......'':.::-,..".,.,.,..::::::::::..
...
.:::%`,i:.
...........
--- -*iix ..- .:::::: -':::.,.,..,.,.'''..."...,.,,.....,.I
...
.1.1
.,; .............
.......
............. ''.................'..-
...:........._
,''..
.::::,...:i:::i":::...:j:::::::..I
:...... ,:;::", --:-:::-:::::-"' ...,..
:...:::...,::.::::::::::z:.:::::::::::,::....::;:::::.'':::;::.:::::::::::.:;
.-..:............I...
....
-:::::::---,
-::-
..:
..:. -.-:::::::::X::.:::::
.:::;!:::.:--
.:,...
1-.,::; - ....
.....-...-.. ,...::
--...-.-.:.::..:.:-..,
...:.:.:.:::.
- ... 1.,-.,.::
.....
:::,.,;:
.....-
.1,
....
...:.:::,
--..::...-.-..:::::
....-...:.:::-:----.
..............-
,:".:::::...:;::::.::::::::::::::::,.:::::
...................,.,........,.,.,......
:%,:::. ........-
............-,
.........
..........
".........:.....:....'.......
-::,:.:.:,--,:::::,:::::::-
.:
..-,:q.:::::x:.:::.::..:.:
,.:".::::::::,:.:,.::.:::,:.".,!::;":,:...,,::::::
.::.:. -..-.::--...1
-....... .:!::
%:.,::::.,:::.:.:"
........
...
:-
:.:.:.!:::
..,...
..............''..........
......
.......-
..................
.........-__
.:......,..,.,.,..,.,.,........................".......:...,....':......................:,..,..:.....
Ili "' .''"-.--
....... .................
......
11.1
.- ....
...-::.:.:...:.:....:.,.:::...'..::..,::..::::-
""""""""
......
:......::..::::.:::..,...,:::i:]:.,.:.'..'....'-,.::..:i:]:.::;:l:::. Quarry?
::::":::::;:::::::;::::::.:::,:,..,:,%:::::::.:::.:::;::::::::::::::::::::"....
...:.,.::,.::::::.:..::::.::.....:.....'...........
!:::::::,:,.
.:::.::::.
:% ....:.:
-"::::::::
.-,.-:.::::-:::::::
...--::::
..,.":.:.:::.:.:.;.,:...............:.....--
...........I.......
:::,.:.,.'"' .:..:.:
-::
..:X:::
......
..:
::::,:::::: X: - .-:
::.::
...... .
......,:: ...:.,:
...I..
. :..,- ::7
:.,
.
I...
:-1.-::-:.,.:::::::;: ....- ... ....
-................'...
-......:,::::::,::::::",:::::::::::::..............
..... ...
11.1-
I........ ......
-::..-.:.-.-.-1 :::.
.,-,-........
......-I....-....I...
- ,:,
: :..:::::::::::::.
. :: .X :.::.:.:."
. .......
... . . ........
::::
...,.......:,:.,:.:.:,:,:-:-
..... ...
:, ; -
11 ...:::,:,::
-......
...... -..
.....
:::::::":,:..:...:::,:..:.:.::,:.:.:::.::::.-.....,
.. .-- .....'....
I
..........-X:
--1- 1- ...........
I.-l'....,
-...
--.:..:..:.:..:..:::::::
..''....,
,...4-
.. ::
.... I .... ::..-.
:::
-11 .... - ...... .:.. ...:::.. -.::::
.....-...
I , ....- .-......I.......I........
-:,
..
....... .-
..
.,:,.:::::::::::::::::::::;-
. I-, " ...,...-'-
- -'-..
, ...':
........
.......,...........'...,........
--- .. -.............
: ,.1, . . ... . .:..,
1.
.;-::.:: :::::::::-:-:-:::-::-:--:
....I... I I.,."I ...... -- :..:.::::::.:,:::.:.:: I....
.... .. .: - :....:..-.
X,,. ....I.:
.....
.. .....-.... ..
::...
q:, .., X .:..: : :: ..:.
,,.::.: .::: ,
.:: ,:., :::::': -... ::::: :.:.:., :::,.:, :...:..: -.', .:. .p. .,:,...::.:,.:.,.:
,-X : : : `:.:--::
--:-
-, : . .".. .:. : . . : ::..: :-': : : ..,:::::: : :::::: :.: ::::::::::.: :-: .. : :::::::..
. :.: : ::, .
,,...
:.::::. :.:.:: ..:..::..:,:.:.:.:.:,:.:,:.:.:.:... ..., . ... ..':, .,::::::.,::::::::
I '. .. :::., . . . . ......I...... .I. . :.. :.
. . I;:: . ..::::::::: . . . . . .z.. .,-....
.I.::::::::::::::: I....
. .:.:.:.:.. X..:::: :: X :I..:-z.---:-:.: :.....:; .. . . . ... .......I.I.
"I.....'.-.,..-.
I I.I ........... ,-. ....'...........'.......,.
I.. . . I.II I. .I. I.I.. ....:: I::::.,.:
. ..... ....I. .I........ :::::,::%,:::::::::::::,-:-,.
..........-... ..., ...., ,X", ::::.:.::: ::::::::;: . .
,4.:.I:.. . . . . . . . ..I.
. .1:.:--: ....
... ,....".......
""."...... ...".. ., ::I......... . .......,..................1.10................
. . . ,. . ., . . . . . . . . . ... -. . .. .:
...
: .: : ::; .I..:;:,:::: ...1.,
.: .,:::: .... I ,,.""'.1, '...:.,-..,..... ..%-.-..:1.-.-.
......
..........., ,. ,::, : -.I,,,,,.:.. . . I....:. .-... .,::.,: :. I .......I I. . ......:. . :.. . .:: --'- ....,::: .: %. : .-:.:-, .:,.: :... :` .': ..:::: .:. ,.: :.:'-
.I. ... . .:::::. ,. ......-.I,,::,:, -.:..
.%. ,I. .. .:.:
,..
. .. . . . . ... . . ...I.
. ... . . . . .I:.:.:,:.:
I.:.:.:.:.:. . .I I I.:.X1
:.:,:
. ... . ...::.. ..... ..:. ::::
,;. ..II
.. I..I.:.,. .:I.:..:,
... . . . :.I.
.:;.....I...I
::.,I..
. I..I ..I ...1..... ... .. :.. . . ..... ..:1 ...:.:::::::::::
.. ..I.....1.
. . . . . . . . .I . . .".... ,..:. .:::::::::::::::::
. .. . .I
,-., .. ,-:-:. :.X . . .I. ....'.
.-.. .....,%
. II....
. . . . . ..,. .q.1-1......".
..,:: . .. .. . . .--.
.. ....,....,.,.........",.,..............".......-........-I....,.,......I.
.,:;. . .:, : -.:%:::%.::::-.::. I.. :"., `.,... -.-:- ...
: ,:: ::::. .....I. ..,,-1, I.
...
.I.I.. .. ..... ..-- ...4 I ..., .... . .'...I.:. , :. ... .:.III.. .,.,: : ...., .. ... . :...:,:. .....:.:.,:, ,:.,. . ..:::.-. ::. .....:...
: :' . :, . ..X .:.;,.::..::.:::: .1-.,,;:::::::::.-,:.:.::,:.,., ,,:.: . .-..:::::::;::-,I
...,
....:::::,:::::..--
.. .. ....I..--,.,...: :.:
:: :.:. ::.
,.:,:.::..:.:.,
: ::.. -..::::.%.II
.I.. :.:..::::,.:::::.,::, '. :.....: .:..:.::. ". :.P. :..;...,
,.X. . . . . . . .: .: .. .:, X:....X..I . ...:. ... : :.,.I.. . . .. I. . . .I. , ,. ..':X..1 . . . .:-... ..... ..:::
... ...:.:.:
.... .. ..:.:,.::::::,.!::::..-,-:-X.:.
..... ..... ...... .-.. . . . .,,,,,, .:,::,:::.: :::- . .X. .I.:.:.:. ". . ......I. ..:.. .,.- . . . ...
., .- .....I..-:. . ,: :.:-:--'-'-::-':::,::-:
.. : ... :. . .--....., . . . .: .. ........:1: ::, :::p..":II . . .,.....I.-,,,:,,,,,- . .-.: :.:.-, : -:::-.--...... :::: ,,: .. : ::,-
:: : :-........."..... . ...
.--.:::!:..::.:.:1. .:.--: ::,.I. -:-:-:-: . . . .. . . ....
:,........ ,:,::.,
... .....:::1,
,.::,.i:-,
:: ::, -.,.:.:,:,:::: -,::: ,:: :'. :::::,::.:..::.:::::7.
%,,::::: :..:. ::.:.:::: :i,, :..:.
:::::. ...I:I....-...- ::x:::::::::
. .... . .:::::::..
...........,-....
. . . . . . . . . . .. ......, . -. .-.: . .. ....::,.:,: . ..... -:::..::::::.,: :::II.:::::: ......,"..I., .
. .. .:::
i:]i . ir.'ii.
. . . .I. ..,.i`.]i:::!,
...
.I :::-.1- - -, .,.:. -:.::-
...I :.::::.:. . ::P.....:......:...:.
:'.....,.,,I...-....
...::
. .. ......q. ... .. .,.,.,.. ...-,,I. . :--
.I.I.I. . .--.,.-::... . :,'.
..::...
...... . . . . .:.. . . .:: . . . . . . . .. ... .. . .
.I.... . .:X.., .. ... .. ... ..-:-:
. ::-:-:; . , ... . .. ., . .. ... . . ..... .....,.. ...... .-. . ... ..I..I : ':... .:.:., x.:.:.
.I....-
. . ... . ........I. . .I . ..:'- . .:.::.:. ..--. -I...
I..1- .I.
.... . :I,::::--:::'- .-.-...--.. .. :::: .. ..II -.. . . . . . .... I. ....
. ... .. .--. . .. .:.:.;. 1: . . . ...,.
. . . . . . . ... .--::,:, . . . . . . . . . . . . .II. .........,:
,. -::: .- .::,, .-..:. -.-.:,. .. . ..
....I:
:,..................... -.-. ,-, .. .... ... .. ....:.
..I. ... .I. :.,:.
.:. :: : :, :: -:,::: :::::.::: .:... ,:,,.,,I.I...:: ..:.:..:::.:..,. ",ilii".ii".::,.i.'.iii'.'i:],i I....- ..P
. . . .. .",::::Pd:i::i::.,.::."i:.,.,:i::;;:.',i:i: .
::..:.:.:
"..:-: -. .:
. .,.. : .: -,-1%....-.:.
::- : ::: .: : :- .I..,
...::. ..::: ::...,I,,::::.,. .... ..,.......::........, ....",'.....,.. : ,. :':
1.1-..."........'...-.. -,...."'....'.., , , , ,%:::. . ,.'%:::, .... ..::::::-:. .. - .-I.I. ..y: :,, :::,.:.:.:.::: ".
: : : X ..:. .
:::- ... -: .. -,:-,.:,.: ......,. . .I ::.... :..
..::,..:.. . .q:.. . . . . . .%.II .: :.: :,..::
.::IX::::::..;
:II. ... :,:.:::.r-,., ,::"::..:::
. . .... ,...::-:::::
::::
. .:.:.:.:.:z::
.: I ....: : :. ..-.1.1 ....II.I.
.: .: ..I.::,, :'. :: ;':':' '.,:: ... :::::::,.: .I. :.:.:.:
.: .::... ..::-..::%.:.,.:. ... ...... :.. . ... .... .. .... ..-:....I. . :. .-:X.11qq,:.: .: :.: :.:. :: ::: .;,,,,,,-- : :: ::::::: ::::::.:,,.:.:.:-- -- ,'-,,:.:.:.
:-:..: ... .1,...":.......
I:.:
.. .., . . .... . . ... . . . . ...::::. ....
. . . .:..:.,:::::.,:.,:]:..:.,:::.",.,:::.:i.,.,:i:::..,:..::i;]:.'..:
.., ..,:::::: .I .. .:....: :, :- X. .:.:.:.
. : X,..: ..:.:
.. :.:.:.,:.
.. ..:.:
X ::: . :-, ..: X.: : : X : : :-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...:::,:.,:. :. , :. .::::::::::
. .-:.......... ... . .-.... .. .. ,"',".."...... .......,
::.::::.:..:.,. q.-. ..-..,.:
-:: :. .... .::.X :;--,-,,-r.. . . . . . . . . . .I.-, ....::. -- :I.:::. .:.. . . ...,:
...:7::
. . .I..:::::::;
-:: ,: :. :: :...-
,:.:... ,: ":.,:.:,,.:" : :,.:::::.:II . . .. I :. :.::.,: ':r. .,.: ::::::': ,:,: -:-..-. . ... :: -' .. .:.,... ' : X : : : : :" ,, ,:::": . .. . . .I.
: ,:: :: :: .,:::..-X- .: :-:---,
. . . . .. . . .. .. .. .. .. ..I. ..
1::....I.:: ....I .,-.: ....,. :: . .. .. .:.. ...:-:.. I. .... .....:: ::: :: ... .... ..--. . . . . ,::,::..:::::: .. .:... . .- .::..:',.::,..... I. .4 ....... I. . .::. . .. . .,. . . .::-:,::: ::::::::: .... .:.:,:.:::: .:.I.-. :]i-,i].' : : ' . :::: :::'.-'--'.: '.,,,.
,
.,::X::::
, .. . .I.. . :I:.;.
.I. :: . . . . ...:.:: . , . ..-.-' ........1.I..: ...:-:-::::::
