hesperia

8/3/2019 hesperia

1/23

The Nikopolis Project: Concept, Aims, and OrganizationAuthor(s): James Wiseman and Konstantinos ZachosSource: Hesperia Supplements, Vol. 32, Landscape Archaeology in Southern Epirus, Greece 1(2003), pp. 1-22Published by: The American School of Classical Studies at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354044 .Accessed: 24/10/2011 14:06

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 formsof 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 andextend access to Hesperia Supplements.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ascsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1354044?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1354044?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ascsa

8/3/2019 hesperia

2/23

CHAPTER I

THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT:

CONCEPT, AIMS, AND

ORGANIZATION

by James Wiseman and Konstantinos Zachos

Human societies at all times and in all parts of the world interact with the

landscape they inhabit: it could not be otherwise, even if the interactionwere somehow limited to the selective exploitation of natural resources.Human activities alter the landscape and the natural environment, oftenin dramatic ways; the alterations may occur as the result of human design,as in clearing a forest to plant crops, or may be incidental, as in the de-struction (or reshaping) of a mountainside by Roman miners of preciousmetals. Conversely, humans at various times in the past have physicallyadapted to changes in their environment (especially in the distant past), orresponded to environmental change in a variety of other ways. Some ofthese responses, such as migration or technological innovation, have beendrastic and revolutionary n their effect and are often recognizable in the

archaeological ecord, while other responses were more gradual, even subtle,and are more difficult to detect. To acknowledge the importance of thenatural setting, of the environment at large, in studying change in humansociety is not to deny the importance of intercultural relationships, or therole of the individual intellect or collective social conscience in the evolu-tion of ethical, spiritual, or other sociocultural phenomena in human af-fairs. The point is that to understand and explain changes in human soci-ety over time, it is critically important to study society in relationship tothe changing environment in which it existed. Through this approach tothe past archaeologists are able to provide insights into the factors thatunderlie

changesin human-land

relationships,ometimes over a

short time-span or even regarding specific events, but especially over the long term.And they can explore those intercultural relationships and socioculturalphenomena cited above, which themselves evolve within specific environ-mental settings and change.

We have sought to apply these concepts in the formulation and con-duct of the Nikopolis Project, an undertaking in landscape archaeologyfocused on the human societies that inhabited southern Epirus in north-western Greece from earliest times to the medieval period. More specifi-cally, the project has employed intensive archaeological survey and geo-logical investigations to determine patterns of human-activity areas, and

8/3/2019 hesperia

3/23

JAMES WISEMAN AND KONSTANTINOS ZACHOS

Figure 1.1. Map of Epirus andadjacent egions. The survey one isindicated by crosses.

what the landscape and other features of the natural setting were like inwhich those activities took place, in an effort to understand and explainobserved changes in human-land relationships through time.1

THE CHOICE OF SOUTHERN EPIRUS FOR THESTUDY

Southern Epirus was selected for this broad diachronic study in part be-cause, at the time, it was only in Epirus and in Thessaly that there wasmaterial evidence for something approaching the full range of prehistoric

periods. Palaeolithic stone tools, for example, were first attested in Greecein the Louros River valley of Epirus.2 The area is also topographicallydiverse, including coastal regions, marshy lagoons, inland valleys, highupland plains in rugged mountain terrain, and mountain passes,3 therebyproviding a variety of environmental settings for different types of humanactivities that might be investigated by the project. What is more, prior tothe Nikopolis Project there had been no large-scale, systematic, modernsurvey of the region, and most of the previous archaeological excavationswere limited in a variety of ways.4 The Nikopolis Project thus could beexpected to enlarge our knowledge of a region that was not well knownarchaeologically.

Another important consideration was the existence in the survey zoneof Nikopolis, the "city of victory" founded by Augustus to celebrate his

1.This ntroductory ection s anexpanded ersion f the statement faims set out in Wiseman 1995a, p. 1,and uses some of the phrasing of thatearlier ormulation.

2. Dakaris, Higgs, and Hey 1964;Higgs and Vita Finzi 1966; Higgs et al.1967.

3. Etude gdologique.4. See below, "Previous Archaeo-logical Work in the Survey Zone."

2

8/3/2019 hesperia

4/23

THE NIKOPOLIS PROJECT

Louros River

Acheron River X f Voulista 1

,~~\ ~ ( ~ Panayia, Parga ,Kiperi Vouv taos

Phnr^ Ephyra Kastri Thesprotiko AyiosYeoryios

(Ammoudia 'N2manteion Kastro Rizovouni kinopilos, *Spilaion \

Aloaki. *Loutsa VCh:- diomLadiouros

i;':: Palaiorophoros? Louros-Kastro Rogo,-' - :,assope* /

'Arachthos

K'"X ) * Strongyli \ River

Kastkrosykm Grammeno

Archan los

mian Sea *1o ChltsNikopolis * SaIaor ^

Ormos Vathyy7."\

.Tmas Ambracian GulfPrey ;:,.a

Actm

Figure 1.2. Map of survey one withselected oponyms

0 5 10 15 20 25 KM

victory in 31 B.C. over Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium. Thecreation of the urban population by the officially encouraged migration orforced removal to Nikopolis of populations from other cities of Epirus,Acarnania, Leucas, Amphilochia, and Aetolia,5 and the long life of Nikop-olis as the metropolis of Epirus, raised a number of challenging problemsregarding the relationship between the city and its territory to which the

project's research concepts were directly applicable. The project thus takesits name from Nikopolis, the best-known toponym in southern Epirus.Finally, there was an urgent need for interdisciplinary survey before cer-tain types of evidence, including some of the cultural remains, vanished asa result of various activities: and reclamation near the coast, the growth of

the modern town of Preveza and several other smaller communities, in-dustrial and agricultural development, limestone quarrying, and other de-velopment activities related to tourism. These activities had wrought ma-

jor changes on the regional landscape since 1950, and the pace of changein recent years had accelerated.

THE SURVEY ZONE

5. Kirsten (1987), Murray andPetsas (1989, pp. 4-5), and Purcell

(1987)all discuss the

foundingof

Nikopolis and cite the most importantsources.

