Menelaou, S. 2021. Insular, marginal or multiconnected? Maritime interaction and connectivity in the East Aegean Islands during the Early Bronze Age through ceramic evidence (original) (raw)

2021, In: F. Schön, L. Dierksmeier, A. Condit, V. Palmowski and A. Kouremenos (eds.), European Islands Between Isolated and Interconnected Life Worlds. Interdisciplinary Long-Term Perspectives. RessourcenKulturen 16, Tübingen

https://doi.org/10.15496/PUBLIKATION-62813

Abstract

The Aegean archipelago constitutes one of the most intriguing ‘laboratories’ of island archaeology in the Mediterranean, due to the unique geomorphological configuration among the various island groups, as well as their varied cultural and historical developments. In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the study of intra- and interisland connections and island/continent interactions through the application of spatial and maritime network analysis, as well as artefact analysis and the reconstruction of technological (châine opératoire approach) and distributional patterns. To a certain degree, such an interdisciplinary focus was developed for the eastern Aegean and western Anatolian borderland, an area where maritime interaction and communication via the sea has occupied archaeological scholarship over the past two decades. Although only separated by narrow sea straits, the islands and the Anatolian mainland are often considered archaeologically through the lens of boundedness and separateness. These concepts interpret archaeological frontiers of insular versus mainland areas by postcolonialist models of core-periphery relationships, in which the islands are frequently considered to be passive. In this paper, developments and diachronic changes during the Early Bronze Age (EBA) in the ceramic repertoire of the east Aegean islands are discussed, emphasising mainly on evidence from Lemnos, Lesbos, Chios, and Samos, in relation to traditions from the central Aegean (Cyclades) and the adjacent Anatolian coastlands. Focusing on the seascape/coastscape perspective and the concept of the peraia, this research also explores what constitutes the distinct cultural identity of these island communities and how this is formed and transformed through time during the 3rd mill. BCE.

Figures (8)

Fig. 1. Map showing the east Aegean islands and other areas mentioned in the text (prepared by Christina Kolb). or artefact categories, see Davis 1992; Broodbank 2000; Alram-Stern 2004; Berg 2019). In contrast to that, the island clusters of the northeast Aegean and the Dodecanese have been to a large degree overlooked due to their marginal position at the eastern limits of the Modern Greek state (Davis 1992; Berg 2019). Thus, the islands stretching off the Anatolian/Asia Minor coast and their related archaeological narratives reflect modern politi- cal and ethnic constructions between Greece and Turkey; today’s identities are largely formed with- in those politically-defined borders (e.g. Vaessen 2018). To that end, the east Aegean islands were still perceived as part of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20" cent. CE and they are geographically- oriented towards the east. As Rutter has recently pointed out (Rutter 2013, 595), there is a ‘need to become more familiar with the different culture zones that together make up the eastern margin of the Aegean — namely, the sites and material culture of the western Anatolian mainland’. This view is reflective on the one hand of this region’s significance, forming an interface between the Aegean basin and the Anatolian plateau or re- versely the conception of a periphery made up by two distinct spheres, and on the other hand of the lacuna in archaeological scholarship regard- ing the study area in question, which has only re- ceived increased attention in the past two decades (e.g. Kouka 2002; 2013; 2014; 2016a; Sahoglu 2005; 2008; 2011; Doumas/La Rosa 1997; Erkanal et al. 2008). Although an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in the form of systematic archae- ological excavations and surface surveys since the early 20" cent. CE, the eastern Aegean/western Anatolian littoral, has been generally neglected, in contrast to the western, northern, and south- ern Aegean, where the material record has been

Fig. 1. Map showing the east Aegean islands and other areas mentioned in the text (prepared by Christina Kolb). or artefact categories, see Davis 1992; Broodbank 2000; Alram-Stern 2004; Berg 2019). In contrast to that, the island clusters of the northeast Aegean and the Dodecanese have been to a large degree overlooked due to their marginal position at the eastern limits of the Modern Greek state (Davis 1992; Berg 2019). Thus, the islands stretching off the Anatolian/Asia Minor coast and their related archaeological narratives reflect modern politi- cal and ethnic constructions between Greece and Turkey; today’s identities are largely formed with- in those politically-defined borders (e.g. Vaessen 2018). To that end, the east Aegean islands were still perceived as part of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20" cent. CE and they are geographically- oriented towards the east. As Rutter has recently pointed out (Rutter 2013, 595), there is a ‘need to become more familiar with the different culture zones that together make up the eastern margin of the Aegean — namely, the sites and material culture of the western Anatolian mainland’. This view is reflective on the one hand of this region’s significance, forming an interface between the Aegean basin and the Anatolian plateau or re- versely the conception of a periphery made up by two distinct spheres, and on the other hand of the lacuna in archaeological scholarship regard- ing the study area in question, which has only re- ceived increased attention in the past two decades (e.g. Kouka 2002; 2013; 2014; 2016a; Sahoglu 2005; 2008; 2011; Doumas/La Rosa 1997; Erkanal et al. 2008). Although an enormous amount of work has been undertaken in the form of systematic archae- ological excavations and surface surveys since the early 20" cent. CE, the eastern Aegean/western Anatolian littoral, has been generally neglected, in contrast to the western, northern, and south- ern Aegean, where the material record has been

