U 

U N I V E RSI T Y O F C I N C I N N A T I
May 12, 2009
Date:

Sharon R. Stocker
I, ,

hereby submit this original wor k as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Ph.D.

Classics
in

It is entitled:
Illyrian Apollonia: Toward a New Ktisis and Developmental History of the Colony

Sharon R. Stocker
Student Signature:

T his wor k and its defense approved by:

Kathleen M. Lynch
Committee C hair:
Archie Christopherson

Getzel Cohen

A pproval of the electronic document:

I have reviewed the T hesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an
accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee.
Kathleen M. Lynch
Committee C hair signature:
 Illyrian Apollonia:
Toward a New Ktisis and Developmental History
of the Colony

A doctoral dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in the Department of Classics

of the College of Arts and Sciences

2009

by

Sharon R. Stocker
A.B., Denison University, 1981
M.A., University of Cincinnati, 1995

Committee Chair: Kathleen Lynch

Archie Christopherson
Getzel Cohen
 ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the history and archaeology of

the Greek colony at Apollonia in southern Illyria during

the Graeco-Roman period. Through a critical review of the

textual and archaeological evidence it seeks to challenge

the validity of well entrenched ideas that are repeated in

modern scholarship about the foundation and history of the

apoikia. A ktisis for the colony alternative to the

Marxist interpretations that were constructed under

Albanian Communism is then presented. Current approaches

to studying Greek colonization provide a useful framework

for structuring this alternative discourse about Apollonia.

The review of the textual evidence is supplemented by new

survey data from the Mallakastra Regional Archaeological

Project, documented and analyzed here for the first time.

Patterns of settlement expansion and contraction in the

hinterland through antiquity are evident. An attempt is

made to tie diachronic differences in landscape

exploitation to major historical events in southern Illyria

and the larger Graeco-Roman Mediterranean.

© Copyright 2009 by

Sharon R. Stocker

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis is the result of much work that was done

by my MRAP colleagues, and I owe thanks to them for

allowing me to discuss some of our results here. Thanks go

especially to the Albania co-directors of MRAP, Muzafer

Korkuti, the Director of the Institute of Archaeology in

Tirana, Skender Muçaj, our ceramic expert for many years,

and Lorenc Bejko of the International Center for Albanian

Archaeology. I am especially grateful to my colleague and

friend Mike Galaty for the assistance he has given me, for

his unflagging dedication to the project, and for his

encouragement and suggestions. I also thank my dear friend

and co-director of the excavation at Bonjakët, Iris Pojani

of the International Center for Albanian Archaeology. I

could not have completed the ceramic section of this thesis

without the dedication to MRAP and expertise of Kathleen

Lynch of the University of Cincinnati, Carolyn Koehler of

the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and Maria Grazia

Amore of the International Center for Albanian Archaeology.

The MRAP data were collected and assembled by skilled team

leaders, and here I single out for special acknowledgement

Charles Watkinson, who served in this capacity throughout

the project. I also owe thanks to the numerous other

individuals who participated in the survey between 1998-

v
2003. Expert computer assistance was provided both in the

field and out of the field by John Wallrodt and Sebastian

Heath helped with database and mapping problems. Maps and

amphora profiles were graciously supplied by Rosemary

Robertson. MRAP was supported by grants from the National

Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic

Society, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, and the

Louise Taft Semple Fund of the Department of Classics of

the University of Cincinnati.

I am grateful for the patience, encouragement, and

guidance offered to me by my dissertation advisor, Archie

Christopherson, and for his willingness to continue to work

with me after his retirement. I am also grateful to my

other committee members, Kathleen Lynch and Getzel Cohen,

for their devotion to me and my research. I appreciate the

support I received from other faculty members of the

Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. My

understanding of several ancient authors and genres of

literature was greatly enriched through discussions with a

number of scholars, including Kathryn Gutzwiller, Matthew

Dickie, and William Hutton. I also thank my colleague and

friend Lynne Schepartz, formerly of the University of

Cincinnati Anthropology department, and currently at

Florida State University. A special thanks go to the

vi
members of the "dissertation discussion group," Carrie

Galsworthy, Carol Hershenson, Julie Hruby, Joanne Murphy,

Kathleen Quinn, and Susan Wise. Their suggestions and

encouragement have in no small way contributed to the

completion of this project!