The survey zone (Figs. 1.1, 1.2), about 1,200 km2, includes the entirenomos (administrative district) of Preveza, a modern town on the Nikopolispeninsula, extending from the straits of Actium almost to the walls of theancient city. On the east the survey zone extends into the nomos of Arta,

IC

*.. 1,- I I

..: I

3

8/3/2019 hesperia

5/23


so that the entire deltaic, lagoonal area of the Louros River after its exitfrom its gorge at the modern town of Philippias was included; not in-cluded was the course of the Arachthos, a larger river east of the Louroswhich flows through the city of Arta (the ancient Ambracia) before emp-tying into the Ambracian Gulf, also known today as the Gulf of Arta. It isthe western part of the north coast of the gulf, therefore, that lies withinthe survey zone, from Salaora on the east to the southern tip of the Nikopolispeninsula. The other boundaries follow those of the nomos of Preveza.That is, the western boundary of the survey zone is the shoreline of theIonian Sea, from the straits of Actium on the south, where the AmbracianGulf is linked to the sea, extending north beyond Ammoudia Bay (= PhanariBay), at the mouth of the Acheron River, to Parga. The northern bound-ary of the survey zone runs east from Parga, along the middle AcheronRiver, and across the mountains to the narrows of the Louros River gorgenear the modern town of Kleisoura, below the ancient acropolis known

locally as Voulista Panayia.The geology and geomorphology of southern Epirus are discussed in

detail in Chapters 3, 5, and 6, so comments here are limited to observa-tions of an introductory nature, primarily focusing on features providinggeneral constraints on communication and exploitation of resources. Aseries of north-south Mesozoic limestone ridges, 600-1,000 m high, ex-tends across the region from the Louros gorge to the Ionian coast, alter-nating with Tertiary flysch basins at elevations of 150-600 m, so that thebasins provide now, as they did in the past, corridors of varying conve-nience for traveling north-south; fortified town sites of Archaic, Classical,and Hellenistic times are situated along the routes. Access to these naturalcorridors on the south is via passes through or between a series of moun-tains along the Ambracian embayment: from west to east, Mts. Zalongo,Stavros, and Rokia (see Fig. 5.1). The Louros River valley was an impor-tant communication route from early prehistoric times to the present; theprincipal road from Arta to Ioannina, present-day capital of Epirus, stillpasses through the gorge. The next basin on the west is most easily enteredfrom the south between Mts. Rokia and Stavros, and a traveler would passnear a fortified Classical and Hellenistic town site (Kastro Rizovouni) enroute to the north and the passes that lead eventually into the valley ofDodona. The next basin to the west includes access to the upper Acheron

River, and can be entered over a low ridge between Mts. Stavros andZalongo. A bit further west, the natural route is over a ridge of Mt. Zalongo,by the Classical and Hellenistic town of Cassope, and from there througha winding pass to the modern town of Kanallakion in the eastern part ofthe plain of the lower Acheron River.

Agriculture is now practiced throughout the region, wherever it ispossible to do so, in the upland valleys, along the courses of rivers andstreams, and in the coastal areas. In the latter regions, especially aroundAmmoudia Bay and along the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf, swampsand marshy areas have been drained during the past half-century and flood-ing has been further controlled by the construction of canals, which alsoserve as conduits for irrigation of fields. Dams were built on both the Lourosand Arachthos Rivers. There has been extensive work also in some of the

4

8/3/2019 hesperia

6/23


upland basins; for example, a small lake (Lake Mavri) was drained in thebasin east of Kastro Rizovouni to provide more arable and, and the deepwaters of Lake Ziros in the same area are now being tapped for irrigation.The whole lower Acheron and the valley of its chief tributary, he Vouvos(ancient Kokytos) River, as far as the modern town of Paramythia (outsidethe survey zone) are now lush with vegetation, including a variety of cashcrops and orchards.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK IN THESURVEY ZONE

6. A detailed ccount f previousinvestigations n southern Epirus isbeing prepared yK. Zachos.

7. Dakaris 1971, 1975b, 1977,1978,1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983.

8. Dakaris 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962,1963, 1964, 1975a, 1975b, 1977, 1993;Wiseman 1998.

9. Dakaris, Higgs, and Hey 1964;Higgs and Vita-Finzi 1966; Higgs etal. 1967.

10. Bailey et al. 1983a, 1983b;Bailey, Papaconstantinou, nd Sturdy1992. The investigations n Epirus byG. Bailey nd his colleagues, s well asother ecent work omewhat urtherafield e.g.,by K. Petruso n Albania),are discussed, nd additional ublica-tions cited, by Runnels nd van Andelin Chapter 3.

11. Hammond 1967.12. Dakaris 1971, 1972.13. Papers presented at the

symposium were published n Chrysos1987.14. Wiseman 1987, p. 413.

The most significant archaeological activities in the larger region in earlier

years6 were excavations by Greek and German scholars at the ancient townof Cassope;7 Greek excavations at a site near the mouth of the Acheron

identified by the excavator as the Nekyomanteion, the Oracle of the Dead;8and investigations by British scholars of Palaeolithic sites in the LourosRiver gorge to the northeast of Nikopolis.9 Recently the British renewedtheir interest in some of Eric Higgs's early work at Kokkinopilos and itsenvirons (e.g., Asprochaliko), and carried out limited survey or Palaeolithicremains along the coast.10 Little was known of Neolithic, Bronze Age, and

early Iron Age developments in the region, but the historical period wassomewhat better represented in the scholarly literature. Important, usefulstudies of the region in antiquity were published by N. G. L. Hammond11and by Sotirios Dakaris.12 Both authors included copious topographicalobservations in their books and their research nvolved some survey, whichwas, however, neither systematic nor intensive. Other archaeological in-

vestigations in the area have been limited to small-scale operations, usu-ally involving salvage or preservation by the ephoreias, and have been brieflyreported over the years in the annual Archaiologikon Deltion of the Greek

Archaeological Service.

BACKGROUND AND ORGANIZATION OF THEPROJECT

The Nikopolis Project had its origins in the First International Sympo-sium on Nicopolis in 1984.13 A paper presented by one of us (JW) focusedon the need for the study of Nikopolis in its topographic setting, and sug-gested approaches to such a study. One specific recommendation, particu-larly relevant to the eventual development of the Nikopolis Project, wasphrased as follows.

A survey both of the natural resources and the culturalremains of the region will be required if Nikopolis is to bestudied in its regional context. What is more, the ancienttopographic profile, including the changing coastlines, mustbe determined, along with climatic changes and the palaeo-ecology generally.14

5

8/3/2019 hesperia

7/23


Remote sensing, ncluding geophysical rospection, nd computer-aidedanalysis were discussed n the same presentation s useful tools to aid insuch an undertaking, s well as in the investigation f Nikopolis itself.Geophysical rospection, n particular, as cited as an important method-ology by which at least some parts of the city plan of Nikopolis might be

established efore any excavation was initiated. Symposium participantsand organizers were deeply nterested n the investigation nd preserva-tion of the great city itself, and a coordinated, multifaceted, ong-termeffort was formally declared by the symposium board to be a desirableoutcome of the symposium.15

Continued concern or Nikopolis eventually ed to the appointmentin 1986 by the Greek Minister of Culture, Melina Mercouri, f a specialCommittee for the Preservation of Nikopolis, which was headed byEvangelos Chrysos now based at the University fAthens), who was thenProfessor f Byzantine History at the University of Ioannina and one of

the organizers f the symposium. The committee members representedthe groups and organizations n Greece with concerns or responsibilitiesfor Nikopolis, ncluding he Greek Archaeological ervice, he Archaeo-logical Society of Athens, the city of Preveza, he University f Ioannina,and others. Architects hired by the committee were given an office n theTown Hall of Preveza, nd they began he important obs of mapping allvisible remains n Nikopolis and its periphery, nd of documenting heownership of all properties within the archaeological one of Nikopolis.The committee was reconstituted ccasionally n the 1990s to reflect po-litical (both ocal and national) and nstitutional hanges, but Chrysos e-tained the chairmanship hroughout he permutations f the committeeuntil the completion of the Nikopolis Project.