Table 2. Biogeographical features and parameters for island-mainland communication in selected east Aege- an islands (adapted from Patton 1996, 46 f., tab. 3.2 and Dawson 2011, tab. 2.2). limits of a certain area or the ‘land opposite’ the is- landcity that controlled them in the Classical past, although occasionally exceeding the immediate area to the opposite continent and lying out of sight (Mytilene/Lesbos: possessions along the western and northern coasts of the Troad; Rhodes: posses- sions extended well beyond the coastal strip oppo- site the island; Ellis-Evans 2019, 177). In historical times, and as we know through literary sources, almost all of the island centres of the east Aegean held a territory on their adjacent coast (Macedo- nia to the north and western Anatolia to the east which functioned not only politically but was also used for economic reasons (subsistence) and facil itated a constant exchange and movement of peo- ple and products. This is important for the consid ’ eration of these island-states as ‘hybrids’ with bot a island and mainland cultural characteristics, in contrast to the ‘genuine’ island towns of the central Aegean.

Table 2. Biogeographical features and parameters for island-mainland communication in selected east Aege- an islands (adapted from Patton 1996, 46 f., tab. 3.2 and Dawson 2011, tab. 2.2). limits of a certain area or the ‘land opposite’ the is- landcity that controlled them in the Classical past, although occasionally exceeding the immediate area to the opposite continent and lying out of sight (Mytilene/Lesbos: possessions along the western and northern coasts of the Troad; Rhodes: posses- sions extended well beyond the coastal strip oppo- site the island; Ellis-Evans 2019, 177). In historical times, and as we know through literary sources, almost all of the island centres of the east Aegean held a territory on their adjacent coast (Macedo- nia to the north and western Anatolia to the east which functioned not only politically but was also used for economic reasons (subsistence) and facil itated a constant exchange and movement of peo- ple and products. This is important for the consid ’ eration of these island-states as ‘hybrids’ with bot a island and mainland cultural characteristics, in contrast to the ‘genuine’ island towns of the central Aegean.

Fig. 2. Close-up map showing the east Aegean islands (southeast cluster) and the main sites in the southwest Anatolian mainland (prepared by Christina Kolb).

Fig. 2. Close-up map showing the east Aegean islands (southeast cluster) and the main sites in the southwest Anatolian mainland (prepared by Christina Kolb).

A. Carinated bowl with perforated trumpet lug; B. Carinated bowl with horned lug; C. Red-slipped pithoid jars made in volcanic fabric; Collared jar made in sandy metamorphic fabric. this period is not directly reflected. A good ce- ramic and chronological correlation is provid- ed between the Kampos Group late EBA I/early EBA II with later Poliochni Blue-Lemnos on the presence of fruitstands/chalices. Liman Tepe has the first secure Cycladic imports during the Ana- tolian EBA I (LT VI:1), in the form of frying pans, dark-on-light pyxides, and urfirnis sauceboats, that are correlated with the Early Cycladic (EC) I/II early (Sahoglu 2011). Poliochni-Lemnos is inter- preted as a sea-oriented Anatolian-style commu- nity with major contacts with mainland Greece and the Cyclades, as suggested also by potential ce- ramic imports in the Blue Period (Cultraro 2004b, 27), While Thermi-Lesbos is characterised as an outpost of Anatolia with ceramic features extend- ing from northwest Anatolia/Troad region and the Lydian ceramic zone of the Madra River Delta (Spencer 1995, 293, 295; Lambrianides/Spencer 1997, 83), but still with apparent Cycladic elements and imports (e.g. marble artefacts, metal artefacts during Towns I and II). Additional evidence for the circulation of Aegeanising ceramic artefacts to- wards the east is found in the Troad region (Troy I; Bozkéy-Hanaytepe), through the identification of urfirnis and the so-called east Aegean ware, pre- sumably imported from mainland Greece or the Cyclades (Yilmaz 2013, 868 f.). In addition, the Scored ware at mid-late Troy I and II (Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 53 f., 222), and Halasarna on Kos (Geor- giadis 2012, 24 f.). Troy, interchangeably described as a typical EBA Aegean, western Anatolian, or eastern Aegean settlement to denote its shared material culture with other key sites of this part of the Aegean World, further represents ‘a cultur- ally and ideologically uniform character’ during the first half of the 3 mill. BCE (Unliisoy 2016, 399). EBA I-II potential imports from the Cyclades or mainland Greece are also attested at Emporio VII-II-Chios (Obsidian Ware, Hood 1981, 168 f.).