Scientific studies were performed by Tammie Gerke and

Barry Maynard in the University of Cincinnati Geology

Department. The analyses of the amphoras were completed

only because of Tammie's unflagging energy and

encouragement, but she and I could not have undertaken this

study without the expertise in identification and dating

provided by Carolyn Koehler; much of the information

contained in Chapter 6 stems from her work.

My research was greatly facilitated by the enormously

talented staff of the University of Cincinnati John Miller

Burnam Classics Library. My thanks go especially to Jean

Wellington, Mike Braunlin, David Ball, and Jacquelene

Riley. I am also grateful for the assistance I received

from the librarians at the British School at Athens during

the initial stages of my work. Most of the scholarship

published during the communist period was translated into

French for scholars outside the country. Because of

Hoxha's anti-American policies this literature was often

not available to American institutions but was accessible

vii
to the French and British. Thus, the libraries of both the

British and French Schools at Athens have extensive

collections of archaeological scholarship produced in

Albania between 1946 and 1998. There is no library in the

United States that has such complete holdings.

The staff of the Gennadius Library of the American

School of Classical Studies at Athens was instrumental and

enthusiastic in locating countless rare books that were

essential in the examination of the foundation date of

Apollonia discussed in Chapter 5. I, too, owe a debt of

gratitude to the staff of the Blegen Library of the

American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

I could not have brought this thesis to fruition

without the emotional support that I received from my

family and friends. My parents, Nancy and Robert Stocker,

have always offered me unconditional love and have been

there when I needed relaxation, pushing, and/or consoling.

I appreciate their patience and unfaltering trust in me.

My brother Mike has also been a large source of

encouragement.

My husband, Jack, never stopped believing in me, even

when I did. He has been kind, tolerant, and forgiving of

my process, and his love and guidance have helped to see me

through to the end. I have profited greatly from our

viii
discussions, often heated, about innumerable themes related

to our work at Apollonia and to my dissertation. His

devotion has been a key element in enabling me to complete

this thesis, and I could not have done so without his

support.

Finally, I am profoundly grateful to my good friend

Bill Wilson and the many friends we have in common.

Without the serenity, courage, and wisdom of these people

this dissertation could not exist.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements v