With the encouragement f Chrysos, Wiseman began discussions n1988 with Angelika Douzougli, the newly appointed roistameni direc-tor) of the 12th Ephoreia f Prehistoric nd Classical Antiquities, nd herhusband, Konstantinos achos, enior archaeologist n the same ephoreia,regarding ossible ollaboration n a project n the Nikopolis egion, whichlies within the purview of that ephoreia. The 8th Ephoreia of ByzantineAntiquities, directed y Frankiska Kephallonitou, lsobecame nvolved nthe early planning, because Late Antique and Byzantine remains n thesame region were among the responsibilities f that ephoreia. The deci-

sion was reached n 1990 that the two ephoreias, oth based n loannina,and Boston University ouldjointly hare he responsibilities f the project,so that the proposal or the project, when finalized, was for a joint under-taking, ynergasia n Greek erminology. he directors f the two ephoreiasand K. Zachos were codirectors f the project with Wiseman, he Ameri-can Principal nvestigator, nd other representatives f the ephoreias werealso members f the staff. The project proposal was then submitted irst othe American School of Classical Studies, as then required y Greek awfor a project nvolving American ponsorship r cosponsorship.

There was for a time consideration f a collaborative roject based onNikopolis tself, working n cooperation with the group hat would carryout the regional tudy, as envisioned at the Nikopolis symposium.16 heprincipal ims of work at Nikopolis would have been to determine t least

15. Chrysos 1987, pp. 417-418.16. Wiseman 1987.

6

8/3/2019 hesperia

8/23


17. van Andel and Runnels 1987;Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel 1994.

the general outline of the city plan through geophysical rospection ndother orms of remote ensing; hotography rom a tethered blimp both tohelp in detecting he town plan and to aid n the documentation f above-ground remains; nd test excavations ntended o provide a stratigraphiccontrol or regional eramics, n urgent need because here were then fewpublished roups of well-dated ceramics. These plans were abandoned n1991, as it became clear hat there were too many conflicting nd compet-ing claims to archaeological ights at Nikopolis tself for any one group,especially new one, to obtain he support f the Archaeological Councilin Athens, the responsible ody for approving ermits or archaeologicalinvestigations f any kind in Greece. The proposal as finally submittedwas for a combined archaeological nd geological urvey f the region, butnot including Nikopolis, conducted n synergasia. or 1991, the projectwould involve mainly ground-truthing f satellite magery and gaininggreater amiliarity ith the landscape y the American taff, and inalizing

the aims and methodology of the regional nvestigation. he subsequentpermit was for three years, 1992-1994, during which the archaeologicaland geological nvestigations were carried ut. There were study seasonsin the summers f 1995 and 1996, when senior staff, based n Ioannina ostudy archaeological materials ollected during the survey, were able torevisit he survey zone with staff reports n hand and to discuss projectresults and nterpretations. aboratory nalyses nd study both of the arti-facts and the archives ave continued ince that time.

A number of scholars n Greece, he United States, he United King-dom, and other countries ontributed o the eventual esearch esign, n-cluding both specific research aims and methodologies adopted by theNikopolis Project, especially hose who have devoted so much of theirtime and effort as members f the staff. George Rip) Rapp, a geoarchae-ologist at the University f Minnesota, Duluth, with extensive ield expe-rience n Greece and other parts of the eastern Mediterranean, as one ofthe first scholars nvited o join the staff; he organized nd directed muchof the project's eological survey, oring program, nd shoreline tudies.Curtis Runnels, an archaeologist t Boston University, rought his exper-tise n the early prehistory f Greece and n survey o the Nikopolis Project.He would ead the Palaeolithic urvey,with the aid and cooperation f hiswife, Priscilla Murray, Research Fellow n Archaeology t Boston Univer-

sity, and Tjeerd van Andel, a geoarchaeologist ormerly f Stanford Uni-versity, hen (and now) of the University f Cambridge. Runnels and vanAndel would now apply survey echniques hey had jointly developed onprojects n southern Greece o the investigation f early humans and homi-nids in Epirus.17 heir survey, which supplemented, ut was conductedseparately rom, he intensive urface urvey arried ut by other staff, n-volved ntensive geomorphologic tudies n the detection of Pleistocenelandscapes, hich they hen searched. oth would also oin in other projectresponsibilities-Runnels, or example, n the analysis f prehistoric tonetools, and van Andel in geomorphology or all periods, as well as provid-ing counsel and nsight or all geoarchaeological oncerns. Lucy Wisemanof Boston University's enter or Archaeological tudies was also a mem-ber of the staff from the beginning, erving both as project administrator

7

8/3/2019 hesperia

9/23


and registrar of artifacts. Three advanced graduate students in archaeologyat Boston University were also part of the senior staff. Thomas Tartaronand Carol Stein were the primary team leaders in archaeological survey,and provided both supervision and guidance for others who subsequentlybecame survey team leaders. Tartaron also developed a specific sampling

strategy for the Acheron River valley and Ayios Thomas peninsula, re-flecting the overall stratified sampling strategy of the project, and carriedout a special study of the Bronze Age sites and materials, part of whichwas included in his doctoral dissertation.18 Melissa Moore oversaw the

study and registration of ceramics, and part of her research has been in-cluded in her Ph.D. dissertation.19 Other staff and consultants included

geologists, computer scientists, archaeologists, and specialists in variousother fields; all staff and their affiliations during the Nikopolis Project areprovided in Table 1.1. Students enrolled in a Boston University Archaeo-

logical Field School were invaluable members both of the field survey eamsand the geological coring and survey units in 1992, 1993, and 1994. As a

part of their archaeological training, they participated in all activities ofthe project in Greece, including the processing of artifacts, data processingon computer, digitizing of maps, ground-truthing of satellite imagery, to-

pographical survey, geophysical prospection, aerial photography by teth-ered blimp, and other investigations. Their names and the institutions wherethey were studying at the time are listed in Table 1.2.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH AIMS

Research aims, nested within the larger conceptual framework describedabove, relate mainly to specific time periods and include the followingtopics, phrased as questions, which much of the project's fieldwork wasintended to answer.