. .I. . ........ . ..... ..:.... . ... .. ... :.. ... ...,. . . .....................'........
.. : :: :::.. "::... I: :...- ... I, - , . I .-: .... ,...: ,:::..-.:': ,, ,:.....:::, :q..1 :: -::::: , -, -'-
:::-::..,: ;:..: ::":, .. :.. :.. ::.::',::".:': .. ,,,
. . .: ...::e.... ..,,...,:,.
-'-.I...,. 1- I ..I... .:.::-,':,,,.
,,: : ::..:::.. : .:::::::::...:-:,
::. ,:::i::::]:...::::::]:]:::]::::...,:.',:::i::.,:]:::
... . . .:. .,,:::::':: ...II. :::.II.. :::::......."
'::, . . .I.-.I ., -:-.. : :-:-: : : ::-: :---:-::-q
:.:.: :.. ......."........ ...%..
:P:-r::,: I. :,:. :: .::............,,' , : . o:-:: :.;... . ...I.
. ...".
:-:. %::: .I. . . . :: . . ...I. .::.; . . .... . .. ... -1 . . .%-. I ,. ......
..:., . . ...4 .. . .. . ... ....%.
.. . ... .... .....P
.I... . ..... . .-.... . ..:... ..:
., I... I,::,1,. :....,
I:
I ... I - .- ...... ..I .: I .I .. ..I. . .. .I. . ...I......,.......'..,
. .. ., .:,:..:.. . .....':I:......."...-b .-, . . .... .. .. I..,",".
1. .. . .I . -... . -........ ..I
:::-: 1, . . . . . . . ,.. . .... . .... , .. .., .........., . . , :,I...: . .. .-. . .. I.. .........I. ..I. I.:.. ... ...I. . . . . . ..: ::: : .1 1,-, : : ::: X :::::,- ,:::
:... .. ::::::::;:::::,-. ..... -1 I ,- I. . . :. :. .:..:.:1
. . ... .......
. . . b-'...'.. . . ......,
.
. . . .- ,.... . . : .....': ,...
.,:-:.%:.:,, :,,, ... :', .: 4w, .'..., ,::::.::::: .- - ..---. : : : :I: :....:: ., .." :.... . ,.: : ::::'r ::, .. ," - :":.:-:.:
. .::.. :::: , :X,
. . ... .::::..
.::.; . ,X-:::::.:::: : :%: . . .I. :.'. :-...:.-- .,:I.,.-::i-:z
..- ::::::::::::::::::::::::...,::: :::
`,.....,.-... . . . ..... . .I .....:-.
.:...'. .... ........ :::.....:X . :: ..:. ..:.:.::::.:. .X1. .II. . . .. . . . . :..::,... ... .,.. ..,.....: . ..... .I.. . . .... ....
. .I I I.... . ... .... ---.: :.... ;: ::.. . -'-,,..,....,-'....1...
.::,- :. :. . . ..X ::::::,
.
..,"" ..:: . .. . . . .I...
:::... :::: I, .., I. . .. .......... .:.,.,.: :. .....:': .. :: ...:::.... I ... . ...,,:;::: :::::::-':':':::::::`:,.:,:. ..:.:.: : . -; :;.:,..... -: ,,. :::%:.:
. . .,, . . .-.i::.,.::]:i:::i:ii::::.-:-.:::.::
.....
.;:
,,::,': :,.::::: : ,,::,,,:: : :I...,:: ::::::: :: :- ........ ..........,. .. . ...:.I .:::::.,.:.i,., . . . . . ..I. .... . .I , . .. :.-.:.:.:; :: ::-:-: .:.
. .I. . ..I. . . . . . . . . . . .. ..X .z.-
.,....::... .:..: : .;.::
..,..-: .:..,, ,..I"'...",X----,
. . :::.:.:
I.... :,:-.,-i'. iii].. , . . . --I`.,i.,-
.... I I .. ]:..:.::.:: .:::: :. .:,:,:: ". .,'-.:.,X. ... :; .-. ,,,
, ,!,,
:.::...;:;:. .:: ...: ,: ..::,.::.
:..::::::.WX;. . .:.:. :::
-: :,::::: ::: ..:: ... .q: ,... . .;:: ::: ..I.,,....
:::::, . ::'::: ,:
.:.:..:. .. :::: :: ;::: ::::::::::::..,
,:::, . . .;.:..:.,;: :: , ,-,* --
::;:::: ..":: . . . .!,. ::-:-.%.:::::
. ... ..I ..... .I.I. . . '.. . .. ::::::. . .,:::::::::::`: .. ::::::::::::
..
%.:.: ,:..
....,. .......... , .,., ,.f:: ::: :::: .'.......... -:..:.,,"...-,: :::.:: : :"" :,,:,:I.:
...---...
-",::..1
,::: I : -..I
:...::::::: ... :::,::. -. ... ... ...:.%-.:.-
.. -.: .,........ :.:.: .:.%.: :,. ... :...-......."........
. .: -.:. .....,
,,.. ..,:: I:::::,--. .. . . . .. ............ .,,
..... . ...,::::::,:::::%:::::::::::::
..--.....,,1..,..,,......-q..-, ... . . . . . . . .I. . ..I. :::::
....: . . :::
. . -.: :: ::,
.I.1::::::::::::, .: ::: "
.
:, .,. ::.-.-:.-*,
. ..*...*:", .,. S-
..... ...... .... .-..:: : :.: ; :::.::::;.,::::::;::::::::::::: -:::: :.:.:..:::::::.:::X . :-,-:-:-:-: .::: .: : : :-:-::-:X :::-:-: .I : :1:-:-:-q1':-:-.,:: .,...:::::: ::...:,.,,-,,,
:::::. ....,..:, :.,....:::: .;. ... ." . -----: :,ii . ..i.'.i:'.].'..i]i
,.:........'.............". , , .:::. . . ..::. :..:
. .::::;:::,
,..., I....::::::.---.
, . ..::X. .. ..". . .'-. ., .,., .. . . ..... . . .. ..::;: ...... ..-.. . . ..,..:.
... :::::.-.%-.-:-.
.:P.
,. ..,OX . . ....:....%:
. . ... , ... I
. ..:,': . :.:..:.: :: . : : : :- -::::::::.: . . . .-,
.I.. ...- - . . .:. ..:.:.:"
. . . ...,...: . . . ..,. ..."....., ... -,,I". 1-.... ..,. ..-I., . .I -.%.I
. . .... I...I.. . ....I. ..... . .... . . . . .....
. .I...I .-..... ...::::.:.:.:
. . .:. . . :-: . .;-:. . :. ..: I I ... . .... .. ... .. I, I ..:%
. .I....., ,* .-]:iii.
. . . .i-%. ...
-.,i.--`si: -,.. ...
.. . . .. I . I
:::::::..:.. : ": . . . .I--...
.,.,..:
. .I.
I.: .::..:: ::.:: : :: ::' ".,,..:..:::::.,.:::.... ,.,:,. . .--':-:-::::::.:::.::: ....:- ::,I:x,:.: .-rX : ::.: :: :: ,-, :: :::::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ':. .,....
. . . . .. .:.::- . . . .,:.:.:.:.:.
. . .,
..::.::. :::::::::::::::::-, -::::;,::::::::::-, . I 1:.- . .. %. ::::::, ..:::,.::::::,.
......... -:-.: ::::: .. :::::. :.::: ::.-:., :.::.,,-., :, . ,.: :: ..X,: ,.: :: ::,.;:":::"::::::: :: ;:::;:::,::: :::!,:, :, ". .:::::::: -::: :::::-:::::::..: , ::;:; ::
. :-,.-.:::.:
. :- :::: ,": :::.,:,-::::::::::::: ::::.:-. X: . . .. . . ",.
. . . .:.:.,.. . . . . . . . . .::.,...:::.:::::. ": . . . . ..... .. . .:. . . . .I,,",: , . ..::::.:::,; .;.I:: :v:,:-,. . . . .:-, .I .,.. ,..
.1.-..:
.-.. ,.:. .: . .. .. .. ..I.
. ...I.I....- . ...::::,.:::%
. .. . ....
. . . . .. -. .:: .. pd......,., .. ... ...... .... .......-.., . . .. .:.:,:.:: ::: :,::::::: ,.. .., I .,., . ....... ... .I
.. ... .... . ..... . . ..--..
. I..I ..- ,. . .....:...
,. ,.
. . . ....::-:-:
.:.:..:.:::
,. : , ::. :.:.: .:.. .. ...... .I.:,:.x,:::: ...,.:. : -'. : : :-:,... .,%:::,. :.:,:.:.:
. . : :-: ;.:.:.., , ,,, . . . ,.-....
: !:- :.: : : :.:.:.: .%: ': .::: ::::::! - ""... ..... ..... .... , ; .:.... :: 1.:..-..
..:-.:
..I.::.:.::
.,. ...::: , :::::::::.,. :::::,-::::::::
. . . . . .. . . :...:.:
. . . . :...::::::::::,.::::::,.::,.:::::::::::::
. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . .II. . ..::::.:
. . .-.-.. . . . .,.. .,'..., ..... . : , . -: . . . -.,:::::X::::::-:::....,.,. .,.,......, ....-::...., :-.: -:.::: ::::::.;::::..:.:..;.:.:.-.:.:.:.:. ,: ::::::::::::!::,, - ...
., ':.:.:,. ,': '... ,:.,:. - -" I.. ,%::-:..,,.:::- : :::,,..: .: : :: .:::":::
..-.::: x::,::' : :::-! : :::::-:1:` : :: .;:::: ,::::::::::::'-' :::;: .: :.:.:::: :..
. ::::::::::: :.: :!:: X. ...II. . . .I . I I.'..,. .. . . .,.
,"
I.. .... ...I. .::
.....I..:;
. . . .... .::::
. . ..I
. ...:::-,..
. .
I. .. ...
. . ,::":
..........
. :, : : -,:
..I..,:;:... .. .: :.,:: ..... '- ..::::::::::
,
: : :::::.:: -:.; . :. :. X
.;..I. .:-,
. . . -,..,
...,," .
.--- . . . . . . . . . .. .... I.I:,';:.I. . .I.- ........ . . .... I.-..,.,.-....
. . .. I I. . .b......., . . . ..I. ,.. . ., .; -::X. .:I: .::: :::-.",::: ,", ::: ,, - :: ::- :: :: -. ,, :-
': :: .,;.: ...., . . . . . .I ... - . .I.:,:. .:.:
....-...
-1- --....
.,...:,,:.
::!:.:..I.
:::::::::
I-......... .....",.-
:.::.:.:.,.:.:.
:::,,,
I. - ;. .. .. . . . .
....
-:-:::.XX]:::::::::.1....
:
- ..........-
........... ,...,
::,
..........
, ,,::: ... ,.:.:.:.,.::::::":::.,::::::::::::
. . .I. . . .I.......
,
.....
. . . . . . . .:. ....
.-.:.:,:..::.-:::::::, s.--...........
.........
,:,.
---
, .:.. ,...' :.:-,
.... - -.....
. ..............
. ... ..... .......
-....-
,:::::::::...:.:.:.
. .I. -. . ..:.::- . . . . .I .I.I..
-::: :: ::::::::: :::7::,::' X:::::::::: :,:::..:::::.
. .. . .. - .. . ..... .. ......I ,., - . .. . ,.I .
............
,.
,.: r, :-:. - .- ,.:. . . ..:. ..:. X. ..-. .,. --
. :::: ... :': .. : : ::
:: :::
- ::
::::
1..: .-.::::!::::::::!:::::::..X :::::.,....
,,,::,
. . . . . .,"'., .-. ..... ..... .I.....
I. ...:::::::;:::::. :...
. .. :: ::::::::::.,
. . . . . .:.:.:
. . . .... .. . .I. . .... .. . ... .. ...,,
::::::::: .: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I::.:.: : ::: : -. -, ".-:,.:::::::;::.:
. x ::: ,:- .::.":::, . %:: ,,::X: -"- :., ---: ...,1......,.,.:::.:.,
:. ::: :.. :::,:
-
:. ,::. ...: . -:. -,
.. .:.:.
...I :
.: :.:..: :.: .. .:: ::::::::::::::,
.,: : :
. ..... :
: "-, .
- ,:
,..,:
-,:.:.:.:.: ..
: 1.: :-:.: .. ... . . ...
Polygonal
........ ...-.....
.'::!:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,,.........'.. .....-:
:1. ---.:::.;.:.:,.:.:,::...
.... -.............. Bath-
,. - - -.- ,;1..,. . , .. .-,. . .::. :I. . . :..:: -,.. :::. . .-:: :., ::. . :.::::::. ..... . . ..:: :::- :X : :,: :,, .::... :.'......:
- .::::::::;:;",::::::::::::,:.::.,.:,::::::.:
..................
..................- .-....
::
1.
-- : ...:::::.::..:::,:::::::-:::::::::.:.:,:: ': :::: .. .I : . :.: :.: : : : -, '-.- : : : : -:-:.:
.:.:.-:::.:::`.-
;:.,:::::..:.::::,:::::,!:,:::::::,:"."::...::::.:::::.:",::":::::::::::
-::
....,
...-::--
.... ---.....
I...........
........
,.. ::::::::::
:.::--
:...
- -.1.
.---......:....:.......-
.::::::::::::::::;::I...,
.'::.
-..-,:::
.....
: : :- ,
.:::.:::::::::.::.:..:::.:::;:.:
. . I .,..,..,...-....,,,,.1 : .-, .4.1 .:,d
... . -. %.::::::::::::::
.......... - .-........ ..:::"