List of Figures x

List of Tables xix

Chapter 1. Introduction: Toward a History of

Apollonia 1

Section I: History of Apollonia and Albanian Views

about Archaeology and Apollonia

Chapter 2. Review of the Sources and Historical

Background for Apollonia 25

Chapter 3. Albanian Archaeology since World War II 85

Section II: A Critical History of Apollonia

Chapter 4. Greek Colonization as a General

Phenomenon 123

Chapter 5. Apollonia and Albania in the Wider

Context of Greek Colonization 195

Section III: The Archaeological Evidence

iii
Chapter 6. Transport Amphoras from Apollonia and

Its Hinterland 321

Chapter 7. The Mallakastra Regional Archaeological

Project Survey: The Primary Data 417

Chapter 8. Toward a Rural Archaeology of Apollonia

in Antiquity: Analysis of MRAP Survey Data 653

Section IV: Historical and Archaeological Evidence

in Tandem

Chapter 9. Settlement and Land Use Patterns: A

Diachronic Review. 811

Chapter 10. Conclusions: Apollonia and Its

Hinterland: A Retrospect 889

Bibliography 901

Figures 1023

Tables 1097

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

1.1. Map of Albania with principal towns and rivers. R.

J. Robertson

1.2. Close-up map of the Apollonia region. R. J.

Robertson

1.3. View of the Vjosa river valley from the excavation

house at Apollonia

1.4. Surviving column from the temple at Shtyllas

1.5. Bouleuterion and triumphal arch at Apollonia

1.6. Architrave block from the Apollonia bouleuterion used

as an altar at Site 013

1.7. Bouleuterion, Odeion, and "Library." J. Driessen

3.1. Map of Albania and borders with other Balkan

countries. R. J. Robertson

4.1. Map of ancient Greek world (Southern Italy, Greece,

and Asia Minor). © 1998 Bernard Suzanne,

http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/gk_wrld.htm

5.1. Relief map of Albania. The University of Texas at

Austin, Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection,

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/albania_rel00.jpg

x
6.1. Distribution of all transport amphoras in the MRAP

survey region. S. F. S. Heath and S. R. Stocker

6.2. Plot of all amphora samples. Ni vs. Cr. S. R.

Stocker and T. Gerke

6.3. Plot of Corinthian Type B and "local" amphoras. Ni

vs. Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

6.4. Plot of Corinthian Type A and A' amphoras. Ni vs.

Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

6.5. Plot of Corinthian Type A amphoras by period. Ni vs.

Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

6.6. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

6.7. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

6.8. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

7.1. Map of the MRAP survey region with the location of

sites. R. J. Robertson

7.2. Tract walking

7.3. MRAP Collection Units Database

7.4. MRAP Sites Database

7.5. Skender Muçaj reading artifacts

7.6. MRAP Museum Registration Database

7.7. Maria Grazia Amore, Kathleen Lynch, and Ols Lafe

examining pottery

7.8. MRAP Catalogued Pottery Database

xi
7.9. Curtis Runnels and Muzafer Korkuti

7.10. MRAP Small Finds Database

7.11. Jim Newhard and Muzafer Korkuti mapping necropolis

of Apollonia (Site 007) with an EDM

7.12. Map of MRAP survey region with tracts and zones

identified. R. J. Robertson

7.13. Site 001 with team members gathered around site

center. Column at Shtyllas in background

7.14. Overview of Site 002 looking south along ridge

7.15. Surface collection at Site 003

7.16. View from Site 003 across the Apollonia necropolis

(Site 007) towards Site 004 and Site 005

7.17. Muzafer Korkuti on large tumulus at Site 005.

Looking east

7.18. Looking towards Kryegjata across Site 007 at Site

006 and derelict military buildings

7.19. Tumulus at Site 006 with power line visible on right

7.20. View west across Site 007 toward Apollonia acropolis

from Kodra Kripës (Site 005)

7.21. View of the Apollonia acropolis (Site 008) from Site

026. Looking north

7.22. Figure 7.22. Jack Davis and author on steps of the

bouleuterion of Apollonia (Site 008)

7.23. Upper acropolis of Apollonia (Site 008)

xii
7.24. Site 009 is shown with team members clustered around

site center from a point ca. 50 m to the south

7.25. Site 010 with modern trenches dug to collect water.

Looking 330˚, with Apollonia in the background

7.26. Looking west towards Çuka e Bukur across Site 011,

taken from the hill immediately to southeast

7.27. Tiles sticking out of scarp at Site 011. West of

agricultural road at the east side of the Shtyllas

valley, looking 320˚

7.28. Looking north from site center of Site 012. The

Shtyllas valley water pumping station is visible

7.29. Looking south (uphill) at the center of Site 012

7.30. Safe and architrave block at the center of Site 013

7.31. Site 014 on the west side of the knoll at the east

end of the Shtyllas valley, looking northeast from

Site 031

7.32. Looking west from Tract A-156 towards Site 015 and

Site 013

7.33. Standing in S015-009G looking 320˚ down over Site

015, showing new buildings and farmyard

7.34. Limestone slabs from a grave south of Kodra Ullirit

with trees marking Site 016 in the distance

xiii
7.35. Looking east from Site 019. Site 018 is in the low

middle ground between the two hills and above the

farmhouse in the center

7.36. Looking east across center of Site 019. Fier is in

the background

7.37. View from Site 020 looking south to Site 033

7.38. View from Site 021 looking 330˚ from S021-006G with

column of Shtyllas in background

7.39. View of Apollonia from Site 022, looking 320˚ from

north end of site

7.40. Tile and brick pile in S023-004 of Site 023

7.41. View from Site 003 towards Site 024

7.42. Looking 200˚ from Tract C-101 at Shtyllas-Jaroi

village (Site 025) with Çuka e Lisit in background

7.43. Water tower on top of Site 026 from south

7.44. View of Apollonia from Site 026 from south

7.45. View of Site 027, taken from site center looking

330˚

7.46. View of Site 028 and the village of Shtyllas-Jaroi

(Site 025) in background, looking 220˚

7.47. Looking towards Site 029 from GPS Point GH20

7.48. Looking west across Site 029. Olive trees in

background are in Tract D-186

7.49. View east from J-108 toward Site 030

xiv
7.50. Looking 350° at Site 031 and the Vadhiza junction.