1. What forms do the cultural remains of the earliest inhabitants ofsouthern Epirus take, and how may we explain their distribu-tion in the different periods of the Palaeolithic? What resourceswere exploited by the early humans and hominids, and whatwas the environmental setting?

2. What is the evidence for the shift from hunting/gathering groupsto agricultural societies? Can that shift be related to changes inthe landscape?

3. What was the nature of the contacts between peoples of thisregion in later prehistoric times, especially in the Late BronzeAge, and groups on the shores of the Ionian Sea, in other partsof Greece, and more generally in the eastern Mediterranean?Do these contacts differ in quality during fully historical times?

4. How are colonial activities of southern Greeks manifested in thisregion?

5. What were the effects of the development of political leagues and

interregional alliances on settlement patterns, sizes of sites,religious centers, and resource exploitation in Classical andHellenistic times?

18. Tartaron 1996.19. Moore 2000.

8

8/3/2019 hesperia

10/23


6. What were the effects of the historically documented Romanintrusion into Epirus (which was also the earliest intervention

by Romans in Greek affairs) in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.,and how may they be identified in the landscape? How intru-sive into local society were the Romans, and what activities

(military, ndustrial, commercial, social, etc.) are indicated bythe cultural remains?7. What was the regional effect of the synoecism nvolved in the

founding of Nikopolis by Octavian, later Augustus, first

emperor of Rome? How are the new patterns of settlement andcommunication related to changes in the landscape itself?

8. What was the nature of the exploitation of the countryside in theLate Antique period (4th-6th centuries A.c.) and how was itrelated to the socioeconomic transformation into medievaltimes? More specifically, what was the economic basis ofsouthern Epirus in late antiquity and in medieval times? Whendid the extensive exploitation of wetlands along the AmbracianGulf begin, and when the deliberate reclamation of land fromcoastal lagoons?

METHODOLOGIES

20. A practice recommended nSever and Wiseman 1985, pp. 70-71.

The research design called for the archaeological sampling by intensivesurface survey of all environmental zones: coastal plains, inland valleys,mountainous terrain, and upland valleys. The large size of the survey zone

precluded archaeological survey over the entire region. The selection ofthe areas to be surveyed within each environmental zone would be guidedprimarily by acquired knowledge of the region. Geological survey and othergeomorphologic investigations provided mportant nformation, both nega-tive and positive, influencing the selection of fields and transects to survey;fieldwalking teams, for example, could avoid areas of recent alluviationwhere remains (if any) of prehistoric-medieval times would have been cov-ered over and not detectable. The location of early historical or even Pleis-tocene landscapes exposed by erosion, on the other hand, offered opportu-nities for survey with greater expectation of detecting archaeologicalremains. Even so, occasional surveys were conducted to test negative indi-cations from geomorphology or satellite imagery,20 s when fieldwalkingteams spent a day walking transects across the presumed relict coastlinesof Ammoudia Bay that were formed by long-shore deposition in recenthistorical times. The negative results of the intensive survey confirmed thegeomorphologic conclusions and the interpretations of imagery. The de-gree of visibility was recorded for all areas surveyed. Fields where vegeta-tion was too dense for archaeological remains to be seen during prelimi-nary reconnaissance were not selected for survey. This practice is animportant consideration in evaluating the results of the survey, because insome other year, or some other time of year, those fields might be clear of

vegetation, and might, of course, yield archaeological materials. On theother hand, in some instances fieldwalking teams were able to return to aregion to survey fields that had been too densely covered for survey in a

9

8/3/2019 hesperia

11/23


TABLE 1.1. PROJECT STAFF AND THE YEARS OF THEIR PARTICIPATION

Name 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

CODIRECTORS

Angelika Douzougli/Konstantinos Zachos,

12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities * * 0 0*Frankiska Kephallonitou,

8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities 0 0 0

James Wiseman 0 .

ADMINISTRATION AND INVENTORY

Lucy Wiseman (registrar of artifacts, administration) * * *

Melissa Moore (registrar of ceramics, archaeology) * * * *

Lia Karimali (lithics, survey) * * *

Dimitra Papagianni, University of Cambridge (lithics, survey) * *

Katerina Dakari, 8th Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities(survey, Late

Antiqueceramics) * *

Ricardo Elia (associate director, archaeology)

Asymina Kardasi, Athens (Byzantine ceramics)Stavroula Vrachionidou, 12th Ephoreia of Prehistoric and

Classical Antiquities (administration, survey) *

ARCHAEOLOGY, SENIOR STAFF

Timothy Baugh (remote sensing, ground-truthing)Brenda Cullen (survey, remote sensing) * * * *

Priscilla Murray (survey, drafting) * * *

Curtis Runnels (field director, Palaeolithic survey; lithics) * * * * *

Carol Stein (survey, remote sensing) * S 0

Thomas Tartaron (survey, ground-truthing) * * *

Stavros Zabetas, Greek Archaeological Service (survey)

GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS

Mark Besonen, University of Minnesota, Duluth(geological survey, coring)

Richard Dunn, University of Delaware (geological survey, coring)Zhichun Jing, University of Minnesota, Duluth

(geological survey, coring) * *

Jon Jolly, Seattle, Washington (oceanography, nstrumentation)

George (Rip) Rapp, University of Minnesota, Duluth

(geology, geoarchaeology) * * 0

Apostolos Sarris, Athens, Greece (geophysics)Marie Schneider (geology, survey)

Tjeerd van Andel, University of Cambridge(Pleistocene geology, geomorphology, geoarchaeology) * * *

Sytze van Heteren (geology)John Weymouth, University of Nebraska geophysics)Li-Ping Zhou, University of Cambridge

(geology, thermoluminescence dating)

IO

8/3/2019 hesperia

12/23


TABLE 1.1-Continued

Name 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

COMPUTER SCIENCE

Robert DeRoy (computer cience, remote sensing)

Daniel Juliano (computer cience, remote sensing)Rudi Perkins, Bangor, Maine (computer cience)

PHOTOGRAPHY

Michael Hamilton (aerial photography, generalphotography) *

Eleanor Emlen Myers' (aerialphotography)J. Wilson Myers (aerialphotography)

TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY AND DRAFTING

Theodoros Chazitheodoros, Greek Archaeological Service,Athens (topographical survey, drafting) *

David Clayton(topographical survey, drafting)Athina Kotsani, Preveza (drafting) a

Kostas Papavasileiou, Preveza (architecture, drafting) a

Anne Van Dyne, Seattle, Washington(topographical survey, drafting) a

GENERAL STAFF

Stephen Agnew (ground-truthing) 0

Kael Alford (survey)Alesia Alphin (survey, inventory)

Betty Banks, Spokane, Washington (survey, nventory,data entry)

Mark Greco (survey) *

Cinder Griffin, Bryn Mawr (survey, inventory) a

Nikola Hampe, University of Miinster (survey) aAlan Kaiser (survey)Petra Matern, University of Miinster (survey) 0

Michele Miller (ground-truthing, survey) *

Lee Riccardi (survey, inventory) *

Katrin Vanderhuyde, University of loannina (survey)Elizabeth Wiseman, Littleton, Colorado

(photography, ground-truthing)

CON SULTANTSVirginia Anderson-Stojanovic, Wilson College (ceramics) *

Evangelos Chrysos, University of loannina (Byzantine history) * * *

Harrison Eiteljorg II, Bryn Mawr (databases, utoCAD)Panayiotis Paschos, IGME, Preveza (geology) * * *

Staff members isted without an institutional affiliation or city were from Boston University.