::::.-
..-.....
.....I.......-...............I....-........-.
.....'.......'......
.11 I; .:-::
....:::::::::..::::::::::::::!
7.. .. .::
.........
I..
.:::
.......:. ::..:.: ::,:.. . . . . . .......,X.......:::....
.,:":::::::::.,:
,:::-:::-:::::-.--.,-
:::;::,:::::.
::', .:.4:1 .:...:.
....I.
.:::..::.:::,..:::::;::::..,::::::::::::.,.
..",
. .. ..:.. . .I-- "...,.... ......I.. I ..,.
:.,
. . .::::::: . .-. .,. . . . .... .. ....',",..:
::::!-. .,
.... .: ::,:,,........., . . . .. . .I. . . . . . . . . .. ;,:::.......
..
. . . . ...... ,........'.............'-.. ::.:..,X
:, , -: :::::!;:::::-: : .. ': '. ::::::::::::::::::::X-X:::
..... .,. .:.... .:.:.:: ,X::- . . . . . . . . . . . .. I.I . . I
:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ... . ..: .:
:, ,:, ,::,:,: ::::,:.::%::::::::::::::
.,: . :.. .. ,.::.:.:
. ..,...:. I . .. "..
im:,.i::
"" , ..
"'.."...... . :,:,::I
--A%il'..:. -:::::.-:::::-.:::.,.............
.:::::..,.:,..:::: ..............................
.-:..:.:..;::-:-:-:::::::
.::.::.; ,.:.,
:.,.. ... .. .: , . .. . . . . . . .: . .,.::. .. . . .I I .... ..-. . .
. . ..I I. . . . . . .. . . . .I. . . . . .I. . . . . . . .I . I.. . . I ....I
.
I I . I I . . I. . . ... : :... ..: .-.%... , ........ ...,.. ,- .I.........,
I ; ............-
.,. .,:. .:w.:
..: .. .. ...:.:. .. :.. . ..... ...... .:... ::,: ::
. ,.. . ....... . ........ ...... ..... ...... .E...,:
.. ... . . . '.....'...-I,
.. -1.. . . . .. .... . ..... ...:I ::.:........., ..... ...........
, :. ....... .. .. :: 1:1I:1 : .'::: :: I.r.
. ... . ......
,:,. . . . . . -:::.........I . . .. X.:
.I. : ,-: :::;:.: '- :. ::::, : :::,, : :' :,: ,.; .: ,, .::' . ':'. ,: ,. :..,d.. :: : : z : X : :::: .. - :.,.: : z - .-:...-...- ..:
.I . . . . . . -,. . . : :....,.....-.
. . . ..:.:..:.r,.-.:.;_.:.: .
.:.....
.
: : . .:. .....:::::X ::::::: . ... : ..: .....
..
,- .,.,,:'.].,..--.i..:...:
.. I . . . .:,. . . ."'..
.,,,-..........,.....,.,.ii.',i,ii.'
. . . .,""::.I.
. ... ...., ,,...... . . . .'.. , .,'.. . .. ."'
,..X---:.,.:.
.I.. . . . . ,.. . . . . . .. ..... .w.. .... :.::,::.:.:,
- --
.:z.::. .....I. . . . ....
,.,-, :, .......,..:.:..',:.. . . .::: . .::::::::::
. . . . . . ..,.;: ... ......, I . ",......'.... ....:,',: I; '.. , :.:.:.:: : :::..i :::::: : : ::::.:. .: ::,. 7:,.-.:,:.; ..: .:.:..... : : .I. . . . . . . . . . ..:.:,:,
::: :.:'.:..::::.:. ::.,: ":::: :: :::': -':' z.:... :!::::::.::',: :. . .:. Ir
:..... :.
I-, .::, :.:,. . -:........................."..'...
::
. .:::::::.:.:
.. ..; - .... . ... . ... , .. ..... .::::1I...q ..': .:.z`:.::% . .; --. I .'.. . ..,,,i:ii...ir.-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-iii, . . .I . . I. . . . . . . . . ..
I. . . ..:::::r:::::::::::::::::::::
.. ...X'.11
. .. . ....., '..... .:::-:-::: : :-::.:.:.X... . ... .. .. .... .I.: ...,,, .. . .,.,..... .......,, .. ..-.-..%-.....-....,.
, ,. , , : ::
.. ,. .,,, ,, .:, ,:::.ii:]iii:i,...i..',:...::]s
:.1
:..:::.::
... ;: X., ,::;I.".,:.,:.,:,. -:: -: :::.: :::: : -:---,: .... ]'.-i',i:]
...:. . . . . .,.:i. ii]:":
. .%.... . . ..,',']:i]::
a: . Iii::iil::::ii]ii:i::.. :x:;:::.., .. -':' ..I..II:::.. .
.. .. .. .. . . .. .. ..... . ..:....,. . . ... . .II ......-- ... ...:]:::,]*..
. . .. .. .... . .:.:- .:. . . . r. . . .I .',
. . . ..11...,:,.:.:
rI. . .,::.::,. . . . . . . . ..:, ---:::::.: :::::;::::: '. - -.. :::x -:; ,.:: ,:;::;::::::;!::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::;:z: ,.I. .. ,.
,..
. . . . ..,:.:.'-:-:..:.:-:r:
: . :.::::r. . . .:-:::::::::::::::::::::
. ...I. ...1-.I .I. . . .... .I..--. .,
.. :..,%
- ,.W..
-r, , :: .. .I::.::,:: :. -::: . I. . . .II. . . . :":::".,
- . . .
. . ... .. .... ..... . .. : ::. ,::
. ... . . . ..:
. . . :.:.. ... .. .:::
... ..X:.....,.. ,,.
. .. ....... I. ,. .. . .
.. . . . .. . .
... . . . . .::p:::
. . . .I. : :-:. . ...:
. .. 1-1I.....
. . . . .......,. . ... . ...,.. , .:.:::. . :::;
: :: . . m::: . ,....-
. ..
, ,i . . .-.:.:.:.:,
. I.... -1: q .:.:.1. .
..%:".
. .- - :..:-.: ,. . . ....I .....,: . ..... .. .... .. . ,,..-:::: -: :. .I. : : : ::.:::::::::: :7::::::;::: .-. ,,...,. .
,..: :::::::::::::::,::::::`:. ...: '..I- . : :.::::::: . .:::;:..:::;
... ... . . .. .. .... . .... .,I
-.I!, I.::::. .:.:...",
.:.:.:.:::::.:..::.:X::::
I-...I. . . . . . . . . ...:::::; :::::::::X::::::::
,,..,1.1,..1,1,.,.-.,... :::... . . . . . . .:::::
I ...- :::::.:.:.::::.. : ::...,.,:::::::;: . .- :::.. I... . . .. .::::
II.. . '.......,
.-I
. .. .,,.
,... ....... . . . .. ::-:-:-: I. . . ...I. . .I I . I.::.:. .:.:..: :.:.: .-..., .::::::::::::-.
, .. - .
... ......'.
. . . .,,.
...,
. . . . ,... ,.:.:.r.
.:. -:-:,,-. , :::::::::: , .,
......:': .. ,:::, ".", ,.':',, ,,,. ..,.. .. . . ...:..I. .I .
:1 . ". ............, :,,`.-:
. ..I...,I.:::::,::: .:.:.:.:.:.X.:-::::::;:::::: , -. ....:..,.. .:,
....-... ....d.,.- .......:.:.:.:,:,7,::.
. .I I. . .:::;::::..::::::::::::::: : : :: ::::: :z:: : :.:.:.: ". ......,...'.........'".......'...,....
: : ::::: ":....,-..., ::.: ::-".::::,::::::.. :.::::::::::::::::::: :.. : : .:,:.:.:.:,:, .... . . . .. . ... .......'..
. .11..,...-. ... .. . . . . . . . .
:..:-:
:.:.:::.; .,-.-.,,.,
:::` :: ::,. .:, r : .:: : : : :: :..-: .:: :: :: :.:-. .'.: ::::-,;: ,:.: . . . , .. -:.: ::: : :- .:, ........
,.-,., ......."..",."....
.. .. ...-.':
.. .
.,- ,....,.I....-I....
.., ,
...
..,1 :7::;:::::::F.::,:.: : :-::::::: :::; .,,.
.I I . I. . . . ..%
.: .. ., !:.: :::::",.::;.'. ... . .. ... II.
. . ... ... . .. ..I. .I. . . .. .. ..... ... .. ..I. . I.. .. ..... ... .I.
. .I.. .I.. ..::.. . . . . ....., ... -.I. :.:-:.:.:...-.%...-
:"..I .,,
:::::::::..:: : :: ; : ': : :
: .
370
Material of Hellenistic and Early Roman date awaits furtherstudy.
G94-9010961GR-01; Fig. 29:1: G94-9010951VC-01; Hayes 1972, pp. 69-73.
371
372 Fig. 29:2: G94-901116 I6GR-01; G94-901118I8GR-02 [twojoining sherds]; Hayes 1972, pp. 152-155.
According to Hayes, Type A appears in the 6th century after Christ.
373 G94-9011041GR-02; Hayes 1972, pp. 160-166. Type B appears ca. A.D. 575-600.
472 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
14 1-' ''4;
25 6 '7 8
10~ ~~~~-
10 11
12
A
r ~ ~~~~~
*D
C. . 6
X i \'</" w~~1
13 \ X / t
FIG. 29. Roman and Byzantine pottery and small finds from Marathoupolis Dialiskari(POSI Gi) and
Metamorfosi Skarminga (POSI A4) (RosemaryJ. Robertson). (1) G94-901095l1VC-O01;
(2) G94-9011161GR-O1; (3) G94-9011041GR-02; (4) G94-9011181GR-O1;
(5) G94-9011041GR-01; (6) G94-9010961RV-02; (7) A94-9042061GR-16;
(8) A94-9044201 GR-06; (9) G94-9010961RV-01; (10) A94-9044201 GR- 10;
(11) A94-9044201 GR- 13; (12) A94-9042061 GR-01; (13) SF0671; (14) A94-9042061 GR-08;
(15) A94-9044201 GR-28; (16) SF0857A, B
as to Late Roman "C" Ware, Form 3 (Fig. 29:4).374 Few diagnostic cooking wares were
collected. One exception was a fragment of a Middle Roman cooking pot with a wide
everted rim (Fig. 20:9).375 Numerous amphora fragments and other coarse sherds with
combed decoration on the body confirm the occupation of this site between the late 4th
and the late 6th centuries after Christ. Two fragments of decorated Late Roman lamps
were also found at Dialiskari(Fig. 29:5, 6).376
In addition to these ceramic vessels, a variety of Roman tile fragments are associated
both with the hypocaust and with adjacent structures.Portionsof hypocaust support tiles
were found in several tracts, as was one tegulamammata with a preserved spacer.377Paving
tiles preserved in their entirety are characterizedby deeply incised intersecting diagonal
lines on their lower surfaceY378
Surface finds from this site were not limited to objects made of clay. One of the most
interesting discoveries is a marble plaque bearing a Greek inscription on one side and
carved for secondary use on its reverse (Fig. 29:13). The fragmentary inscription has
been dated probably to the 2nd-4th centuries after Christ and appears to be a private
inscription.379 Other stone finds include mosaic tesserae discovered in the immediate
vicinity of the hypocaust and adjacent to the "Mosaic House".380 These small cubes
range from off-white stone to a single green glass tessera. Many pieces of wall revetment
or opussectilefragments were recovered from tracts associated with the above-mentioned
structures,and eleven fragmentsof Roman glass were also retrievedby the surveyteam.381
In addition to these finds associatedwith direct surface collection, a number of sherds
and marble fragments were gathered, presumably from the area of the site, by a private
374 G94-9011272VC-01; G94-9010981GR-01; Fig. 29:4: G94-9011181GR-01; Hayes 1972, pp. 329-338.
375 G94-9010961RV-01. See Riley 1979, pp. 263-265: Middle Roman Cooking Pot III, dated mid-2nd
to mid-3rd century;Hayes 1983, p. 122, figs. 5 and 7, ribbed cooking pot Type It or ribbed casserole Type II.
For a similar cooking pot from the second half of the 2nd century after Christ, see Williams and Zervos
1985, pl. 12:29. For a probable 2nd-century context closer to Messenia see Bailey 1993, no. 57, p. 229.
376 Fig. 29:5: G94-90 11041GR-0 1; Fig. 29:6: G94-90 10961RV-02. The first belongs to the well-known
category of lamps with figured discus and rim decorated with herringbone and panels, manufactured in
Athens and at other Greek sites in the 4th century after Christ; see AgoraVII, nos. 702, 719, 801, 861,
and others. The second fragment is African Red Slip ware or a close imitation; see Hayes 1972, Type II,
pp. 311-314, dated mid-5th to mid-6th century.
377 A number of round tiles from hypocaust supports were collected. Two entire tiles are
G94-901096 1RV-03 and G94-901096 1RV-04. These tiles have a diameter of 0.195 m and a uniform
thicknessof 0.04 m. Tegulamammata: G94-9010961RV-06.
378 For example, G94-9010961 RV-07. Paving tiles from the floor of the hypocaust are characterized by
intersecting diagonal finger marks on the lower surface. The tiles measure 0.29 x 0.26 m, with a uniform
thicknessof 0.07 m. The Munsell reading is 5YR 6/8 (reddishyellow).
379 SF0671. We thank Diane Harris, Department of Classics, University of Cincinnati, who will publish
this inscription, for these preliminarycomments.
380 Tesserae measuring approximately 1 cm3 were found in fields in the vicinity of the hypocaust, the
"Column House", and the "Mosaic House"; SF0836 is a fragment of floor paving with three tesserae still in
their setting bed.
381 SF0802, SF0805, SF0811, SF0812, SF0816, SF0817, SF0819-SF0822. The glass was studied by Kate
Pretty (University of Cambridge).
resident of modern Dialiskari.382The ceramic finds correspond to those typically found