A. Carinated bowl with perforated trumpet lug; B. Carinated bowl with horned lug; C. Red-slipped pithoid jars made in volcanic fabric; Collared jar made in sandy metamorphic fabric. this period is not directly reflected. A good ce- ramic and chronological correlation is provid- ed between the Kampos Group late EBA I/early EBA II with later Poliochni Blue-Lemnos on the presence of fruitstands/chalices. Liman Tepe has the first secure Cycladic imports during the Ana- tolian EBA I (LT VI:1), in the form of frying pans, dark-on-light pyxides, and urfirnis sauceboats, that are correlated with the Early Cycladic (EC) I/II early (Sahoglu 2011). Poliochni-Lemnos is inter- preted as a sea-oriented Anatolian-style commu- nity with major contacts with mainland Greece and the Cyclades, as suggested also by potential ce- ramic imports in the Blue Period (Cultraro 2004b, 27), While Thermi-Lesbos is characterised as an outpost of Anatolia with ceramic features extend- ing from northwest Anatolia/Troad region and the Lydian ceramic zone of the Madra River Delta (Spencer 1995, 293, 295; Lambrianides/Spencer 1997, 83), but still with apparent Cycladic elements and imports (e.g. marble artefacts, metal artefacts during Towns I and II). Additional evidence for the circulation of Aegeanising ceramic artefacts to- wards the east is found in the Troad region (Troy I; Bozkéy-Hanaytepe), through the identification of urfirnis and the so-called east Aegean ware, pre- sumably imported from mainland Greece or the Cyclades (Yilmaz 2013, 868 f.). In addition, the Scored ware at mid-late Troy I and II (Blegen et al. 1950, 39, 53 f., 222), and Halasarna on Kos (Geor- giadis 2012, 24 f.). Troy, interchangeably described as a typical EBA Aegean, western Anatolian, or eastern Aegean settlement to denote its shared material culture with other key sites of this part of the Aegean World, further represents ‘a cultur- ally and ideologically uniform character’ during the first half of the 3 mill. BCE (Unliisoy 2016, 399). EBA I-II potential imports from the Cyclades or mainland Greece are also attested at Emporio VII-II-Chios (Obsidian Ware, Hood 1981, 168 f.).

A. Anatolian/Anatolianising drinking and serving ceramic vessels made in non-local petrographic fabrics; B. Cycladic shapes (beaked jugs and collared transport jars with incised handles) made in non-local petrographic fabrics with provenance on various central Aegean islands.

A. Anatolian/Anatolianising drinking and serving ceramic vessels made in non-local petrographic fabrics; B. Cycladic shapes (beaked jugs and collared transport jars with incised handles) made in non-local petrographic fabrics with provenance on various central Aegean islands.

A. Southeast Aegean/Southwest Anatolian ceramic forms and related petrographic fabric; B. Cycladic ceramic forms and related petrographic fabric. the Aegean and western Anatolia. Shifts in connec- tivity patterns of EBA III and the intense geograph- ical distribution of mostly drinking and serving vessels suggest the establishment of a strong re- gional network of interactions, which enabled the spread of common practices and knowledge trans- fer, perhaps in the context of new consumption behaviours, identity negotiation, and social display. These morphological and technological changes (innovations in pyrotechnology, finishing tech- niques and decoration modes, forming techniques and the increase in use of the potter’s wheel) and regional similarities document the transfer of tech- nological knowledge through a face-to-face interac- tion that could only be disseminated by the mobil- ity of potters (e.g. Choleva 2018). However, despite certain changes in the operational sequence of the production of these shapes, they are locally-made on Samos and perhaps also at other neighbouring sites mentioned above, but their overall visual and technological similarities reflect the recognition of a discrete socio-cultural identity. 6. Concluding Remarks: East Aegean Island Borderlands or Gateway Interaction Zones:

A. Southeast Aegean/Southwest Anatolian ceramic forms and related petrographic fabric; B. Cycladic ceramic forms and related petrographic fabric. the Aegean and western Anatolia. Shifts in connec- tivity patterns of EBA III and the intense geograph- ical distribution of mostly drinking and serving vessels suggest the establishment of a strong re- gional network of interactions, which enabled the spread of common practices and knowledge trans- fer, perhaps in the context of new consumption behaviours, identity negotiation, and social display. These morphological and technological changes (innovations in pyrotechnology, finishing tech- niques and decoration modes, forming techniques and the increase in use of the potter’s wheel) and regional similarities document the transfer of tech- nological knowledge through a face-to-face interac- tion that could only be disseminated by the mobil- ity of potters (e.g. Choleva 2018). However, despite certain changes in the operational sequence of the production of these shapes, they are locally-made on Samos and perhaps also at other neighbouring sites mentioned above, but their overall visual and technological similarities reflect the recognition of a discrete socio-cultural identity. 6. Concluding Remarks: East Aegean Island Borderlands or Gateway Interaction Zones:

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.