II

8/3/2019 hesperia

13/23


TABLE 1.2. FIELD SCHOOL STUDENTS

I992Kael Alford, Boston UniversityAlexandra Bienkowska, Boston UniversityAnne Cockburn, Williams CollegeTodd Gukelberger, SUNY, AlbanyDeborah King, Rensselaer UniversityDawna Marden, University of Southern MaineThomas Matthews, Utica College of Syracuse UniversityRichard Rotman, Boston UniversityBayleh Shapiro, Boston UniversityJane Sontheimer, Boston UniversityAnita Vyas, Boston UniversityErika Washburn, Boston University

1993Alessandro Abdo, Boston UniversityEvie Ahtaridis, University of PennsylvaniaTracy Barnes, Texas Christian UniversityArlyn Bruccoli, Bard CollegeChristina Calvin, George Mason UniversityScott deBrestian, Boston UniversityAntonina Delu, University of California, RiversideKatherine Demopoulos, University of California, Los AngelesCheryl Eckhardt, Boston UniversityJennifer Fisher, Boston UniversityLorena Freeman, University of the South

Stephani Kleiman, Loyola Marymount UniversityNoah Koff, Boston University

AND THEIR HOME INSTITUTIONS

Natalie Loomis, Tulane UniversityMichael Marton, Franklin and Marshall CollegeMartin McBrearty, Furman UniversityScott McCrimmon, Boston UniversitySean Mulligan, Boston UniversityWendy O'Brien, Boston UniversityDena Pappathanasi, University of New HampshireRudolph Perkins, Boston UniversityJamie Ravenscraft, Duke UniversityJonathan Wood, Princeton UniversityKelly Younger, Loyola Marymount University

1994Lisa Davis, Harvard UniversityMely Do, University of PittsburghAviva Figler, Boston UniversityMike Gaddis, Princeton UniversityAmy Graves, Miami UniversityLeslie Harlacker, Boston UniversityKarla Manternach, Loras CollegeJoe Nigro, Boston UniversityAnne Maxson, Duke UniversityKathy Montgomery, Boston UniversityJennifer Murray, SUNY, Buffalo

Stephan Papageorgiou, Versallius College, BrusselsT. J. Reed, Cornell University

Yasuhisa Shimizu, Boston UniversityAlison Spear, Mount Holyoke College

previous year. The methodology of the surface survey is discussed in detailby Tartaron in Chapter 2, but it is important to note here that surfacesurveys included both transects within large regions and intensive sam-pling, or complete coverage, of human-activity areas ranging from smallsingle-activity sites to extensive settlements. In addition, one fortified townsite (Kastri, in the lower Acheron valley) was selected for intensive urbansurvey.

Geomorphologic studies formed part of the central core of the project,as required by the research concept. If we were to study the interactionbetween humans and their environment, we reasoned, one of the first stepsmust be to determine what that natural setting was-that is, what thelandscape and other aspects of the environment were like over time. Anumber of investigations, therefore, were planned to provide the neededevidence. An extensive coring program was initiated in 1992 and contin-ued through 1994 that was aimed at determining changes in shorelinesover time both in the Ambracian Gulf and along the Ionian coast. Theanalyses of the cores, most of which were carried out in the Archaeometry

Laboratoryof the

University of Minnesota, Duluth, also made it possibleto establish a sequence of local change and, through radiocarbon dating, todetermine the chronology of change. Cores also provided microfauna,

I2

8/3/2019 hesperia

14/23


21. See the discussions n Wiseman1992b, pp. 3-5; 1993a, pp. 12-13.

22. The following brief account sintended mainly to explain what kindsof remote-sensing magery wereacquired and used by the project, andwhy they were used.

23. Wiseman 1996a, 1996b.24. Stein and Cullen 1994;

Wiseman 1996a, 1996b.

macrofauna, and pollen for paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Geomor-

phologic investigations involved geological survey in all parts of the surveyzone, and intensive work, including coring and mapping, at selected sitesor regions. Geological survey and coring were coordinated as closely as

possible with the archaeological survey, so that field teams often com-

prised both geologists and archaeologists working together.We had planned offshore investigations to supplement the study of

shoreline change, and there was a promising beginning to that research.The Hellenic Navy dispatched a research ship, the Pytheas, to work with

project staff for two weeks in 1992. A Klein side-scan sonar and a Kleinsubbottom profiler were towed behind the ship both in the Ionian Sea andin the Ambracian Gulf, the former recording features on the surface of thesea bottom, the latter detailing the depth and nature of sediments belowthe sea floor. The survey, n perpendicular ransects forming a grid pattern,produced data covering some 300 linear kilometers, which to this date

have received only preliminary analysis21 ecause they were subsequentlysequestered by another bureau of the Greek government.

Remote sensing from space was determined to be a potentially usefultool for our survey well before the initiation of the project, as noted above.22We did not, however, expect remote-sensing imagery to play a significantrole in the detection of archaeological sites because at that time most re-mote sensors were known to be unsuccessful in penetrating dense vegeta-tion, which covered much of our survey zone.23 What is more, althoughthe resolution of satellite imagery had been improved, the smallest pictureelement (= pixel) of available multispectral imagery was 20 meters to aside, too

largeto be

helpfulin

detectingthe small features and artifacts of

most archaeological andscapes. It is an interesting sidelight on the devel-

opment of archaeological methodologies that remote sensing in the end

proved to be quite useful in detecting Pleistocene landscapes, which couldthen be located and searched by ground-truthing survey teams, and whichresulted in the discovery of five prehistoric sites.24 Its greatest value, we

thought at the time, would probably ie in its ability to provide imagery ofthe entire region that would permit the classification and identification of

present-day land cover. It could, therefore, help in defining the environ-mental zones of the survey area; show current conditions that might affectthe conduct of surface survey; and perhaps provide some insight into routes

of communication among known (or subsequently discovered) ancientsettlements. The imagery would also serve as a layer in the computer-aided GIS (geographic information system) maps to be generated by theproject, and we hoped to develop spectral signatures-that is, a character-istic spectral response identifiable in the imagery-for features of archaeo-

logical interest.Both multispectral (MSS) and panchromatic imagery of the entire

survey zone was acquired from the French satellite company SPOT beforethe beginning of fieldwork in 1991. SPOT imagery was selected primarilybecause its spatial resolution was the finest available or general research atthat time: MSS at 20

meters, panchromaticat an even finer 10 meters.