in surface collections at the site. Included in this collection, however, were two small
limestone column capitals with "spikyacanthus"decoration, one preserved in its entirety
but only a fragmentof the lower edge of the second (Fig.29:16, P1.91 :e).383These capitals,
along with the inscriptionrecarvedfor use as a screen, were most likely marble furnishings
from a villa or bath complex.384Other stone vesselsand architecturalfragmentsassociated
with this site await further study.
The features and finds from the site support the identification of Dialiskari as a
Late Roman villa. The quantity of Roman fine wares and amphora fragments, as well
as its architectural remains-portions of a bath complex, domestic architecture and its
furnishings,and productivefacilities-are indicativeof a vital seaside residence of the later
Roman period.
EMALYCHRISTIAN THROUGH EMALYMODERN SITES AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS385

EarlyChristian andByzantineMessenia
Life in the Early Christian and Early Byzantine Peloponnesos was punctuated by
destruction and natural disaster.386The Herulian invasions of the 3rd century,Visigothic
pillaging of the 4th century, and the incursions of the Vandals in the 5th century must
all have exacted a heavy toll. Depopulation resulting from these events would have been
compounded by severe earthquakes in the 6th century (especially A.D. 522 and 551) and
the outbreak of bubonic plague (A.D.541-544). Despite this gloomy picture provided by
textual sources, archaeological evidence suggests that some thriving communities existed
within the southwestern Peloponnesos in the 6th and 7th centuries after Christ. The
remains of a five-aisledbasilica in the modern village of Ayia Kyriakinear Filiatra,slightly
to the north of the PRAP survey region, bear witness to a considerable Christian population
in the mid 6th century after Christ.387 To the south of the survey area, Early Christian
remains have been found approximately two km north of Methoni, where exploration
and excavation inside a cave revealed a large cemetery complex complete with arcosolia
and shaft graves.388 In addition, the finds associated with the furnishings of the Late
Roman villa at Dialiskari, specifically the small limestone capitals and screen fragment
382 These findswere transferredto the Hora Museum by a representativeof the 7th Ephoreia of Prehistoric
and Classical Antiquities, and we have studied them with the kind permission of Xeni Arapoyianni.
383 Fig. 29:16: SF0857A, B; P1.91:e: SF0857A, B, SF0858. The preservedbase diameter of SF0857A, B is
0.17 m; p.H. 0.17 m.
384 Pallas (1966, pp. 192-194) refers to the monolithic stone columns of the "Column House" depicted in
figure 25 of Valmin 1930, p. 139, as "[tuXvr npoepX6[tiva &x XaXatoXptcUXtavtx1)PoaLLtx1)." There is,
however, no reason to presume that these architecturalmembers were part of an ecclesiastical structure.
They, along with the marble capitals found at Dialiskari, were probably part of a peristyle or triclinium.
In the absence of any obvious Christian symbols, one may hypothesize that the recarved marble plaque
was used as a screen within a domestic setting.
385 This section of the report is the work of Sharon E.J. Gerstel.
386 For the best brief history of post-classicalMessenia see Topping 1972.
387 Pallas 1962, pp. 122-125. Unfortunately,the remains of the basilica were recently demolished by local
residents. This incident of destructionwas reported to the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities.
388 Pallas 1963 and 1969.
(p. 474 above),may have been reusedwithin a Christiancontext. All these sites are located
along the coast, a topographical preference that would alter as the disastrous historical
circumstances mentioned above increasingly drove inhabitants inland. The basilica at
Filiatraseems to have been destroyedin the earthquakeof A.D. 551, and intensive surface
collection at Dialiskarifailed to produce any material evidence that could be dated after
the 7th century.
Changes in demographic patterns owing to Slavic settlement in the Peloponnesos in
the 7th and 8th centuries are well documented.389 The assimilation of these peoples by
the 10th century and the relative stability of the region facilitated a time of prosperity
in the Middle Byzantine period (the 10th to the 12th century after Christ). At this time,
western Messenia fell under the local control of the archbishopricof Hristianoupolis (to
the north of the PRAP study area at present-day Hristianou).390Located in the foothills
of Mount Aigaleon, Hristianoupolismay have been connected to other small settlements
of the region by a series of roads running along the base of the mountains. This period of
relativeprosperityis ev'idencedby architecturalremainsat Kalamata, Filiatra,Hristianou,
and Samarina (near Androusa),all towns outside our study area.
Despite the increase in economic stability,in the Middle Byzantine period the coast
of Messenia was threatened by piraticalraids. Topping states that "on the condition of the
rural population we have no direct testimony.... Much of the population of the coastal
plains and towns must have abandoned their fields and workshops to seek refuge in the
mountains.",391This observation seems to be borne out to some extent by the results
of PRAP (Fig. 30). According to our preliminary analysis of ceramic finds, for example,
mediaeval settlement at the site of Skarminga, some 13 km from the sea, dates from the
Middle Byzantine period. The same can be said of Kavalaria, a settlement close to the
present town of Hora (forthese sites see pp. 477-481 below). Significantcoastal settlement
along the Ionian Sea (as at MarathoupolisDialiskari[POSI GI] and Romanou Glyfadaki
[POSI El]) did not continue into the Middle Byzantine period, an apparent sign of the
relative abandonment of the coastline at this time (also see pp. 413-414 above).
Frankish,Venetian, andTurkishMessenia
The post-Byzantinehistory of Messenia is characterizedby rapid changes in power as
the local population submitted to one foreign overlordship after another. Information
on demography and land use in the period of Latin occupation (the Frankishera, 13th-
15th centuries) is provided by a number of fiscal censuses of serfs and properties in the
region. Both village names and architecturalstructuresof the period remain, specificallya
large number of fortressestied to the Frankishsystem of land management.
Sources critical for the analysis of southwest Messenia include the inventories of the
estates of the Acciajuoli family. This prominent banking family,originally from Florence,
had extensive land holdings in the Peloponnesos. For example, the 1354 inventory of
properties belonging to Niccolo Acciajuoli provides the very names of the villagers and
389 See, for example,
Topping 1972, p. 65.
390 Forinformation on the importantlate-11th-century church of Ayia Sotira, and for a short history of this
archbishopric,see Stikas 1951.
391 Topping 1972, p. 66.
476 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y. G. LOWS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
.. . 3I * .
........,,.,,, I..... , : :-- '''''
KilometersA
FIG. 30. Distribution of Byzantine finds, on-site (circles)and off-site (crosses)(Sebastian Heath)
their families, as well as an account of their livestock.392 One of the original goals of
our survey was to compare this documentary evidence with the archaeological record
of selected sites, such as Kremydia Unfortunately, work in the areas mentioned in
these documents was not possible (see pp. 399-400 above), and our plans to integrate
textual and archaeological evidence for mediaeval habitation in western Messenia were
curtailed. Despite these problems, the surveywas able to gather evidence for continuity of
settlement between the Middle Byzantine and the Frankishperiods. Based on preliminary
ceramic analysis,our two principalByzantine sites, MetamorfosiSkarminga (POSI A4) and
Hora Kavalaria(POSI B2) both seem to have still flourished in the early Turkish period
(A.D. 1460-1685).
392 Fourteenth-centuryinventoriesof estatesin the region of the surveyindicate that Kremydia, for example,
had 57 active hearths and 21 deserted hearths. Topping suggeststhat this village, around the year 1354, had
312 inhabitants. See Longnon and Topping 1969, pp. 73-77.
Venetian hegemony over Messenia was threatened in the 14th and 15th centuries by
an influx of Albanian immigrants. Between 1460 and 1685 all the regions of the Morea,
including the twin trading centers of Methoni and Koroni in Messenia, fell into the hands
of the Turks. Ottoman censuses of this period point to a depopulation of the region. This
drop in population was not reversedby a three-decade-long reestablishmentof Venetian
control over Messenia (1685-1715). A renewal of Ottoman overlordshipled to the second
Turkish occupation of the region from 1715-1821, only to be ended by the Greek War
of Independence (1821-1829). At this point, little can be observed of these vicissitudes
in the survey record, although at Tragana Hasanaga(POSI C4), a small hilltop site with
walled enclosures nearby,there is evidence of habitation during the Venetian occupation
and in the second period of the Turkishoccupation.393
To give some sense of the range of settlement types and of material discovered for
these periods, four sites will be examined in greater detail.
Workat SelectSites
METAMORFOSI SKARMLKGA (POSI A4). The church of the Transfiguration(Ayia
Sotira), with its copious spring, is situated at the southern end of the Metaxada valley,
near the road leading from Metamorfosi to Vlahopoulo, approximately 20 km inland
from the sea (P1.87:b).394Tract walking in this area revealed an extensive surface scatter,
with a maximum extent of some 900 x 1180 m (an actual occupied area of approximately
40 ha), spread over both slopes of a small ravine. In 1994, more intensive microtract
collection identified traces of occupation ranging from the Archaic to Modern periods,
with substantialevidence for occupation in the Roman and, especially,the Byzantine eras
(Figs.3 1, 32).395DiagnosticallyRoman potterywas collected primarilyin the southeastern
sector of the site and included numerous coarse- and cooking-ware sherds in an orange
fabric associated with Messenian pottery of this period.396
Ceramic remains from the surface of fields near the church and spring of Ayia Sotira
attest to the existence of a small community contemporary with and dependent upon
this ecclesiastical structure.397Finds from a number of tracts in all parts of the site may
393 Byzantine pottery from PRAP has been studied by Sharon E. J. Gerstel, Early Modern (18th-
19th-century) ceramics by Kim Shelton (Greek Archaeological Society). In Istanbul, research on our
behalf by Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr (Department of History, University of Illinois-Chicago) has found full
documentation for our study area from the 15th through 18th centuries. Siriol Davies (University of
Birmingham)has also been successfulin uncovering in Venice rich archivespertaining to the late 17th and
early 18th centuries.
394 Ayia Sotira is mentioned by UMME as a large mediaeval site (UMME 23). See also McDonald and
Hope Simpson 1969, p. 152.
395 Although McDonald and Hope Simpson (1969, p. 152) state that "a few sherds of thick 'oatmeal'
ware (less thoroughly fired than the mediaeval variety) and other thinner wares of gritty fabric appear to
be prehistoric," we have not yet identified any definite prehistoric ceramics at this site. Some two dozen
lithics were collected, however, including a chert flake-coreassemblage (with three cores) and a Bronze Age
denticulated sickle element (SF0930).
396 Munsell 5YR 7/8.
397 The multiphase church of Ayia Sotira is being studied by Aristea Kawadia of the Greek Ministry
of Culture. Kallimachos Antonakos of the 5th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities has offered us helpful
comments on this structureand other churches of western Messenia.
ArtifactDensity
X2-5
\ ,2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6-1 0
0 16-20
*>20
0 500 Meters
FIG.31. Metamorfosi Skarminga

(POSI A4). Distributionof Roman finds (SebastianHeath). Cross indicates
location of church
be preliminarily dated to the 12th-15th centuries after Christ. High concentrations of

diagnostic Middle and Late Byzantine (12th-i 3th centuries)sherds were found especially
in two fields, one immediately to the west of the church, the other at the western edge
of the site, on the southern side of the valley. Lead-glazed ring-based bowls decorated
with a sgraffitodesign are characteristicof the fine wares collected at Skarminga. These
bowls were generally decorated with crude, deeply scored concentric circles.398Only on
rare occasions were there the intricate patterns normally associated with fine Byzantine
sgraffitoware of the 12th-13th centuries (Fig. 29:10-12, P1.91:f).399
Middle Byzantine cooking pots are among the most common finds at this site. This
class of vessels was characterized by gritty fabric, short, thickened rims, and flat bases
398 A94-9042061 GR-02; A94-9044201 GR-08.

399 Fig. 29:11: A94-9044201GR-13 (sgraffito tondo perhaps decorated with the limb of an animal);
Fig. 29:10: A94-9044201GR-10 (flaringpedestal foot; interior of the vessel decorated with a portion of
the body of a feathered bird);Fig. 29:12: A94-904206 1GR-01 (light green glaze over white slip; decorated
with a tondo containing wavy lines surroundinga leaf blade).
ArtifactDensity
06 10
11l-15
X016-20
U >20
0 500 Meters
FIG.32. Metamorfosi Skarminga(POSI A4). Distribution of Byzantine finds (Sebastian Heath). Cross
indicates location of church
(Fig.29:7).400 Numerous coarse-warefragmentswere also retrievedfrom the site, including

one rim of a portable pithos with an attachedlug, dated to the 12th century (Fig.29:15).401
Segments of the bases of flat-bottomedcoarse-warejugs were found in a number of tracts,
as were fragments of jugs with matt-painted decoration (Fig. 29:14).402 A stem of a
Byzantine double-saucered lamp, decorated with a yellowish green glaze over a white
slip, was pierced, presumablyfor ease in storage (Fig. 29:8).403 One unusual find was the
body fragment of a globular vessel with deeply incised geometric decoration (P1.91 :g).404
400 A94-904206 1GR- 16; vertical rim with flat lip of a cooking pot (Diam. 0.17 m). See Rosser 1983, p. 383
(P1739), from a deposit dated to the mid 12th-early 13th century.
40' A94-9044201GR-28. See MacKay 1967, pl. 69:141; Sutton 1990, fig. 27:1.
402 Fig. 29:14: A94-904206 1 GR-08; A94-9042061 GR-09; A94-904206 1 GR- 10; A94-904206 I GR- 11.
All the bases, with portions preserved of the walls of the vessels, are wheel ridged on the interior surface;
base diameters range from 0.075 to 0.10 m. The Munsell reading is uniformly IOYR8/4. See Rosser 1983,
p. 380 (P1690-P 1695) for flat-basedjugs from Area II. The structuresin this area, according to the final
report, were erected in the 10th century and were abandoned approximately 100 years later (p. 358).
403 A94-904420 1GR-06, correspondingto Broneer Type XXXVII; see Corinth IV ii, p. 125.
404 A94-904255 1 GR-0 1.
480 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y. G. LOWS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
While its fabricis suggestiveof a Byzantine date, no comparandahave yet been discovered.
During this phase of occupation, the settlement appears to have been a small village. One
published documentary source testifies to the size of this community: in the Grimani
Census, taken in A.D. 1700 under Venetian auspices, the settlement (known as Scarmega)
was home for 54 residents (or ten families).405
A third phase of occupation at Skarmingais linked to a probable Turkishconstruction
found at the western end of the site. One corner of a rectangularstructure,with waterproof
mortar preserved on its interior, remains from what was probably a water-storage tank.
This structurewas connected to a substantialand lengthy water channel, one section of
which is lined with stone, running eastward for at least 150 m in the direction of the
church and spring. All these elements were mapped using a TotalStation in the summer
of 1994. According to local residents, this structure was a "bath" (Loutra is the local
toponym). Today, the entire site of Skarminga is intensively cultivated, with modern
irrigation systems exploiting its admirable water supply. Other features to be noted,
although their date remains unsure, are segments of stone-walled trackways (kalderimia)
running east from the area of Skarminga. One section of this network was destroyed
during the summer of 1994 by the building of a new road to the church of Ayia Sotira.
HORA IAVALARI4(POSI B2). Kavalaria is the toponym for the area around the
Early Modern church of Ayios Nikolaos on the outskirtsof Hora along the main Hora-
Pylos road. Ayios Nikolaos is a wide single-aisled church, similar to many in western
Messenia; both the large size of the church and its architecturaldecoration suggest that
this structure had served as the main ecclesiastical focus of a community. While the
precise date of the church remains uncertain, the year 1709 is carved on a block now
immured over its present arched western entrance; that date may be associated with the
first construction phase of the present structure. Population data recorded for Kavalaria
reported 120 residentsin 1689, according to the Corner Census, and 254 people in 1700,
according to the Grimani Census of Venetian holdings in Messenia.406In 1992, however,
tract walkers picked up numerous tiles at this location that are rather earlier than the
17th century and may be loosely characterizedas "Frankish",i.e., possibly of 13th-early-
15th-century date.407 The recovery of a number of human bones, and this abundance
of roof tiles of the mediaeval period, suggestedthat there was a substantialcemetery of this
era, perhaps associated with an earlier phase of the church. In any case, the density of
these finds warranted further, more intensive collection, and in 1994, microtracts were
established in the area around the church, extending east and south across a shallow
valley as far as the site of Kalianesi (see p. 481 below); in total, an area of approximately
340 x 390 m, covering approximately 7 ha, was investigated. Although much of the
pottery collected was Turkish-Early Modern (i.e., 15th-19th centuries), a substantial
number of Byzantine sherds points to a phase of occupation earlier than the Frankish
405 Panayiotopoulos 1987, p. 262.
406 Panayiotopoulos 1987, p. 262.
407 These tiles, found in excavated contexts associated with the period of Latin occupation, are generally
characterized by a rough and uneven lower surface, finger grooves on the upper surface, and a fabric
with many stone inclusions. Few cover tiles were observed. Pan tiles have sharply tapered edges and are
rectangularin shape.
period, in the 12th-14th centuries. Material of the Byzantine period was concentrated
in close proximity to the church of Ayios Nikolaos. Diagnostic sherds included several
small fragments of "green and brown painted ware", ring bases with green glaze, and
small flat-based storage vessels of a type found at a number of sites within the PRAP
study area.
HORA KIAL'INESI (POSIB1). Lying immediately to the south, just across a valley
from the church of Ayios Nikolaos at Kavalaria, are the remains of a small (ca. 0. 14 ha)
settlement and cemetery site; the single vineyard that comprises the site was collected
on a 10-meter grid. Owing to the worn state of the artifacts, ceramic finds were often
undatable;the principalperiods of occupation, however,appear to be Hellenistic-Roman,
with sherds also identified from the Byzantine, Early Modern, and possibly the Turkish
periods. Finds were primarily of cooking ware, with few fine pieces represented. Also
associated with this site is a single Venetian tornesello, on the obverse of which is the
typical cross pattie surrounded by a legend with six legible letters: ... RIO.DUX.These
letters can only correspondto the coinage of Antonio Venier,Doge of Venice from 1382 to
1400.408 The reverse side of the coin is decorated with the lion of Saint Mark. Two
large worked sandstone blocks were discovered in piles of stone cleared from the field.
Both pieces, which perhaps originally came from the Palace of Nestor (see p. 454 above),
may have been used as cover slabs for graves.409 Human bone was collected in several
parts of this site; the owners of the vineyard reported that they had previouslyfound large
fragments of skull and human bone here.
TRAGANA HASANIAGA (POSI C4). A knoll to the east of the modern village of
Tragana revealed traces of relativelyrecent settlement on its summit and at its foot. The
local toponym for this place is Hasanaga, a settlement mentioned as a village in the
territoryof Navarino in Venetian censuses of the late 17th century,as a tchiflikin William
Gell's Itinerary of theMorea(published in 1817), and as home to five families by the French
Expiditionscientifique deMoreein 1830.410On the hilltop a small but dense scatter of pottery
was discoveredthroughtractwalkingin 1992 and in more intensivecollection during 1994.
Most pottery can be dated no more closely than to the 18th or 19th century (the Early
Modern era), but some can be specifically assigned to the late 17th--early 18th century
and the late 18th-early 19th century,the times of Venetian occupation and of the second
period of Turkishoccupation of the Peloponnesos.41
On the knoll top extensive stone field walls (some mortared, some of dry-wall con-
struction)probably are built from the remains of collapsed buildings, and it seems likely
408 SF0028. The legend typicallyfound on the obverse of Venier'storneselli is + ANTO'.VENERIO.DUX.