Site 014 is in background on left at junction of

Radostina and Shtyllas roads

7.51. Site 031 center, marked by a pink flag under an

olive tree near the half bunker, seen from southwest.

Orange van is parked next to road at Vadhiza junction

7.52. Site 032 from the road; site center is on the last

straw terrace to the right of photo center. Cuke e

Bukur with a blue radio tower on top is visible on

extreme left of terrace

7.53. Overview of Site 032

7.54. Center of Site 033

7.55. Looking down 140° from ridge opposite and above Site

034. Team members conducting site collection are

slightly left of the center of the photograph

7.56. Site 034 being collected by team members

7.57. View of Site 035 from south on road

7.58. Eroded road running alongside Site 036. In 2000 the

road was drivable

7.59. Site 038 looking north from J-135

7.60. Site 039 from the east

7.61. Site 040

7.62. Margelliç acropolis (Site 041), looking 250˚ from

end of Tract M-006

xv
7.63. Looking across acropolis of Margelliç from end of

S041-019

7.64. Northern slope of Margelliç acropolis (Site 041)

from Site 045

7.65. Looking west to Site 042

7.66. General view of Site 043 from north

7.67. Farmstead at Bonjakët (Site 043)

7.68. Looking over Site 044 at 340˚ from southernmost

point of site on asphalt road

7.69. Site 045 looking 250˚ towards Site 041 in the

background

7.70. Site 046. Profile of scarp along Rusinja road in

Tract M-258

7.71. Looking 330˚ from the south end of grid over Site

047

7.72. View of plain showing Site 049 on the right side of

photograph and Site 043, Site 047, and Site 050 in the

distance

7.73. Site 054 looking 40˚ from Tracts L-202 to L-205

7.74. Part of the lower town of Margelliç (Site 055) in

the foreground with the acropolis (Site 043) in the

distance, from Rerezi ridge

7.75. Landscape in Zone 6 with Site 056 in the foreground

7.76. Olive trees on Site 057

xvi
7.77. View of the temple at Shtyllas from the monastery

tower at Apollonia

7.78. Column from the temple at Shtyllas with Apollonia in

the background

8.1. MRAP zones with sites. R. J. Robertson

8.2. Zone 1. R. J. Robertson

8.3. Zone 2. R. J. Robertson

8.4. Zone 3. R. J. Robertson

8.5. Zones 4 and 5. R. J. Robertson

8.6. Zone 6. R. J. Robertson

8.7. Zone 7. R. J. Robertson

8.8. Zones 8 and 9. R. J. Robertson

8.9. Zones 10, 11, 12, 13. R. J. Robertson

9.1. Distribution of ceramics in the MRAP survey region.

S. R. Stocker and S. Heath

9.2. Distribution of Bronze-Iron Age ceramics. S. R.

Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

9.3. Distribution of Archaic-Early Classical ceramics. S.

R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

9.4. Distribution of Bronze Age-Archaic ceramics. S. R.

Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

xvii
9.5. Distribution of Classical ceramics. S. R. Stocker

and S. F. S. Heath

9.6. Distribution of Classical-Early Hellenistic ceramics.

S. R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

9.7. Distribution of Hellenistic ceramics. S. R. Stocker

and S. F. S. Heath

9.8. Distribution of Roman ceramics. S. R. Stocker and S.

F. S. Heath

xviii
 LIST OF TABLES

1.1. MRAP periods and dates

6.1. MRAP transport amphora by period, site, and zone

6.2. MRAP transport amphora by date and zone

6.3. Archaic transport amphoras in the sample group

7.1. List of sites in numerical order with zone, area,

year of collection, site size, and site name

7.2. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 001

7.3. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 001

7.4. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 002

7.5. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 002

7.6. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 004

7.7. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 004

7.8. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 005

xix
7.9. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 005

7.10 Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 006

7.11. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery associated with revisitation of Site 006

7.12. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 006

7.13. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 007

7.14. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from revisitation associated with of Site 007

7.15. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 008

7.16. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 009

7.17. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 009

7.18. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 010

7.19. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from revisitation associated with of Site 010