The United States'Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery, n contrast,has a resolution of 30 meters. Since spatial resolution on the ground is a

I3

8/3/2019 hesperia

15/23


Figure 1.3. Multispectral image(SPOT) of the northern part of the

survey zone

Figure 1.4. Multispectral image(SPOT) of the southern part of thesurvey zone. Leucas (lower left) andother regions south of the

Ambracian Gulf lie outside thesurvey area.

I4

8/3/2019 hesperia

16/23


function of altitude as well as the type of sensor, we could have achievedfiner resolution from sensors mounted on aircraft, nstead of spacecraft.The only airborne platform available to the project, however, was a teth-ered blimp, which, although excellent for individual sites and smaller ar-eas, was not appropriate or such a large regional survey as ours because ofthe time and other logistical difficulties such coverage would require. Fullcoverage of the survey zone required two images, both in MSS and pan-chromatic. The northern image (Fig. 1.3) included almost the entire sur-

vey zone, and the second (Fig. 1.4) added the southern part of the Nikopolispeninsula, along with areas outside the survey zone: Actium, Leucas, andother areas south of the Ambracian Gulf.

Multispectral imagery is particularly useful in showing different typesof landcover because landcover types have a different reflectance value ineach band of the electromagnetic spectrum. The combination of thesenumeric values in the bands used by the sensor (SPOT uses green, red,

and near infrared) constitutes a spectral signature, which may be repre-sented by a (false) color assigned in a multispectral mage generated by the

computer. This assigning of colors, or classification of images, is a processwhereby each land area having the same kind of cover receives the same(false) color in the image. The researcher, hen, after identifying on the

ground at least once the class represented by a particular color as a particu-lar landcover (e.g., class 12 = red = limestone outcropping), may reason-

ably expect other patches of red in that image to represent the same kindof landcover; n the example just cited, more limestone outcrops. In prac-tice, however, the classification of an image may result in the combining ofseveral signatures into a single class, or the subdivision of a signature intomore than one class, depending on the number of classes the researcherchooses for the image and on other physical aspects of the landcover. Mak-

ing use of the facilities of the Center for Remote Sensing at Boston Uni-

versity, Carol Stein classified the MSS imagery of the Nikopolis Projectinto fifty classes, with all unclassified andcover assigned class 0. The numberof classes was considerably larger than proved useful in the field becausethe fine distinctions the classification made possible resulted in the identi-fication of many kinds of landcover that were irrelevant for our research.For example, there was no reason for us to be able to distinguish kiwi

plants from maize, which our classification enabled us to do. In retrospect,

we now see that fewer landcover classes (say, ifteen to twenty) would havebeen preferable, because such a classification would have resulted in a ben-eficial lumping together of rock outcroppings, and would have createdother continuous zones-as in fact they were-of barren and, instead of anumber of separate units in the classified imagery. The finer distinctionsinvolved in developing a spectral signature of an archaeological feature, or

archaeological feature combined with a particular vegetation, would stillhave been theoretically possible.

The relevant portions of the MSS images were then subdivided byStein into twenty scenes, each representing about 100 km2 on the ground,and printed for field use. Transparent overlays at the same size were also

printed, five for each scene, each displaying ten of the fifty false colors ofclasses of landcover, so that field teams were able to use them conveniently

I5

8/3/2019 hesperia

17/23


Figure 1.5. The eroded andscape f, Z ~ ~. . . . . . _ ~~~~~ ~......Kokkinopilos above he Louros__ .............River gorge

to determine what on the ground was actually being represented by eachfalse color; this kind of fieldwork is called "ground-truthing." The hardcopy of the scenes and transparencies were at a scale of 1:50,000, so theycould be used in conjunction with our topographical maps of the samescale; the transparencies could be used as overlays of the maps, just as theywere on the printed scenes.

Ground-truthing, a focus of our fieldwork in 1991, required precise

location of the observed landscape, so the field teams were also providedwith copies of the panchromatic scenes, and even more detailed subscenes.Locations were marked on 1:5,000 topographical maps, and aerial photo-graphs (scale: 1:20,000) also were used to help locate specific features inthe landscape; both maps and photographs were obtained from the Geo-graphic Service of the Hellenic Army. Additional locational informationwas obtained by 1) global positioning systems (GPS), which provide UTMas well as longitude/latitude readings through communication with thenavigational satellites (21 in number in 1991) that constantly orbit earth;2) altimeter readings (more accurate at that time than GPS in determin-ing altitude), when benchmarks are not readily available; and 3) readingsby electronic laser theodolite, for still more precise location in three di-mensions, as appropriate. These ground-truthing expeditions, which wereled by Timothy G. Baugh during the first, preparatory field season, re-sulted in the identification of 27 of the 50 classes of landcover. An addi-tional 12 classes were created for areas with distinctive features related tohuman activity whose spectral signatures might serve as guides to the lo-cation of other similar areas: e.g., quarries or ancient sites. One of thosenew classifications was the eroded Pleistocene landscape of Kokkinopilos(Fig. 1.5), which eventually led to the discovery of five other similar land-scapes, and prehistoric sites, as mentioned above. The experience gainedin using GPS, satellite imagery, and topographic

mapsin 1991 was invalu-

able in developing standard procedures or the survey teams of 1992-1994.

I6

8/3/2019 hesperia

18/23


25. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman1987.

26. Hemans, Myers, and Wiseman1987.

What is more, he ground-truthing xpeditions f 1991 provided everalmembers f the staff with a fundamental amiliarity ith the Epirote and-scape.