See Stahl 1985.
409 SF0190A (0.65 [L.] x 0.52 [p.W] x 0.11 m [Th.]); SF0190B (0.65 [L.] x 0.49 [p.W] x 0.11 m R[h.]).
410 In 1689, thirty-seveninhabitantswere noted at "Cassanaga":twelve men, four boys, fourteen women,
and seven girls. In 1700, at "Cassan Aga," two families (seven residents)were recorded: Panayiotopoulos
1987, pp. 226, 262, 300. See also Gell 1823, p. 61; Bory de Saint-Vincent 1836, p. 158; Sauerwein 1969,
Ortsverzeichnis/Navarino, no. 18.
411 One piece of pink creme ware with tan glaze on the interior and cobalt blue glaze on the exterior
(C94-9040483VC-01) dates to the late 17th-early 18th century. C94-9040483GR-03 = late 18th century;
C94-9040483GR-04 = early 19th century; C94-9040021GR-01 = late Turkishoccupation, ca. 1800.
that stone-built structuresonce covered the flattish summit. Bedrock cuttings, possibly
manmade, may be remnants either of a water channel or of bedding trenches for walls.
The crest of the knoll, especially on the east, is today ringed by vegetation (maquis and
bamboo) that masks the remains of a retaining wall, now impeding erosion of the deposit
atop the hill. A sizable olive press, however,was found embedded in slope wash; two other
presseswere also found nearby.
At the foot of this hill are two compounds, one to the east and one to the north.
The walls enclosing both are built in simnilarstyle, with small mortared limestone blocks
(either roughly rectangular or irregular in shape) capped by a beveled mortar molding
(P1.92:a). The enclosure to the east originallywas associatedwith a building of which only
foundations now remain;it was subsequentlyremodeled and now surroundsa more recent
two-story house. This house, still occupied, possesses a second-floor entranceway,and is
not dissimilarin style to provincial elite Ottoman residences.412
SUMMARY AND PROLEGOMENON
The publication of the two parts of this preliminary report413marks the end of the first
major phase of the Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. These two papers outline the
principal resultsof field researchconducted from 1991 through 1995, both archaeological
and natural scientific, as they are relevant to the social-culturalevolution and historical
development of the part of western Messenia that has been the focus of our investigations.
This part of the report is intended to provide a comprehensive discussion of methods
employed by PRAP and a history of its fieldwork, together with a detailed discussion
of several of the more significant archaeological sites investigated by our teams and a
summary of characteristictypes of artifactscollected and analyzed. We have also made
available on the WorldWideWeba complete catalogue of archaeological sites defined by
PRAP and descriptions of representativefinds from each. The publication of both print
and electronic resources now allows diachronic study of the development of material
culture in western Messenia from the time of the first indications of a human presence
in the Palaeolithic period until the Greek War of Independence in 1821. Generalizations
about the relationshipof the Pylos area, with its own peculiar geographical and historical
trajectory,to the rest of Greece are also possible. These conclusions will be of immediate
value to others conducting archaeological researchin the Mediterranean but will also be
of interest to a far wider audience.414
412 See Arel 1993. The date of various structuresat Hasanaga cannot yet be determined precisely. The
present two-story house is said to have been built in the early 20th century, but an Ottoman census of the
early 18th century (unpublished)refers to a two-story house and associated enclosures at Hasanaga. It is
possible that modern constructionshave imitated the style of earlier buildings.
413 See
Zangger et al, forthcoming, in addition to this paper.
414
In addition to these resources, intended largely for a specialist audience, members of PRAP have
collaborated to write a synthesisof our researchesthat we intend to be accessible to general readers: Davis,
in press.
The patterns of settlement that can be reconstructed from the data collected by
PRAP differ in several important ways from those reported by other regional surveys in
Greece, including those that have examined other parts of the Peloponnesos. This is
most obvious for the historicalperiods. For these periods, PRAP's systematicfieldworkin
part confirms the impressionisticpicture sketched by UMME on the basis of much less
intensive investigations. Evidence is lacking for a marked oscillation between nucleated
and dispersedsettlement, a featurecharacteristicof many other surveyedregions, including
Boiotia, the Nemea Valley,the southernArgolid, and the islandsof Keos and Melos. Large,
long-lived villages were more typical in the Pylos area, some of which were first occupied
in early prehistoric times and continue today to be a focus of settlement.
Such an apparent continuity in the location of settlement, however, does not mean
that patterns of settlement and land use remained static through time. Significantchanges
occurred at critical junctures in the history of western Messenia, developments attested
not only in documentary sourcesbut in aspects of the material culture examined by PRAP
The end of Spartan domination and the foundation of Messene in the 4th century B.C.,
for example, are marked by notable growth in the number and size of settlements. The
distribution of artifacts found both on-site and off-site, moreover, documents a general
inland shift in the focus of habitation after the Late Roman period, when major coastal
settlements were by and large abandoned. Detailed analysis of such historical patterns
will allow us to examine methodological assumptions critical to the practice of regional
studies. In particular,archivalresearchsponsored by PRAP,in conjunction with regional
archaeological data, will result in a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding
of the relationship between numbers of archaeologically visible sites, archaeologically
determined site size, and regional population levels.
On the prehistoric side of the ledger, new insights have also been gained. Geoar-
chaeological research415 has aided in the documentation, for the first time in Messenia,
of Palaeolithic remains and has clarified the nature of several tumulus burials and tholos
tombs (see Appendix).416 Furthermore, the density of settlement and intensity of land
use in the third millennium B.C. in this part of the Peloponnesos does not appear to have
been so great as in, for example, the Argolid or Corinthia, a difference reflected in a
palynological record that points to major land clearance only ca. 2000 B.C.417
Fieldworkhas also provided opportunitiesfor combining textual with purely archaeo-
logical information about the Mycenaean period. We have shed new light on the structure
of settlement and land use at the time of the Palace of Nestor, in the 13th century B.C.; it is
now apparent, for example, that a three-tier hierarchy of settlement existed in LH IIIB.
Geophysical, geomorphological, and archaeologicalinvestigationson the Englianos Ridge
leave no doubt that the palace itself stood at the center of a large community.418Several
416
It is clear that previously published distributionsand descriptions of prehistoric monumental burials
in Messenia must be used with the greatest caution.
417 Palynological analyses, conducted by Sergei Yazvenko (then at the University of Waterloo) will be
described in Part II of this report (Zangger et al., forthcoming).
418 Geomorphological studies by Zangger and an extensive program of remoting sensing organized by
FalkoKunhke (PolytechnicUniversity of Braunschweig)supportthe archaeologicalconclusions described in

484 J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J BENNET, Y. G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
large towns under the control of the Palace can now, with greater conviction, be identi-
fied with toponyms recorded in the Linear B texts, and smaller satellite villages in their
vicinity appear to have been dependent on them. Some evidence for an expansion in
the geographical scope of the power of the Palace of Nestor community can be seen: in
patterns of construction and disuse of monumental tombs; in changes in the role played
by border communities on the far side of Mount Aigaleon, such as Maryeli Koutsouveri
and Metaxada Kalopsana; in hints of significant differencesbetween settlement along the
western coast of Messenia and in the inland valleys that lead ultimately to the Pamisos
valley; in an expansion of agriculturein the 14th and 13th centuries, particularlyin olive
cultivation; and possibly also in the construction, at approximatelythe same timne,of an
artificialharbor at the mouth of the Selas River.419
The preceding remarks outline some of the principal general conclusions that our
research thus far appears to support. With the completion of this stage of the project,
members of PRAP now turn to more detailed analyses of data. Continuing research has
two immediate objectives:
1. To complete the study of artifactscollected by PRAP and to refine their dating.
2. To make project records,photographs, and drawingsavailable to other scholars in the
form of an electronic archive, accessible via the Internet.
Beyond these general and more technical goals, individual members of PRAP will
author a series of specialist reports.420 Topics to be considered in detail include the
following:
1. The history of settlement and land use in western Messenia in specific periods (e.g.,
Palaeolithic, Mycenaean, Archaic through Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine) and
the factors, environmental, economic, social, political, or ideological, that influenced
decision making about the location of settlement and other activities.
2. The histories of several indivridualsites (e.g., Romanou Glyfadaki,Marathoupolis Di-
aliskari,Romanou Romanou,and Hora ThePalaceof Nestor),including the relationship
between subsurfacestructuresand surface distributions.
3. The distributions of particular types of artifacts (e.g., lithics, Mycenaean pottery,
imported Roman fine ware) and deductions that might be drawn about the nature
of the economic systems responsiblefor their distributions.
4. Comparison of rich Venetian and Ottoman archival data on settlement and land use
with material-culturalremainsof the 15th-early 19th centuries(notably,the settlements
of Hasanaga, Skarminga,and Kavalaria,and the distributionof EarlyModern pottery).
this part of our preliminary report and, furthermore, have detected ca. 50 m northwest of the citadel of
the Palace of Nestor the remains of what is probably a fortificationwall. At present, it seems to us most
likely that this wall belongs to the EarlyMycenaean fortificationsystem explored by Blegen and described in
Iylos III, pp. 8-18.
419 Evidence for the harbor has been examined by Zangger and Jost Knauss, evidence for expansion of
olive cultivation by Yazvenko: see Zangger et al., forthcoming.
420 All the following reportswill emphasize the integrationof archaeologicaland naturalscientificevidence.
Other specialist reports published by natural scientists associated with PRAP will consider more technical
aspects of geomorphological, palynological, remote-sensing,and soil-science studies.
PROJECT:PARTI
5. The extent to which erosion and other geomorphological processes have affected our
perceptions of the surface archaeological record, and thus the extent to which patterns
of settlement and land use based on present artifactual distributions are biased by
differential geomorphological histories within the PRAP study area.
6. Detailed examination of our own data alongside that of UMME, collected three decades
earlier, permitting us to compare differing survey techniques and the effects of intensive
modern agriculture on the surface archaeological record.
7. Models to explain the formation of the surface archaeological record (e.g., the relation-
ship between recent land use and surface artifactual densities; the processes that have
created low density artifactual distributions; the archaeological correlates of diffierent
types of past land use).
After the completion of this second stage of the program, we envision a final published
summary of all research sponsored by PRAP
APPENDIX: THE LOCATION AND DATING OF MONUMENTAL BURIALS421
At the end of the Middle Helladic and beginning of the Late Helladic periods, western Messenia
was home to the earliest tholos tombs yet discoveredin Greece; it has, furthermore,been argued
that this distinctiveform of Mycenaean elite burialderivedfrom, or at least was stronglyinfluenced
by, the custom of burial in tumuli (burialsunder or inside roughly circular mounds of earth or
stones) during earlier stages of the Middle Bronze Age.422 An abundance of tholoi and tumuli
has been reported in southwestern Greece, many located in or near the parts of Messenia that
have been the focus of researchby PRAP.423
These monumental tombs continue to attract considerableattention from scholars. A recent
study by Sylvie Muller has systematicallyexamined tumuli, constructinga typology for them and
analyzing evidence for regional and chronological variation in their form.424 Muller's study has
served to emphasize the great diversity in tumulus features. In some instances the tumulus was
heaped over a single central tomb; in others, graves were dug into an artificial mound from its
surface. Some mounds were surrounded by a low stone "peribolos"wall; others had no such
revetment. Tumuli are generally,but not always, found in small groups. The burials in Messenia
acquired special forms, e.g., built cists with apsidal ends and burials in pithoi radiating from a
central cist. Such variabilitydemands explanation.
The introduction of tumuli in Greece has frequently been attributed to migrations of new
settlers from the north, tholoi, to influence from Crete.425Less traditionalstudies have attempted
to explain the spread of these forms of burial as reflections of increased competition among
Middle Bronze Age elites, as a deliberate attempt to accentuate (through conspicuous display
421 This appendix is the work ofj. Bennet andJ. L. Davis.
422 E.g., Hammond 1967, Korres 1984.
423 Indeed, one distributionmap requires a special inset at enlarged scale so as to display all the definite
and possible examples: Muller 1989, p. 2, fig. 1.
424 Mtller 1989.
425 Miller 1989. Muillerbegins her studywith the assumptionthat "La maniere de prendre soin des morts
constituerait pour un groupe ethnique un moyen fondamental d'exprimer son identite et d'implanter, au
propre et au figure, le tissu de son organisationsociale dans le territoirequ'il occupe."
of wealth) distinctions among social classes, or as an expression of altered cosmologies. Tumuli

and tholoi have been viewed as "forms of corporate burial reflecting kin groups linked together
in a community,"426grave constructions above ground "as symbols of personal or family status,
or as some type of territorial marker,"427and objects in graves as clues to changes in social
organization.428 Ancestor cults established at prehistoric tombs may have served in historical
times to legitimize the control of land.429
Any attempt by Aegean prehistoriansto distinguish between competing explanatory frame-
works, however, is doomed to founder without more detailed information concerning the dates
of these tombs. Their precise locations and their relationshipto contemporarysettlements are also
in most instances uncertain. Distribution maps of tumuli and tholos tombs as now published are
likely to be inaccurate.430 Published dates are not alwaysjustified.43' Not all published tumuli
are burial tumuli,432nor are all mounds with burialsconstructedby human agency.
It was among PRAP's initial goals to relocate all known tumuli and tholoi, as part of our
inventory survey,and to fix their locations on large-scalemaps. Secondly,we hoped that intensive
surface investigationswould allow unexcavated graves to be more precisely dated. In the event,
we found cause to question the dating of some within our study area. This was perhaps to be
expected. More surprising was our discovery that several tumuluslike mounds, one previously
thought to cover an unexcavated tholos tomb, are not burial mounds at all but natural features,
artificiallymodified by recent agriculturalpractice.433The two sites discussedin more detail below
illustrateeach of these points and exemplify our results.
PYRGAKI TSOUKA(POSI I19). The site of Tsouka ("hill"in Albanian) is located near the
southwestern end of a ridge that extends westwardfrom the Aigaleon range, north of and roughly
parallel to the Englianos ridge. Here in 1961 UMME reported the existence of a Middle Helladic
burial tumulus, 9 x 12 m in diameter and approximately5 m high.434Bones, fragmentsof pithoi,
and white stone slabs, interpreted as cover slabs for graves, protruded from the "nearlyvertical
sides" of the mound, which supportedon top a trigonometricmarker,installed by the Greek Army
(P1.92:b).435
In the summer of 1991, we found the site approximatelyas it had been described by UMME,
and in 1993 we systematicallyexamined its remains. The knoll consisted of two distinct parts:
a central cylinder (H. ca. 5.4 m) with nearlyverticalscarps,roughly in the middle of a lower mound
426 Dabney and Wright 1990, p. 49.