7.20. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 011

xx
7.21. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 011

7.22. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 012

7.23. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 012

7.24. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 013

7.25. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 013

7.26. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 014

7.27. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 014

7.28. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 015

7.29. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 015

7.30. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 016

7.31. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 016

xxi
7.32. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 017

7.33. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 018

7.34. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 018

7.35. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 019

7.36. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 019

7.37. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 020

7.38. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 020

7.39. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 021

7.40. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 021

7.41. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 022

7.42. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 022

7.43. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 023

xxii
7.44. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 023

7.45. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 026

7.46. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 026

7.47. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 027

7.48. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 027

7.49. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 028

7.50. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 028

7.51. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 029

7.52. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 029

7.53. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 031

7.54. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 031

xxiii
7.55. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 032

7.56. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 032

7.57. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 033

7.58. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 033

7.59. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 034

7.60. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 034

7.61. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from excavation associated with Site 034

7.62. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 035

7.63. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 035

7.64. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 037

7.65. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 037

xxiv
7.66. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 038

7.67. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 038

7.68. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from excavation associated with S038

7.69. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 039

7.70. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 039

7.71. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 040

7.72. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 040

7.73. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 041

7.74. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 041

7.75. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 042

7.76. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 043

xxv
7.77. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 043

7.78. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 044

7.79. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 044

7.80. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 045

7.81. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 045

7.82. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 046

7.83. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 047

7.84. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 047

7.85. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 048

7.86. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 049

7.87. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 050

7.88. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from Site 050

xxvi
7.89. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 051

7.90. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from revisitation associated with Site 051

7.91. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 052

7.92. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 053

7.93. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 054

7.94. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 055

7.95. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 056

7.96. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 057

7.97. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 058

7.98. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from revisitation associated with Site 058

xxvii
7.99. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts and revisitation associated with

Site 060

7.100. Shapes represented by period in the collection of

pottery from tracts associated with Site 061

8.1. List of sites by zone with periods represented

8.2. List of tracts and sites in zones

9.1. Prehistoric pottery by date, site, and zone

9.2. Prehistoric pottery by date and zone

9.3. Archaic and Classical pottery by date, site, and zone

9.4. Archaic and Classical pottery by date and zone

9.5. Pithoi by date, site, and zone

9.6. Pithoi by date and zone

9.7. Hellenistic pottery by date, site, and zone

9.8. Hellenistic pottery by date and zone

9.9. Roman pottery by date, site, and zone

9.10. Roman pottery by date and zone

xxviii
xxix
 Chapter 1.

Introduction: Toward a History of Apollonia

The perception of that distance

may serve as the starting point of an
investigation, for anthropologists have
found that the best points of entry in
an attempt to penetrate an alien
culture can be those where it seems to
be most opaque. When you realize that
you are not getting something – a joke,
a proverb, a ceremony – that is
particularly meaningful to the natives,
you can see where to grasp a foreign
system of meaning in order to unravel
it.1

There it is, the past in the

present, constantly changing and
renewing itself as the present rewrites
the past.2

Apollonia in Albania

"Greeks, like humans everywhere, used material culture

to say things about themselves."3 The job of the

archaeologist is to make sense of the material record and

to offer an interpretation of what is preserved. The

archaeologist, therefore, gives meaning to silent objects

that once held significance for living and breathing people

and attempts to read the past through these artifacts,

which function as a non-verbal language. The

1
Darnton 1984, p. 78.
2
Bender 1998, p. 6.
3
Morris 1998, p. 4.

1
archaeologist’s goal is to get as near to the ancient

meaning as possible in order to write a version of history

that most closely corresponds with that reality. It is,

however, impossible to construct one single, objective

history of the past; there is no one "reality" that is or

was true for everyone at any time, past or present. An

archaeologist can only offer biased "interpretations of

ancient interpretations" of the residues of material

culture preserved in the archaeological record, based on

that individual's own experience, education, assumptions,

and personal beliefs.4

Apollonia5 was one of the oldest and best-known ancient

Greek colonies in the eastern Adriatic.6 The site is

located in west-central Albania, about 10 km from the sea

and approximately 5 km west of the industrial center of

Fier (Figs. 1.1, 1.2).7 Apollonia and its hinterland fall

within the modern districts of Mallakastra and Muzakia.