Another kind of remote sensing, aerial photography rom a tethered

blimp,was

employed ythe

projecto document ome of the

largerknown

ancient ites. Four ites were photographed ith radio-controlled amerasin 1992 by field teams ed byJ. Wilson Myers and Eleanor Emlen Myers:the fortified own of Kastro Rogon south of the Louros River orge; KastroRizovouni, a fortified own in an enclosed plain north of Kastro Rogon;the Roman aqueduct ear Ayios Georgios n the Louros River gorge; andVoulista Panayia, Hellenistic site overlooking he narrows f the samegorge urther north at Kleisoura. Michael Hamilton, who was the project'sstaff photographer, ed the blimp-photography eam in 1993 that photo-graphed he large ortified Classical nd Hellenistic ite at the abandonedmodern village of Palaiorophoros, orth of the town of Louros. The use ofthis technique was limited by a number of factors. The necessity or per-mits from multiple civilian and military uthorities esulted n numerous,costly delays and disruption f schedules e.g., blimp photography n 1991had to be cancelled and the 1993 season was severely urtailed). he ex-pense was significant, nd was greatly ncreased n 1993 when we decided,for safety reasons, o use helium n the blimp nstead of less expensive, uthighly lammable ydrogen. n addition, here were he normal delays andlogistical problems mposed by the technique tself, such as the need toawait avorable winds (that s, none or very ight) and other climatic con-ditions. The photographic esults of this technique, however, are highly

useful, especially when, as on the Nikopolis Project, multiple cameras reused to provide overage oth in black and white and n color. A particularadvantage f photography rom a tethered blimp s that the views are ver-tical and so can be used in mapping, unlike the oblique views frequentlygathered by cameras on aircraft. t is also possible n a single flight toobtain photos at a series of elevations p to a maximum f 800 m, therebyproviding oth close-ups and extensive overage see Fig. 1.6). The aerialphotograph lso can be scanned and then combined with the multispec-tral mage of that area, a technique we used in the study of the fortifiedtown site of Palaiorophoros.

The Boston University limp-photography ystem was designed byJ.Wilson Myers, who modeled t on the system he had developed earlier,and is described n detail elsewhere.25 multispectral ideo camera, uc-cessfully used on a tethered blimp n the Corinthia y a Boston Universityteam in 1986,26was not used by the Nikopolis Project, but could usefullybe deployed n the future, ince t can provide high spatial esolution n sixbands of the electromagnetic pectrum.

Geophysical rospection f various kinds was carried ut at a numberof sites, primarily o provide data on possible subsurface eatures n areaswhere surface urvey uggested ignificant human activity. Only limitedprospection was possible n 1992 because of staffing and equipment rob-

lems, but successful programs of investigation were conducted n 1993under he direction fJohn Weymouth of the University f Nebraska nd

I7

8/3/2019 hesperia

19/23


Figure 1.6. Aerial view of thefortified own site at Kastro Rogonfrom an elevation of 400 m. Photo byJ. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers

in 1994, when Weymouth was succeeded by his protege, Apostolos Sarris.Instrumentation included a proton magnetometer, electrical resistivitymeter, and electromagnetic conductivity meter, of which the first was mostfrequently used. Weymouth and Sarris are preparing a report on their in-vestigations for volume 2 of this series, and the results are also being incor-porated into reports on the town sites where geophysical prospection de-tected significant subsurface eatures such as probable kilns and buildings.

The permit of the Nikopolis Project was for survey, not excavation;indeed, under Greek law a single permit might cover only one or the other.As a result, the project had an arrangement whereby one of the cooperat-ing Greek ephoreias would perform excavation if a site was discovered bythe

projectto be in need of

emergencyattention. The

discoveryat the

Roman villa site of Strongyli, for example, that burials had been plunderedby clandestine diggers and parts of floor mosaics had been exposedprompted excavations by the Greek ephoreia to ensure conservation.27 Asimilar situation arose at Frangoklisia, probably another Roman villa, onthe Ionian coast near Loutsa.28 The project did carry out limited excava-tion in 1991 at the request of the Prehistoric and Classical Ephoreia in theRoman aqueduct below the village of Ayios Georgios, so that details ofthe water channels and the chronological sequence of aqueduct bridgesacross the Louros River might be studied and drawn (Fig. 1.7). Our workhere resulted n, among other conclusions, the confirmation that the north-

ern bridge was built and utilized for the aqueduct after the earlier, Au-gustan bridge had been damaged and abandoned.

27. Douzougli 1998a, 1998b.28. Zachos 1998.

I8

8/3/2019 hesperia

20/23


Figure 1.7. Aerial view of the water ichannel right) and aqueduct bridges . tacross he Louros River rom anelevation of 320 m. Photo by a fJ. Wilson and Eleanor Emlen Myers s

DOCUMENTATION

All team leaders and individual nvestigators ept a daily record of theiractivities nd observations n bound, hardback otebooks, which also con-tained photographic rints and drawings, nd were ndexed upon comple-tion. The notebooks were numbered equentially. his permanent istori-cal record, partially n narrative orm, was supplemented y an array ofprinted orms hat were illed out in the field or laboratory, s appropriate,providing detailed nformation n all aspects of the investigations, romsurface urvey o artifact nventory. hese two kinds of written documen-tation were cross-referenced n a daily basis, but it was primarily he seriesof printed orms that provided he bulk of the information hat was en-tered nto the computer databases. summarize elow the principal ata-bases of the Nikopolis Project. All forms were numbered y year and se-quential accession within the year, e.g., 92-1. Databases marked with anasterisk re dealt with in greater detail n Chapter 2.

1. Ground-Truthing orm (GTF). A GTF was filled out at everylocation where ground-truthing as conducted o identify helandcover f classes n the satellite magery.

*2.Tract T). The tract, an area of arbitrary ize, is the project'sprimary urvey unit whether n the countryside r within a large

site. The database ncludes ocation, size, description, onditionsof the survey, otal artifact ounts, and summary esults.

I 9

8/3/2019 hesperia

21/23


*3. Site/Scatter SS). An SS is any ocation where here was aconcentration f artifacts r that is marked by visible, n situremains. This category ncludes any ocation rom a smallscatter of lithics to a fortified own. The database ncludeslocation, ize, description, hronology, nd survey data.

*4.Walkover W). A W indicates a nonintensive urvey or a visiteither or reconnaissance r reexamination.

5. Sample. The sample database ncludes he description, ounts,dates, and other details of all cultural material ollected duringsurvey. ample numbers re dentical o the numbers f thesurvey units where they were collected.

6. Inventory. Artifacts elected or inventory were catalogued ndstored according o material/function. election criteria n-cluded, among others, ignificance or dating or functionalanalysis, r the likelihood of publication s a type artifact.

7. Special Analyses. This database rovides record of the contextand nature of samples aken or laboratory nalyses, rom claysamples o geological cores.

8. Photo Inventory. A record of all black-and-white nd colorphotographs taken by the Nikopolis Project, in the field, photostudio, or laboratory.

9. Drawing Inventory. A record of all drawings made by and for the

project.

Relational databases 1-6 were all created in FoxBase+ for Mac, whichseemed to the

staff, includingthe

computerscientists and

engineers,the

most suitable at the time. Unfortunately, when the software was redesignedas FoxPro in 1993, databases in earlier versions of the software could notbe upgraded; all windows for data entry would have had to be redesignedand the data reentered to use FoxPro, a duplication of effort we declined todo. The program, therefore, lacks some of the flexibility and ease of someof the more recent databases, but still has served the project well. The

design of the relational databases reflects the archaeological concerns andexperience of the senior staff, and there was much (both fruitful and lively)discussion between the archaeologists and the computer experts who putit all together.