427 Nordquist 1990.
428 Graziadio 1991.
429
E.g., Coldstream 1976; Snodgrass 1982; Antonaccio 1995. Specificaly for Messenia see Alcock 1991b.
430
It is for this reason that it is difficult to accept Muller'sgeneralization that most tumuli are "localise[s]
en general sur le sommet d'une acropole voisine."
431
It is dangerous to assume that tumuli are Middle Bronze Age in date without corroboratingartifactual
evidence; burial in mounds continued long after the Middle Helladic period (e.g., Dakoronia 1987),
throughout historical periods (e.g., Morris 1992, pp. 51 [Roman tumuli], 132-135 [ArchaicGreek tumuli]).
432 This problem is by no means unique to Greece. One recent study, for example, has noted that fifty
percent of the prominent piles of stones on the island of Hvar in Croatia that have been identified as tumuli
lack any trace of burials; most may be cairns of stones from the clearing of fields; see Gaffney and Stan9i9
1991.
433 See also Zangger et al., forthcoming.
434 McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 237.
435 McDonald and Hope Simpson noted that the diameter of Tsouka had already been cut back by
cultivation (1961, p. 237); they considered the site to be in danger of destruction.
PROJECT:PARTI
(Diam. ca. 14 m). In the scarps of the central cylinder,parts of two human skeletons were visible,
associatedwith fragmentsof tiles and large storagejars. Fragmentsof historicaltiles were plentiful,
but there was relativelylittle pottery to be found. The earliest tiles were Hellenistic; others were
difficult to date but could be Roman, Byzantine, or even Modern. Several glazed sherds were
either Byzantine or Turkish, while amphora fragments appeared to be of Roman or Byzantine
date. No prehistoricremains were discovered,and the association of tile with both skeletons and
of glazed pottery with one suggests that both burials are historical in date.436 Geomorphological
investigationssuggest that the knoll is entirelya naturalformation. This site should, in our opinion,
be removed from the corpus of MH tumuli.
HORA KOUKOUYERA (GAC D56). At Koukouyera,McDonald and Hope Simpson437noted
what they believed to be a large artificialmound (Diam. 21-27 m, H. 7.0 m), a probable burial
mound covering a tholos tomb, "planted with grain to the very top, where there is a concrete
survey post" (P1.92:c). By 1991, the surroundingfield had long since been bulldozed and olive
trees had replaced the grain (P1.92:d). This destructiondid, however,have one positive result: it is
now clear that the mound is not an artificial construction. There is no evidence that the area
was ever used for burial, and geological investigationsconcluded that the hill is entirely natural.
Reinvestigationof each of these sites emphasizesthe dangers lurkingfor anyone who attempts
to make sense of the published distributionalpatterns of tumuli in Messenia without initiating new
fieldwork. These two examples by no means stand alone.
Reevaluation of the data has important consequences for understandingthe development of
prehistoric western Messenia. If Koukouyera is not the location of a Mycenaean tholos tomb,
then there were only two tholoi near the Palace of Nestor, further emphasizing its prominence
within the region.438 Both are located on the spine of the Englianos ridge, one at the Palace
of Nestor itself (Tholos IV), the other adjacent to the road leading from Hora to the coast
(Tholos III, the Kato Englianos tholos [POSI C5]). Tholoi are found in locations farther west,
bordering the fertile alluvium between Koryfasio and Romanou (the Voidokoilia, Tragana, and
Haratsari [Osmanaga] tholoi) and to the south at Myrsinohori and Koukounara. However, with
the removal of Koukouyera, only on the Englianos Ridge are such tombs found inland within
the area systematicallyexamined by PRAP.None has been verifiedat Gargalianior Valta or in any
of the valleys immediately east of Mount Aigaleon (e.g., those of Metaxada or Maryeli).
On the other hand, recognition that the burials at Tsouka belong to a historical period raises
the possibilitythat the practice of placing burialsin prominent locations continued to be employed
in historical times, perhaps to emphasize claims to rural land or, perhaps even metaphorically,
to evoke the legendary past of Messenia by mimicking an older form of burial. As a result of
the fieldwork of PRAP, we can be certain for the first time that some sites like Tsouka were not
closely associated with adjacent settlements, but a natural eminence like Tsouka may have served
as the naturalfunctional equivalent of a manmade tumulusor tholos, being located in a prominent
position and obvious to travelersand to farmers as they worked their fields.
Finally, the fate that has befallen the site of Tsouka since it was first described by UMME
emphasizes the urgent need for fieldwork. Muller has written: "En effet, la structure meme
436 Scarcely two weeks after completing our studies at Tsouka,we returned on August 8, 1993, to find that
the entire outer mound had been leveled by a bulldozer,leaving only the inner cylinder with its geographic
markerintact.
4 McDonald and Hope Simpson 1961, p. 240.
438 The so-called "GraveCircle" immediately southwestof the Palace of Nestor should probably be added
to the list.
d'un tumulus le condamne soit a disparaitre du paysage A plus ou moins long terme, selon la
vitesse d'erosion ou de sedimentation et l'intensite des travaux agricoles, soit A subir les assauts des
fouilleurs clandestins." To this sentimnent we can only add our full agreement. Each and every
monumental, or otherwise prominent, burial in the Messenian landscape is a valuable element or a
potentially valuable element in a pattern of past mortuary behavior. The destruction of any is
an irretrievable loss to prehistory.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A formal request for a permit submitted to the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (ASCSA) in
December 1990 was followed by a proposal to the Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP), requesting
financial support of a reconnaissance season of fieldwork in the summer of 1991. We are delighted to
express our appreciation for INSTAP's assistance then and in subsequent campaigns. Major funding for
PRAP has also been obtained from the National Endowmentfor the Humanities (RO-22441-92 [1992-1994
in support of fieldwork]; RK-20170-95 [1995-1997 for publication]) and from the National Geographic
Society (4798-92; 5004-93; 5227-94 [1992-1994 for fieldwork]). In addition, the sponsorship of our home
academic institutions has been invaluable. Here we acknowledge assistance from the Louise Taft Semple
Fund of the Department of Classics and the Research Challenge Program, of the University of Cincinnati;
the Department of Classics and the Graduate College, of the University of Illinois at Chicago; the Kelsey
Museum of Archaeology, the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, and the Office of the Vice
President for Research and the College of Literature,Science, and the Arts, of the University of Michigan;
the Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences, University of Reading; the Department of Classics, the College
of Liberal Arts, and the Graduate School of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, of the University
of Texas, Austin; and the Graduate School Research Committee and the Department of Classics, of the
University of Wisconsin, Madison. Financial support has also been received from the British Academy
(Major Research Grant) and the Society of Antiquaries of London. Finally, contributions from private
individualshave been especially important in allowing us to expand our researchprogram in directions that
would not otherwisehave been possible. We thankin this regardthe following "Friendsof Pylos": Michael C.
Alexander, Emmett L. Bennett Jr., Jack L. Davis Sr., Ramona J. Davis, Irma Friel,Joan T. Haldenstein,
Mabel L. Lang, Stella G. Miller, and Leo Schelbert. Eleni Hasaki has helped with proofreading. The
contribution of Phoebe E. Acheson in assembling the manuscriptof this report for submission to press has
been of inestimable value.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AgoraVII =J. Perlzweig,Lampsof theRomanPeriod(TheAenian AgoraVII), Princeton 1961

AgoraXIII = S. A. Immerwahr,TheNeolithicandBronzeAges(TheAthnianAgoraXIII), Princeton 1971
Alcock, S. E. 1991a. "Urban Survey and the Polisof Phlius,"Hesperia60, pp. 421-463
.199 lb. "Tomb Cult and the Post-ClassicalPolis,"AJA95, pp. 447-467
.1993. GraeciaCapta:TheLandscapes of RomanGreece,Cambridge
Alcock, S. E.,J. F. Cherry,andJ. L. Davis. 1994. "IntensiveSurvey,AgriculturalPractice, and the Classical
Landscapeof Greece," in ClassicalG;reece:
AncientHistoriesandModernArchaeologies,
I. Morris, ed., Cambridge,
pp. 135-170
Alcock, S. E., A. Harrison, and N. Spencer. 1996. "The Messenian Landscape under Spartan Domination"
(lecture, San Diego 1995), abstractin AJA 100, p. 345
Antonaccio, C. 1995. AnArchawology ofAncestors,
Lanham, Maryland
Arel, A. 1993. 'About the 'Hasan Pa?aTower' at Yerkesigion the Plain of Troy,"StudiaTrowa3, pp. 173-189
Bailey,D. M. 1993. "Sparta,The Roman Stoa: Hellenistic and Roman Pottery,"BSA88, pp. 221-249
PROJECT:PARTI
Bennet,J. 1995a. "The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project 1992-94: Site Location Maps," Cincinnati
. 1995b. "Space through Time: Diachronic Perspectiveson the Spatial Organization of the Pylian
State," in Politeia:Sciety andStatein th AegeanBronzeAge,W-D. Niemeier and R. Laffineur,eds., Liege,
pp. 587-602
1997. "Pylos:The Expansion of a Mycenaean PalatialCenter,"paper presented at the 62nd Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Nashville, Tennessee, April 4, 1997
Forthcoming."The Mycenaean Conceptualization of Space or Pylian Geography ... Yet Again,"
in FloreantStudiaMycenaea.Akterdes 10. Mykenologischen Kolloquiuns1995, Salzburg,S. Deger-Jalkotzy,ed.,
Vienna
Bintliff,J. 1977. Mycenaean Geography: Proceediqsof theCambridge Colloquium September 1976, Cambridge
=
Bindiff 1991 TheAnnalesSchoolandArchaeology, J. Bintliff,ed., Leicester
BintlifflJ. L., and A. M. Snodgrass. 1985. "The Cambridge/BradfordBoeotian Expedition: The First Four
Years,"JFA 12, pp. 123-161
. 1988. "MediterraneanSurvey and the City,"Antiquity 62, pp. 57-71
Blegen, C. W 1954. "AnEarly Tholos Tomb in Western Messenia," Hesperia23, pp. 158-162
Blitzer, H. 1991. "Middle to Late Helladic Chipped Stone Implements of the Southwest Peloponnese,
Greece, 1, The Evidence from Malthi," Hydra9, pp. 1-72
Bordes, E 1961. Typologie duPaliolithiqueancienet moyen,Bordeaux
Bory de Saint-Vincent, M. 1836. Expedition scientifiquedeMor6e:Sectiondessciences physiques,I, Relation,Paris
Carington Smith,J. 1992. "Spinning and Weaving Equipment,"in ]VAchoria II, pp. 674-711
Carothers,J. 1992. "The Pylian Kingdom: A Case Study of an Early State" (diss. University of California,
Los Angeles 1992)
Cartledge, P. 1979. SpartaandLakonia:A RegionalHistoty,London
. 1985. "Rebels and Sambos in Classical Greece: A Comparative View," in Crux:EssaysPresented
to G.E. M. deSteCroixonhis 75thBirthday,P. Cartledge and E Harvey,eds., Exeter,pp. 16-46
Caskey,J. L. 1973. "Greece and the Aegean Islands in the Middle Bronze Age," GAH II, 3rd ed., i,
pp. 117-140
Catling, H. W, and H. Hughes-Brock. 1992. "The Metal Objects and Miscellaneous Small Finds," in
JVichoria II, pp. 618-673
Chadwick,J. 1972. "The Mycenaean Documents," in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 100-116
1973. "The Geography of the FurtherProvince of Pylos,"AJA 77, pp. 276-278
Cherry,J. F. 1983. "FrogsRound the Pond: Perspectiveson Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the
Mediterranean Region," in Archaeological Surveyin th Mediterranean andMediterranean Area,D. R. Keller and
D. W Rupp, eds., Oxford, pp. 375-416
. 1984. "Common Sense in Mediterranean Survey?"JFA 11, pp. 117-120
Cherry,J. E.,J. L. Davis, A. Demitrack, E. Mantzourani, T. Strasser,and L. Talalay. 1988. "Archaeological
Survey in an Artifact-Rich Landscape: A Middle Neolithic Example from Nemea, Greece," AJA 92,
pp. 159-176
Cherry,J.F.,J. L. Davis, and E. Mantzourani. 1991. Archaeology as Lon-TermHistory:TheLandscape ofNorthern
Keosin theCyclades, Los Angeles
Coldstream,J. N. 1976. "Hero Cults in the Age of Homer,"JHS 96, pp. 8-17
CorinthIV, ii = 0. Broneer, TerrcottaLamps,Cambridge, Massachusetts 1930
Coulson, W D. E. 1983. "The Dark Age: The Pottery,"in Jvichoria III, pp. 61-259
Dabney, M. K., andJ. C. Wright. 1990. "MortuaryCustoms, Palatial Society, and State Formation in the
Aegean Area: A Comparative Study,"in Celebrations ofDeathandDivinityin theBronzeAgeArgolid:Proceedings
of theSixthInternational Symposium at theSwedishInstituteat Atens, 11-13 June, 1988, R. Hagg and G. C.
Nordquist, eds., Stockholm, pp. 45-53
Dakoronia, E. 1987. M&ptsapaca uvaotuxTxvaTEx& vexpo-ayeta -sv tr443iv, Athens
Daux, G. 1962. "Chroniquedes fouilles et d&couvertesarch6ologiquesen Gr&ceen 1961," BCH 86, 1962,
pp. 726-728
Davis, J. L., S. E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. G. Lolos, C. W Shelmerdine, and E. Zangger. 1993. "The Pylos
Regional Archaeological Project: PreliminaryReport on the 1992 Season" (lecture,New Orleans 1992),
abstractin AJA97, pp. 330-331
. 1994a. "The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project: Preliminary Report on the 1993 Season"
(lecture,Washington, D.C. 1993), abstractin AJA98, pp. 287-288
. 1994b. "The Pylos Regional ArchaeologicalProject: 1992-1994," Archaeological News 19, pp. 24-27
Davis, J. L., S. E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. G. Lolos, C. W Shelmerdine, M. E. Timpson, and E. Zangger.
1995. "The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project: PreliminaryReport on the 1994 Season" (lecture,
San Diego 1995), abstractin AJA99, pp. 341-342
Davis, in press = SandyPylos:AnArchaeological fromNestortoNavarino,
History J. L. Davis, ed., Austin
Dickinson, 0. T. P. K. 1977. TheOrginsofMycenaean Civlisation(SIAM49), Goteborg
. 1982. "Parallelsand Contrasts in the Bronze Age of the Peloponnese," OJA1, pp. 125-138
Dickinson, 0. T. P. K., S. L. Martin, and C. W Shelmerdine. 1992. "Mycenaean Pottery from the
Settlement," in JWchoria II, pp. 467-617
Fotiadis,M. 1995. "Modernity and the Past-Still-Present,"AJA99, pp. 59-78
French, D. H. 1972. NotesonPrehistoric PotteryGroupsfrom CentralGreece,Athens
Furumark,A. 1941. Mycenaean Pottery:AnalysisandClassification,
Stockholm
Gaffney,V, and Z. Stan i~. 1991. GISApproaches toRegionalAnalysis:A CaseStudyoftheIslandofHvar,Llubljana
Gell, W 1817. Itinerary of theMorea,London
. 1823. Journeyin theMorea,London
Gillis, C. 1994. "Binding Evidence: Tin Foil and Organic Binder on Aegean Late Bronze Age Pottery,"
OpAth20, pp. 57-61
Graziadio, G. 1991. "The Process of Social Stratification at Mycenae in the Shaft Grave Period: A
Comparative Examination of the Evidence,"AJA95, pp. 403-440
Griebel, C., and M. C. Nelson. 1993. "Post-MycenaeanOccupation at the Palace of Nestor" (lecture, New
Orleans 1992), abstractin AJA97, 1993, p. 331;
text on the WorldWideWebat http://marwp.cla.umn.edu/PYLOS/aial992.html
Hagg, R. 1982. "On the Nature of the Minoan Influencein EarlyMycenaean Messenia," OpAth14, pp. 27-37
Hammond, N. G. L. 1967. "Tumulus-Burialin Albania, the Grave Circles of Mycenae, and the Indo-
Europeans,"BSA62, pp. 77-105
Harding, A. F 1984. TheMycenaeans andEurope,London
Hatzi, G. 1991. <<Aoxq,uaa-xravaaxayx5 oao E3t6,utov tXtaxp6Vv>>, in IIpaxxtx&F' TontLXO SEuvsepou
Mes7aavtax6v EnouM6v(24-26 Noe4Vppou1989), Athens, pp. 81-87
Hayes,J. W. 1972. LateRomanPottery,London
. 1983. "The Villa Dionysos Excavations,Knossos: The Pottery,"BSA 78, pp. 97-169
Hodkinson, S. 1992. "Sharecroppingand Sparta's Economic Exploitation of the Helots," in Philolakon:
LakonianStudiesin Honourof HectorCatling, J. M. Sanders, ed., London, pp. 123-134
Holmberg, E.J. 1983. A Mycenaean Chamber TombnearBerbati,Goteborg
Hope Simpson, R., and 0. T. P. K. Dickinson. 1979. A Gazetteer ofAegeanCivilisation in theBronzeAge,I, The
MainlandandIslands(SIMA52), Goteborg
Howell, R.J. 1992. "The Middle Helladic Settlement: Pottery,"in NichoriaII, pp. 43-204
Immerwahr,S. A. 1966. "The Use of Tin on Mycenaean Vases,"Hesperia35, pp. 381-396
Inizan, M.-L., H. Roche, andJ. Tixier. 1992. Technology ofKnapped Stone(Prehistoire
delapierretaill4e3), Meudon
Jameson, M. H., C. N. Runnels, and T. H. van Andel. 1994. A GreekCountryside: The Southern Argolidfrom
Prehistory to thePresentDay, Stanford
Kilian, K. 1987. "L'architecturedes residencesmyceniennes: origine et extension d'une structuredu pouvoir
politique pendant l'age du Bronze recent," in Lesystrme palatialen Orient,en Greceet a Rome(Actesdu Colloque
deStrasbourg, 19-22juin 1985), E. Levy,ed., Leiden, pp. 203-217
Killen, J. T. 1992. "Observationson the Thebes Sealings," in Mykenaika:actesdu IXe colloqueinternational
surles textesmyceniens et !glens(BCH Supplement 25),J.-P. Olivier, ed., pp. 365-380
. 1994. "Thebes Sealings, Knossos Tablets, and Mycenaean State Banquets,"BICS 39, pp. 67-84
Knapp, A. B. 1992. Archaeology, Annales,andEthnohistory,Cambridge