4
Geertz 1973, p. 15. A large body of scholarship has emerged in recent
years that examines bias and subjectivity in archaeological
scholarship. Cf. Hodder 1992, 2001; Tilley 1993; Morris 1998, pp. 4-
10.
5
Controversy exists among Albanian archaeologists about the correct
spelling of the name, Apollonia. According to rules for Albanian
lexicology developed under communism, Apollonia must be spelled with
one "l." See Drejtshkrimi i gjuhës Shqipe 1973, p. 100. Most scholars
of antiquity, however, prefer Apollonia with the double "l," which is
the spelling that will be used here.
6
Epidamnus, which was founded shortly before Apollonia, was the other
important Greek apoikia in Albania and will be discussed periodically
in this work. The hinterland of Epidamnus was the focus of the Durrës
Regional Archaeological Project (DRAP), an intensive surface survey
that was conducted in 2001; see Davis et al. 2003.
7
The definite form is used for the spelling of Albanian place names.
Other personal names and place spellings conform to OCD3.

2
Albania, part of ancient Illyria, is an area of the

Mediterranean that has, until quite recently, remained

closed to foreign archaeologists and is thus something of

an enigma in Mediterranean archaeology.8 Muzakia, the

fertile plain around Apollonia, and Mallakastra, the more

mountainous hinterland, have recently been the target of

intensive surface survey and excavation by the Mallakastra

Regional Archaeological Project (MRAP).9

The site of Apollonia today occupies a very marginal

position in the Albanian landscape.10 It sits on a ridge at

the tongue of a hilly headland overlooking an alluvial

flood plain of the Vjosa river (Fig. 1.3). The flood plain

was marshland until the communists undertook a large

8
"Illyria" as a name was first applied by ancient authors to the loose
amalgamation of tribes that inhabited the east coast of the Adriatic in
ancient times. The "Illyrians" occupied a large territory in the
former Yugoslavia and Albania; the "heartland," however, was in western
Croatia, southern Bosnia (Herzegovina), Montenegro, Kossovo, and north-
central Albania. Illyricum was the official name given to the northern
part of modern Albania by the Romans when it became a Senatorial
Province in 27 B.C.; the southern part of the country, however, was
never a part of this province. Albanians currently use "Illyria" to
refer to the territory of modern Albania. Both the southern Slavs and
the Albanians claim to be descendants of the Illyrians. An "Illyrian"
ancestry was first politically invoked in the early 19th century by the
southern Slavs, who were then oppressed subjects of the Hapsburg
Austro-Hungarian Empire. For differing views on the origin and
territory of the Illyrians, see Papazoglou 1965, 1978; Stipčević 1966,
1967, 1977, 1986; Wilkes 1976, 1992; Hammond 1983; Islami 1985;
Garašanin 1988; Pajakowski 2000.
9
See Korkuti et al. 1998. I have been a principal member of the MRAP
team since 1994 when the groundwork for the project was laid during an
exploratory trip to Albania.
10
The site is so remote that the nearby village of Shtyllas was a place
of internal exile for political prisoners during the Hoxha regime and
the area remains very impoverished.

3
reclamation project in the 1950s.11 Much of the "reclaimed"