The various forms and notebooks were supplemented by copies ofmaps, primarily the 1:5,000 topographical maps, on which field teamsmarked survey ocations and other observations. Each member of the staffalso prepared a staff report at the end of each season, which summarizedthe activities each person performed, the forms and notebooks in whichthe records were kept, and whatever other comments the staff desired tomake. There were numerous other logistical records, ncluding logs to keeptrack of the forms assigned for field use, and extensive cross-referencing.We hold redundancy in archaeological records to be a virtue because itmakes it possible to discover the inevitable recording errors hat occasion-

ally creep into databases, however carefully they are kept. All databasesand other archives of the Nikopolis Project are stored in the Center forArchaeological Studies at Boston University.

20

8/3/2019 hesperia

22/23


POST-FIELDWORK ANALYSES

During study seasons n 1995 and 1996, materials ollected during thesurveys were reexamined nd studied n Ioannina. he Byzantine Ephoreiamade available or study pace he secularized ormer mosque, Fetiye Dzami,located on the highest part of the fortress f Ali Pasha and adjacent o thenew Museum of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Archaeology. he glori-ous view from one side of the mosque ncluded he lake of Ioannina andthe Pindos Mountains, and there were trees nearby hat offered hade orstaff members who might be working outside. The staff is particularlygrateful o the Byzantine Ephoreia or providing uch a splendid place tostudy, and to the Prehistoric nd Classical Ephoreia or permitting hesurvey material o be transported cross own from the ArchaeologicalMuseum o the Kastro during wo summers.

During each of the two study seasons, he senior staff also had the

precious pportunity o revisit urvey reas naccompanied y survey eamsto direct, and not burdened with surveys o conduct or detailed orms tofill out. The staff, then, were able to contemplate n the spot the obser-vations of previous years, and had the leisure to discuss observationsand nterpretations ith each other n the midst of the landscape we werestudying.

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

29. Wiseman, Zachos, ndKephallonitou 1996, 1997, 1998.

30. Wiseman 1991,1992a, 1992b,1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1995a, 1995b,1997a.

31. Rapp and Jing 1994; Runnels1994; Stein and Cullen 1994; Tartaron1994; Tartaron and Zachos 1999;Wiseman 1997a, 1997b; Wiseman andDouzougli-Zachos 1994; Wiseman,Robinson, and Stein 1999; reports byseveral staff members recently appearedin Isager 2001. Articles and abstracts npress have been omitted here.

32. Runnels and van Andel 1993b;Tartaron and Runnels 1992; Tartaron,Runnels, and Karimali 1999.

33. Papagianni 2000, which is based

on her (1999) dissertation at theUniversity of Cambridge.

34. Besonen 1997.

Preliminary reports of the Nikopolis Project appeared regularly n Greekin the Archaiologikon eltion29 and in English in Context and the NikopolisNewsletter, publications of Boston University's Center for ArchaeologicalStudies.30 Papers by several members of the staff have appeared n full orin abstract form in the published transactions of the several conferencesand symposia at which they were presented,31 and a few special reportshave been published in journals and edited volumes of essays.32 n addi-tion to the doctoral dissertations of Moore and Tartaron, which were basedmainly on project results and have been cited above, a dissertation byDimitra Papagianni also includes research on material from the NikopolisProject.33 Chapter 5 in this volume, written by Mark Besonen, George

(Rip) Rapp, and ZhichunJing, is based in part on Besonen's M.S. thesis.34The present book is the first of two volumes of final reports. Chapter

1, by Wiseman and Zachos, provides a history of the Nikopolis Project,and discussions of the research aims, the interdisciplinary methodologiesemployed, the databases, and the organization of staff and responsibilities.In the second chapter Tartaron presents in detail the methodology of thediachronic surface survey and places both the methodology and the aimswithin the historical and theoretical context of survey archaeology, espe-cially as that field has evolved in the archaeology of Europe. These twochapters, which constitute an introduction to the work of the project, pro-vide a historical, theoretical, and

methodologicalframework within which

the results of the overall interdisciplinary project may be understood andevaluated. They are not intended to be summaries of the results them-

2I

8/3/2019 hesperia

23/23


selves, which are presented in the reports that follow in this volume and its

forthcoming companion volume.In Chapter 3 Runnels and van Andel present the results of the Palaeo-

lithic survey, which they conducted as a supplement to the diachronic sur-

vey. Their methodology, developed over some fifteen years of survey insouthern and central Greece, was based first on the investigation of the

paleoenvironment, especially the geological history of Pleistocene sedi-ments and other landforms. Their report thus deals comprehensively withthe geomorphology and changes in the environment of southern Epirusin early prehistoric times, as well as the cultural evolution of its humaninhabitants, from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Mesolithic. One of themost remarkable f the open-air Palaeolithic sites investigated by the projectis Spilaion, an Early Upper Palaeolithic site near the current mouth of theAcheron River, where the ground surface was littered with an estimated150,000 lithic artifacts. Runnels, Evangelia Karimali, and Brenda Cullen

report in Chapter 4 on their study of the Spilaion assemblage, includingthe results of a spatial analysis of the distribution of the artifacts.

Chapters 5 and 6 carry he discussion of the geomorphology of south-ern Epirus and its relationships to archaeological sites from the end of thePleistocene to the present. Both reports are based on extensive geologiccoring programs and intensive laboratory analyses of the cores, as well asother geomorphologic investigations in the field. ZhichunJing and George(Rip) Rapp document the changes over the past 10,000 years in the coastallandscape of the Nikopolis peninsula and the area to its east, which com-

prises most of the north coast of the Ambracian Gulf. The locations of theimportant Classical, Roman, and medieval town sites in this region, and ofhuman habitation generally, are related to the dramatic changes in the

landscape, which are themselves shown to result from a variety of environ-mental, geomorphologic, and cultural factors. Besonen, Rapp, and Jingreport in detail on the post-Pleistocene geologic history of the lowerAcheron valley, tracing the changing course of the Acheron River, the cre-ation and demise of the Acherousian lake, and the gradual change overtime of the deep embayment known to Strabo as the Glykys Limen, wherelarge fleets of ships found anchorage both in Greek and Roman times, tothe small bay of the present day at the mouth of the Acheron River. Thehistorical implications of the coastal changes are also discussed. In a final

chapter the editors comment briefly on the results reported n this volume.Volume 2 of Landscape Archaeology n Southern Epirus, Greece will in-

clude a catalogue of sites/scatters and all tracts surveyed; reports on thepottery, ithics, and other artifacts; and a chronological presentation of thecultural remains in their environmental contexts.

22

hesperia

Documents