-.1993. Socie_tandPolityat BronzeAgePella:AnAnnals Perspective,
Sheffield
Korres, G. S. 1978. <<?EpeuvaL &v&xrv lluXav>>,Hpaxwx6 1976 [1978], pp. 253-282
* 1980. <<?EpeuvaL xact&vcxaxcrt &v&thv llav>>, Hpaxmxx& 1978 [1980], pp. 323-360
= 198 la. <(MeTaavEv>x, Mey&XvEopLe-rtx 'EyxuxXontatELa21, pp. 453-456
- 1981b. <<N6a-opogi NnX6&q&vtpo>>, Mey&Xvn EopLev 'EyxuxXonta8ela 24, p. 116
- 1981c. <<Avaaxaxq BoT.8oxo0LXL& HuXda?>>, IpaX-rLx& 1979 [1981], pp. 138-155
- 1982. <'Avaaxayat &v&-?hvlluXav>>, lIpaxx-cm 1980 [1982], pp. 120-187
. 1984. ((To XPovLx6v - r xv avaaxc(p6V tv% Bo6oxoLXL&t. 0 -ru'4pogtv% BoT6oxoLXL& xat P
yieVatgO tou 7trOU tOul 0oX6)t01o t&0yOU T Y)nELpG)tX75 EXX6os?>>, in ApXaLoXoyLxaE8Larplpa snE
OeV6-m)v-rx Enoxv5qtou XaXxo6, G. S. Korres, ed., Athens, pp. 11-83
. 1990. "Excavationsin the Region of Pylos,"'in Eumousia:CeramicandIconographic Studiesin Honour
ofAlexander Cambitoglou (MedArch Supplement 1),J.-P Descocudres, ed., pp. 1-11
. 1993. "Messeniaand Its CommercialConnections in the BronzeAge," in Proceedings oftheInternational
Conference, WaceandBlegen:Potteryas Evidence for Tradein theAegeanBronzeAge1939-1989 (American School
of Classical Studies at Athens, Athens, December 2-3, 1989), C. Zerner, P. Zerner, andJ. Winder, eds.,
Amsterdam, pp. 231-248
.1 1994. <<O6p,uoqtou Naoaptvou xa-a trv ApXaL6trra>>, H KaO6VsiepLvv E=tt Hvupee, 2 October
1994, pp. 2-3
Kosso, C. K. 1993. "PublicPolicy and AgriculturalPractice: An Archaeological and LiteraryStudy of Late
Roman Greece" (diss. University of Illinois at Chicago 1993)
Liritzis, S. 1969. <<'H &pXocto7t6XL( t 8urLxYNsMcaalvtos 'Ep&va>>,IIHXOov21, pp. 152-180
Lolos, Y. G. 1987. The Late HelladicI Potteryof the Southwestern Peloponnesosand Its Local Characteristics
(SIMA-PB50), Goteborg
- 1989. "The Tholos Tomb at Koryphasion: Evidence for the Transition from Middle to Late
Helladic in Messenia,"Aegaeum 3, pp. 171-175
. 1994. HulXocnVA&c6elq v np&te6ouax Tou NMatopoq XOCL v- yUP&ntpLoX),Athens
Longnon, J., and P. Topping. 1969. Documents deMoreeau XIV' siecle,
sur le rigimedesterresdansla principautM
Paris,pp. 73-77
Lukermann, E E., andJ. Moody. 1978. "Nichoria and Vicinity: Settlements and Circulation,"in NichoriaI,
pp. 78-112
McCallum, L. R. 1987. "Decorative Program in the Mycenaean Palace of Pylos: The Megaron Frescoes"
(diss. University of Pennsylvania 1987)
McDonald, W A. 1964. "Overland Communications in Greece during LH III, with Special Reference to
Southwest Peloponnese," in Mycenaean Studies:Proceedingsof theThirdInternationalColloquiumfor Mycenaean
StudiesHeldat "Wingspread," September4-8, 1961, E. Bennett, ed., Madison, pp. 217-240
1967. ProgressintothePast: TheRediscovery ofMycenaean Indiana
Civilization,
1984. "The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: A Look Back," in StudiesPresented to SterlingDow on
His EightiethBirthday,Durham, pp. 185-191
McDonald, W A., and R. Hope Simpson. 1961. "PrehistoricHabitation in Southwestern Peloponnese,"
AJA65, pp. 221-260
. 1969. "Fu'itherExploration in the SouthwesternPeloponnese,"AJA 73, pp. 123-177
1972. 'Archaeological Exploration,"in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 116-147
McDonald and Rapp 1972 = TheMinnesota MesseniaExpedition: a BronzeAgeRegionalEnvironment,
Reconstructing
W A. McDonald and G. R. RappJr., eds., Minneapolis 1972
MacKay, T. 1967. "More Byzantine and FrankishPotteryfrom Corinth," Hesperia36, pp. 249-320
Marinatos, S. 1957. << Avaaxcqaat &vlITX?>,llpaxtLx& 1954 [1957], pp. 299-316
c v HIIX,>>,
1960. 0 'Avaaxacpat HpaCxtix& 1955 [1960], pp. 245-255
1966a. <<'AvaaxayapcII'Xou>>,Hpaxxttx&1960 [1966], pp. 195-209
1966b. <'Avaaxapat &vHI6XYp, llpaxtix& 1964 [1966], pp. 78-95
Matson, E R. 1972. "Ceramic Studies," in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 200-224
andSocialStructure
Morris, I. 1992. Death-Ritual in ClassicalAntiquiy,Cambridge
Mountjoy,P.A. 1986. Mycenaean Pottery:A GuidetoIdentification
Decorated (SIMIA73), Goteborg
. 1993. MycenaeanPottery:An Introduction,
Oxford
Muller, S. 1989. "Les tumuli helladiques: OuC?quand? comment?" BCH 113, pp. 1-42
Nvichoria= ExcavationsatNichoriain Southwest
Greece
G. R. Rapp and S. Ashenbrenner,eds., Minneapolis 1978
I = Site,Environs,and Techniques,
II = TheBronzeAgeOccupation, W A. McDonald and N. Wilkie, eds., Minneapolis 1992
III = DarkAgeandByzantineOccupation, W A. McDonald, W D. E. Coulson, andJ. Rosser,eds., Minneapolis
1983
Nordquist, G. C. 1990. "Middle Helladic Burial Rites: Some Speculations," in Celebrations of Deathand
Divini_y in theBronzeAgeArgolid: Proceedings
of theSixthInternationalSymposiumat theSwedish
Institute
at Athens,
11-13 June 1988, R. Hagg and G. C. Nordquist, eds., pp. 35-41
Osborne, R. 1985. "Building and Residence on the Land in Classical and Hellenistic Greece: The
Contribution of Epigraphy,"BSA80, pp. 119-128
Pallas, D. 1962. <<MEacl&VlXa MEaaGGVIcz-&VcwXczp aP'a Tp & 4LXiczTP& (TPLYUX[M)>>,AX-t 16, 1960
[1962], pp. 122-125
. 1963. <<MEawXLVlX& MeaaCvtx~ Mekcvy>>, AcXt 17, 1961-1962, B' [1963], XpovLX&,
pp. 103-105
1966. 0 'AVaUXacpeC DlaXLcpat-W TPLpUX[a?>>, llPcXTLX&1960 [1966], pp. 177-194
1969. 'O Q'AYLO'OVOUpi'PLO MeOvy?>>,ApXEp 1968 [1969], pp. 119-176
Panayiotopoulos,B. 1987. IHX)u%aV6gXaL OLXLc7pOtTv( HIEXOnTOvv5aO13oq-18oq MWvaq,Athens
Papakonstantinou,E. 1989. <<Z'EypopetalIpolTopLX6V XMLKXaaLX6v ApXXOaLtT0tWv Nov6q Meaavovtaq
rapyAL&voL, AXrc 37, 1982, B' 1 [1989], XpovmX&, p. 135
Papathanasopoulos,G. P. 1963. <<'ApxatL6tteq xat MvyVeia Meaa)v[ac>>,Ackt 17, 1961-1962, B' [1963],
Xpovmx&, pp. 92-99
Parkinson,W 1996. "ChippingAway at a State Economy: Obsidian Exchange and 'PalatialControl' in Late
Bronze Age Greece" (paper delivered at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Central States Anthropological
Society, Covington, Kentucky,March 23, 1996)
Parkinson,W, and M. Galaty. 1996. "Pots,Rocks, and Palaces: Using Survey Data to Determine 'Palatial
Control' of a Late Bronze Age Greek Economy" (paper delivered at the 61st Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology,New Orleans, Louisiana, April 13, 1996)
PylosII = M. L. Lang, ThePalaceofNestorat Pylosin Western Messenia,II, TheFrescoes,Princeton 1969
PylosIII = C. W Blegen, M. Rawson, W Taylour,and W P. Donovan, ThePalaceofNestorat Pylosin Western
Messenia,III, AcropolisandLowerTown,Tholoi,GraveCirclesand Chamber Tombs,DiscoveriesOutsidetheCitadel,
Princeton 1973
Riley,J. A. 1979. "The Coarse Pottery from Berenice," in Excavations at Sidi Khrebish II
Benghazi(Berenice)
(Supplement to LibyaAntiquaV), J. Lloyd, ed., Tripolis 1979, pp. 263-265
Rosser,J., and W P.Donovan. 1983. "The Byzantine Occupation: The Pottery,"inNichoriaIII, pp. 357-377
Runnels, C. 1985. "The Bronze Age Flaked-Stone Industries from Lerna: A Preliminary Report," Hes-
peria54, pp. 357-391
. 1988. 'A Prehistoric Survey of Thessaly: New Light on the Greek Middle Palaeolithic," IFA 15,
pp.277-290
. 1995. "Review of Aegean Prehistory IV The Stone Age of Greece from the Palaeolithic to the
Advent of the Neolithic," AJA99, pp. 699-728
Runnels, Pullen, and Langdon 1995 = ArtjfactandAssemblage: TheFindsfrom a RegionalSurveyof theSouthern
andEarlyIronAgePotteryand theLithicArtfats, C. N. Runnels, D. J. Pullen, and
Argolid,I, The Prehistoric
S. Langdon, eds., Stanford
Runnels, C. N., and T. van Andel. 1987. "The Evolution of Settlement in the Southern Argolid, Greece: An
Economic Explanation,"Hesperia56, pp. 303-334
Rutter,J. B. 1974. "The Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC Periodsat Korakou and Gonia in the Corinthia" (diss.
University of Pennsylvania 1974)
. 1992. 'A Group of Distinctive Pattern-decoratedEarly Helladic III Pottery from Lerna and Its
Implications,"Hesperia51, pp. 459-488
. 1983. "Fine Gray-Burnished Pottery of the Early Helladic III Period: The Ancestry of Gray
Minyan," Hesperia52, pp. 327-355
. 1993. "Review of Aegean PrehistoryII: The PrepalatialBronze Age of the Southern and Central
Greek Mainland,"AJA97, pp. 745-797
Sampson, A. 1982. ?:nXt5aLotoO N6a-opoq>>,in Korres 1982, pp. 175-187
Sauerwein, F. 1969. "Das Siedlungsbild der Peloponnes um das Jahr 1700. Mit einer Karte und einem
Ortsverzeichnis,"Erdkunde 23, pp. 237-244
Shelmerdine, C. W 1973. "The Pylos Ma Tablets Reconsidered,"AJA 77, pp. 261-275
. 1981. "Nichoria in Context: A Major Town in the Pylos Kingdom," AJA85, pp. 319-325
Skias, A. N. 1910. ?'Avczaxocph&vi5Xy -rf) MeaarOvLaxh>>, lIpax-rm&1909 [1910], pp. 274-292
Snodgrass, A. 1982. "Les origines du culte des heros dans la Grece antique," in La mort,les mortsdansles
societ4sancinnes,G. Gnoli andJ.-P. Vernant, eds., Cambridge, pp. 107-119
.1991. "StructuralHistory and ClassicalArchaeology,"in TheAnnalesSchoolandArchaeology, J. Bintliff,
ed., Leicester,pp. 57-72
Stahl, A. 1985. The Venetian A MedievalColonialCoinage(NNM 163), New York
Tornesello:
Stavrianopoulou,E. 1989. Untersuchungen zurStruktur desReichesvonPylos.Die StellungderOrtschaftenimLichteder
LinearB-Texte,Partille
Stikas, E. 1951. LEiglise
byzantinede Christianou et lesautresidificesdemimetype,Paris
en Tiphylie(PdloponWse)
Stocker, S. R. 1995. "Deriziotis Aloni: A Small Bronze Age Site in Messenia" (M.A. thesis, University of
Cincinnati 1995)
Sullivan III, A. P., and J. L. Davis. Forthcoming."Multi-Stage and Large-Scale Surveys," in Archaeological
Methodand Theory:An Encyclopedia, L. Ellis, ed., New York
Sutton, R. E, Jr. 1990. 'Appendix: Ceramics of the Historic Period," in Wright et al. 1990,
pp. 646-659
Themelis, P. 1970. (<lIp6xroeXXa8Lxbv ,uEyapovet 'AxoUrLxca Meaanvvaq>>, AAA3, pp. 303-311
1991. <<AvaaxaccpMecaarvv?>>, lpaxxrLx& 1988 [1991], pp. 43-79
1993. <<Avaaxacp'Mecrarvp>?,lIpxczxax&1990 [1993], pp. 56-103
Theocharis, D. R. 1973. NeoXLOLxh'EXX&?, Athens
1981. NeoXLOLx6q Athens
noXL-rLaoi6q,
Thomas, P.M. 1992. "LH IIIB1 Potteryfrom Tsoungiza and Zygouries"(diss.University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill 1992)
. Forthcoming.'A Deposit of Late Helladic IIIB:1 Pottery from Tsoungiza," Hesperia
Topping, P. 1972. "The Post-ClassicalDocuments," in McDonald and Rapp 1972, pp. 64-80
Valmin, M. 1930. Itudestopographiques surla Messenieancienne,Lund
. 1938. TheSwedishMesseniaExpedition, Lund
van Andel, T., and C. N. Runnels. 1987. BeyondtheAcropolis: A RuralGreekPast,Stanford
Ventris,M. G. F., andJ. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in MycenaeanGreek,2nd ed., Cambridge
Wagstaff, M., and J. E Cherry. 1982. "Settlement and Resources," in An IslandPolity: TheArchaeology of
Exploitation in Melos,C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaf, eds., Cambridge, pp. 246-263
Whitelaw,T. M., andJ. L. Davis. 1991. "The PolisCenter of Koressos,"in Landscape as Long-Term
Archaeology
History:NorthernKeosin theCycladicIslands(Monumenta Arclaeologica16, Institute of Archaeology, UCLA),
J. E Cherry,E. Mantzourani, andJ. L. Davis, eds., Los Angeles, pp. 265-281
Wilkinson, T J. 1989. "Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use Intensity: Some Recent Results,"JFA 16,
pp. 31-46
Williams, C. K., II and 0. H. Zervos. 1985. "Corinth, 1984: East of the Theater," Hesperia54, pp. 55-96
Wright,J. C., J. E Cherry,J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani, S. B. Sutton, and R. E Sutton. 1990. "The Nemea
Valley Archaeological Project: A PreliminaryReport," Hesperia59, pp. 579-659
Younger,J. G. 1987. 'Aegean Seals of the Late Bronze Age: Stylistic Groups, VI, Fourteenth-Century
Mainland and Later Fourteenth-CenturyCretan Workshops,"Kadmos26, pp. 44-73
494 1. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE
Zachos, K. 1987. 'Ayios Dhimitrios, A Prehistoric Settlement in the Southwestern Peloponnesos: The
Neolithic and Early Helladic Periods"(diss.Boston University 1987)
Zangger et al., forthcoming = E. Zangger, M. E. Timpson, S. B. Yazvenko,E Kuhnke, andJ. Knauss, "The
Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part II: Landscape Evolution and Site Preservationin the Pylos
Region," forthcoming in Hesperia66, 1997
Zerner,C. W 1978. "The Beginning of the Middle Helladic Period at Lerna" (diss.University of Cincinnati
1 A7O\
JACK L. DAVIS YANNOs G. LOLOS