land is just barely above the water table, although there

are slight, almost imperceptible rises that were probably

occupied, farmed, or otherwise exploited in antiquity.12

Today the site of ancient Apollonia is important

because of its significant contribution to the

archaeological heritage of Albania. Some of the monuments

inside the city walls were always visible, as were parts of

the nearby temple at Shtyllas (Fig. 1.4); this visibility

facilitated the pillaging of ancient remains that were

incorporated as spolia in later buildings.13 Early Modern

travelers describe the quarrying of architectural blocks

from the site and from Shtyllas in the 19th century by an

Ottoman pasha for his palace in Berat.14

During the communist period the front façade of the

2nd century A.D. bouleuterion was reconstructed by the

Albanian Institute of Monuments (Fig. 1.5).15 Several

kilometers away, MRAP found a block from it that was being

11
See the memoirs of the Jesuit priest, Giacomo Gardin (1988), who was
sentenced to work as a member of a prison labor gang that was assigned
the task of draining the plain.
12
The ancient sanctuary at Bonjakët (S043) was located on one such
rise. The MRAP survey of the plain shows that artifact distributions
drop off sharply about 800 m towards the sea from the ancient city
walls, which confirms that much of the land was too wet to be farmed in
antiquity. See Chapter 7.
13
Many early 19th century travelers visited Apollonia and described the
lay of the site and the area around it. E.g., see Pouqueville 1805,
vol. 3, p. 89, 1820, pp. 18-19; Broughton 1813, p. 164; Holland 1815,
pp. 511-514; and Leake 1835, vol. 1, pp. 371-373.
14
Galaty, Stocker, and Watkinson 1999.
15
See Rey 1935a for a discussion of the monument.

4
used as an altar and marked the site of a church destroyed

in the 1969 youth movement that focused on the dismantling

of religious edifices (Fig. 1.6).16

It is important to contextualize Apollonia within the

framework of antiquity and to situate it in its ancient

landscape in order to examine it properly from a

historical, topographical, and maritime point of view.17 As

today, Apollonia occupied a marginal position in the larger

pre-Hellenistic world; it was located just outside the

border of the familiar Greek world, which ended with

Epirus. Its northern neighbor, Epidamnus, which was even

more remote, being several hours up the Illyrian coast from

Apollonia, was founded first.18 Apollonia was probably

founded as either a rival trading port or a sister city to

Epidamnus and came to enjoy an increasingly important

strategic position for ships crossing to Italy.19

During later periods of antiquity, however, Apollonia

was one of the most important Greek poleis in the Adriatic.

It was founded in the Archaic period and flourished

throughout the Classical (479-323 B.C.) and Hellenistic

(323-31 B.C.) periods. In the 2nd century B.C., Apollonia

16
See Chapter 7, Site 013. It is impossible to determine when the
architectural block was transported from Apollonia to its current
location.
17
By maritime, I mean as viewed from the sea.
18
Even though Apollonia was closer to Greece and Magna Graecia than
Epidamnus, it was established slightly later. See Dunbabin 1948a, p.
9.
19
See Chapter 5.

5
became an important military staging ground and by the end

of the Roman Republican period the city had become a major

center of Greek learning.20 Its reputation in this regard

was such that the young Octavian was studying there when,

in 44 B.C., he learned that Julius Caesar had died, naming

him heir.21 In the 4th century A.D., Apollonia went into a

decline from which it never recovered, when an earthquake

altered the course of the nearby Vjosa river and caused the

harbor of the city to dry up.

Scope of the Thesis

This thesis explores the colonization and subsequent

settlement history of southern Illyria. It examines

current topics and academic debates about the nature of

Greek emigration to the west in the Archaic period and

their relevance to discourses about the first colonies in

the eastern Adriatic. Apollonia is used as a test case to

explore the effects of Greek colonization in Illyria, both

because of its sometimes importance in antiquity and

because of the new data about Graeco-Roman settlement

20
Apollonia was also famous as the starting point for the southern
branch of the Via Egnatia, the Roman road that connected the West with
the East. The Via Egnatia was begun ca. 130 B.C. and ran from the
Adriatic coast to Thessalonica, whence it proceeded across Thrace to
the city of Byzantium. See O’Sullivan 1972; Hammond 1972, pp. 19-58,
1974b, 1986; MacKay 1977; Adams 1982, 1986; Walbank 1985, pp. 193-195,
1986, pp. 673-680; Amore et al. 2001. See Fasolo 2003 and Lolos 20008
for new and thorough studies of the Via Egnatia.
21
Plut. Ant. 16, Brut. 22.

6
patterns that have emerged as a result of MRAP. This

thesis contributes to the wider scholarly controversies

about Greek colonization in the Archaic period through the

wealth of new archaeological evidence that is here being

presented for the first time and the fresh conclusions that

can be drawn from it.22

The principal aim of this dissertation is to document

the development of the apoikia at Apollonia from its

inception to its incorporation into the Roman province of

Macedon in 148 B.C., using both textual and archaeological

evidence. It has five specific goals. The first goal is

to determine whether new theoretical and methodological

developments in the study of Archaic Greek colonization

necessitate a restructuring of old notions about Apollonia.

The second is to re-examine ancient literary references to

the colony and to evaluate their reliability as sources.