Department of Classics 6 Victoria Square
University of Cincinnati GR-104 34 Athens
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0226 Greece
SusAN E. ALCOCK CYNTHIA W SHELMERDINE

Department of Classical Studies Department of Classics
2160 Angell Hall 123 Waggener Hall
University of Michigan University of Texas
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003 Austin, TX 78712-1181
JoHN BENNET
Department of Classics
908 Van Hise Hall
University of Wisconsin, Madison
1220 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
_ _i{ D O K O I
Palace of Nestor MT MAGLAVAS
b. Ancient Koryphasion, the bay of Voidokoilia, an

a. The Englianos Ridge, Lower (Kato) and Upper (Ano), from the from the south
northwest
d. The island of Proti and the coast of western Mess

lis, including the sites of GargalianiKanalos(POS
c. Kalopsana (POSI A2) and the valley of Metaxada, from the northeast Kambos(1) (POSI D2), and Marathoupolis Dia
the southeast
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE: THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
Detail of UMME air photograph showing the site of Beylerbey(POSI II) in the upper right corner
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK, J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE: THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL P
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~b.
The site of Metamorfosi Skarminga
(POSI A4) ne
a. The acropolis of GargalianiKanalos(POSI Dl) from the north, includ- morfosi, from the northeast
ing (center)part of the so-called Cyclopean wall
Gargaliani
LI
d. Uplands between Gargaliani and Lefki, from

sites of Gargaliani Kalantina(1) (POSTMI) and G
c. The village of Maryeli and the site of Koutsouveri(P0SI LI) (POSI M2)
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK, J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE: THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
PROTI KI
SF1210
-~~t.
SF1I189
. 9SF1166
a. The island of Proti, the coast north of Marathoupolis, and the site of b. Middle Palaeolithic chipped stone fro
Gargaliani Ordines(POSI K 1) at the mouth of the Langouvardosgorge Rema:SF1210 (Levalloispoint); SF1229
flakes);SF1166 and SF1189 (not in Lev
Scale 2:3
*0): D i * * V _-
d. Possible EH II sauceboat rim

from VromoneriNozaina(POS
193-920111-09
c. The Palaeolithic site at Vromoneri Vergina
Rema(POSI 128)
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE: THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
193-9040436GR-10 D93-901252-02
B94-90741107-11
193-9040436GR-01 I93-90404$
IB4040a
B
B94-90741107-0
b. MH incised sherds. Scale 2:3
a. EH II pottery from Romanou Romanou

(POSI 14)
c. EH handle fromGargaliani
(POSI Kl):
Ordines
K94-901452-04
d. Possiblespinning bowl fromMaryeli

Koutsouveri
(POSI LI):
L94-9012664-01
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK, J. BENNET, Y G. LOLOS, AND C. W SHELMERDINE: THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICA
PLATE 90
B94-90740411-01
D94-902442-O
1
b. Submycenaean-Protogeometric sherd from Hora
ThePalaceofNestor(POSI B7): B94-90740708-01
SF1431 SF1387
c. Geometric-Archaic bowl rim
from Gargaliani Kalantina(2)
(POSI M2): M94-236-01
SF1419
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S
. SF 438
d. Loomweights from Hora The Palace of Nestor

(POSI B7)
f. Mycenaeansealstone
from Koryfasio
e. Early Helladic-Middle Helladic shaft-hole hammer Beylerbey
(POSI II):
axe from Gargaliani MegasKambos(1) (POSI D2): SF0091
SF1394
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BErNNET,Y. G. LOLOS,AND C. W. SHELMERDINE:

THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT: PART I
PLATE 91
b. Mycenaeanpainted
plasterfromHora
ThePalaceofNestor
(POSI B7), from c. Romanou Romanou(POSI I4), Dark Age
B94-97040317 kraterrim: I93-9040441 GR-0l
a. Mycenaeanfigurinefrom
Hora ThePalaceofNestor
(POSI B7): SF1434
d. RomanouRomanou
(POSI 14),bronze
antoninianus of
Aurelian: SF0029 e. Marathoupolis Dialiskari(POSI G1), limestone column
capitals with "spikyacanthus" decoration
A94-9044201 GR- 13 g. MetamorfosiSkarminga (POSI A4),

A94-9044201IGR- I10 body fragment of a globular
(POSI A4), Byzantine sgraffitoware
f. MetamorfosiSkarminga vessel: A94-9042551 GR-01
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET,Y. G. LOLOS,AND C. W. SHELMERDINE:

THE PYLOS REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT: PART I
I~~~~~~~~~4
AL
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
q ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~3
a. Tragana Ha.sanaga b- Pyrgaki Tsouka(POSI 119), after bulldozing in 19

(POSI C4), look-
ing southeast
towardmodern
Koryfasio: corn-
pound wall with
beveled molding
c. UMME photograph of Koukouyera (AJA65, 1961, pl. 78:b; courtesy of

the Archaeological Institute of America and R. Hope Simpson) d. Koukouyera in 1991
J. L. DAVIS, S. E. ALCOCK,J. BENNET,Y G. LOLOS,AND C. W SHELMERDINE:

THE PYLOSREGIONALARCHAEOLOGICA

The Pylos Regional Archaeological Projec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pylos Regional Archaeological Projec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pylos Regional Archaeological Projec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey

FIG. 1. Reliefmapof the Peloponnesos by PRAPindicatedby

Agrilia Baka -Plat noTys|

< 1L_w3 1i~~~~argalian' l;'0. + p>>'r

area surveyed in 1992 | Y4jalovan^ iV

*Farea surveyedin 1994 6 I,

=. . ~~~km jf 9Pylos it'0, 0

THE RELATIONSHIP OF PRAP TO PREVIOUS

Ky. ref ssenia

absolte nubers f sies caalogud in esseitas Gwith mhs nohrrgos. h

mabsout numberiosof Spyitedoalgen

RESEARCH GOALS OF THE PYLOS REGIONAL

NATURE OF THE PROJECT

By organizing a new program of surface survey in western Messenia, members

DEFINITION OF THE STUDY AREA

by selecting a zone in which we could be assuredof collecting data relevant to a number of

24 E.g., Cherry et al. 1988; Wright et al. 1990.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH STRATEGY33

THE 1993 SEASON

THE 1994 SEASON

DATA MANAGEMENT AND MAPPING

Area KiLl Yr 94i Tract478 I Date 18/8/94 Association L007SA

Pass# Length# TM# Length Pottery Tile Stone 165 35 21 0

6 DenPot 707.07 E-W |10190

Vegetation Pass Visib%

NB page# Map NB page#

FIG. 4. Page from Master Tract Data file (Deborah K. Harlan)

Site # F V 7 Area Year Tract(s) Map Coordinates

End Time 11:30 Date | 10/8/94 |

Artifacts Observed (A = abundant; S = some; F = few; 0 = absent)

# of bagged Samples for: Size of Grid Squares | m.

Are scatters of different date localizable? Li N M Y Ancient Use? |cemetery?

Probable Chronological Periods Represented:

FIG.5. Sample POSI record form (Deborah K. Harlan)

Area Year-Collection Unit

Vessels Tile Other Info

FVes No. 2 GTII No.

Tot Ves No. 7 Tot Til No. l | |= - l

Tot Ves Wt.F0.300| Tot Til Wt. 10. 2 0 0

FIG. 6. Sample Artifact Summary form (Deborah K. Harlan)

?? ? o? ??+ *'110+**+? ** i*Portes

(atDigitapplEleationMod [DM]M7 5tyially, the data tract in

tefield,its centroida(i..,it gegaphicain enter)ton wsloedigtied.4 Mapsshrctowing artifct

48i appschatioereettino the n

turmngaround ino the

All LH A-C HL R Byz

Total Sherds 172 25 16 47 73

Other studieshave shown that monocausal explanationsfor light artifactscattersfound

LITHIC STUDIES AND PLEISTOCENE SITES51

Regular tract walking,collection at sites, and limited special-purposesurveyproduced

49 Alcock, Cherry,and Davis 1994, p. 164; Wilkinson 1989, p. 31.

NEOLITHIC AND BRONZE AGE SrrEs AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS63

........ ': '

POSI I4 (Romanou Romanou), where diagnostic EH II was present. EH II is also possibly

TheMycenaean Toponymy of Western Messenia89

|~~~ I) -t- . e wo' @ ,<

-DI~~~~ /GA ~~~~~~~

P.d.t.rI 'V 3. (tAC '46)

KaI.pma~ ~~~IG 1+.Tna;eMcncntpnTyo 4sei Jh ent

?? ? o? ??+ '110++? iPortes

-DI /GA ~~~