The third is to construct a ktisis for Apollonia using a

combination of textual and archaeological evidence. The

fourth is to examine diachronic changes in Greek and native

settlement patterns in Mallakastra and Muzakia in light of

new archaeological data obtained from the MRAP survey. The

fifth goal is to contextualize the particularist history of

22
For a discussion of Greek colonization, see Graham 1971, 1982, 1983;
Malkin, 1987, 1998a; Tandy 1997; Osborne 1998; for Greek and native
interactions, Greek Colonists 1990; for the Archaic period in general,
see Snodgrass 1980; Fisher and van Wees 1998.

7
Apollonia in the more general historical narrative of the

ancient Mediterranean world.

Although considerable investigation had taken place in

the Greek asty of Apollonia and in the nearby necropolis,

and a certain amount was known about the early history of

the colony prior to the inception of the MRAP research

program, the chora of Apollonia had not previously been the

focus of any systematic investigation.23 The new

archaeological finds of MRAP, therefore, are altering

previous theses about the foundation and history of the

apoikia. The original conclusions presented in this

dissertation are based on those new data.

Chronological Scope of the Thesis

The chronological scope of this work extends from the

foundation of Apollonia in the 7th century B.C. to the end

of the Roman Republic in 31 B.C., although data about

earlier and later periods are presented in order to provide

a framework for discussion.24 Thus, in terms of Greek

chronology, this study focuses on the Archaic through

Hellenistic periods. The dates used here for the Graeco-

23
According to Aristotle (Pol. 1276a19-25), both the asty (city) and
the chora (countryside) were essential components of the ancient polis
(city-state). Thus an investigation of both is necessary to understand
the development of the polis. Cf. Snodgrass 1987; Rich and Wallace-
Hadrill 1991; Hansen 1996.
24
The consideration of settlement patterns in Chapters 8 and 9 spans
the Bronze Age through the Roman period. For a definition of "ancient
Greece," see Malkin 2001a, 2002a; Cartledge 2002.

8
Roman period correspond to those used by MRAP and other

surveys in Greece and Albania: the Archaic period, 700-480

B.C., the Classical period, 480-323 B.C., and the

Hellenistic period, 323-31 B.C. (Table 1.1).25 The Archaic

period overlaps with the Albanian Iron Age II phase, or the

"Developed Iron Age," which runs from 750-625 B.C. and

roughly corresponds to what Albanian archaeologists refer

to as the Illyrian Proto-Urban phase (625-450).26 Although

these are the dates traditionally assigned to the Iron Age

by Albanian archaeologists, they are neither firmly

grounded in radiometric dates nor in better known ceramic

25
The end date used for the Hellenistic period corresponds to the
Battle of Actium and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Although the
Romans first arrived in southern Illyria in 229 B.C. and their presence
increased substantially over the next two centuries, the material
culture at Apollonia continued in the Hellenistic tradition and
remained essentially unchanged. One of the greatest problems in the
analysis of the results of surveys concerns comparability in data
between projects. A manifestation of this difficulty is linked to the
periodization employed by various projects, which frequently makes
comparison of data difficult or impossible (see Alcock and Cherry
2004). As a result, the decision was made at the start of MRAP to
employ temporal definitions for the Graeco-Roman period that were the
same as those used in NVAP, PRAP, and elsewhere. This same
periodization was then used for DRAP. The ability to compare data more
than compensates for the fact that this periodization may not "fit"
exactly the local histories of any particular part of the
Mediterranean. The dates used by MRAP represent a compromise between
the need for comparable data and periodization defined by historical
events. See Wright et al. 1990; Davis et al. 1997, 2003.
The Archaic period, for which a universally accepted set of dates
does not exist, illustrates the problems associated with periodization.
The OCD3 synchronizes the beginning of the Archaic period with the
inception of the Olympic games and the end with the Battle of Plataea;
the dates are, therefore, 776-479 B.C. (on the reckoning of Hippias of
Elis). Morris (1991, p. 26) employs the somewhat narrower time range
of 750-500 B.C., but see Morris (1998, p. 13) for a broader definition.
Snodgrass (1980) loosely defines the Archaic period as the epoch
bounded by "two revolutions:" a "structural" revolution at its
beginning and an intellectual one at its end. See also Morris 1997 for
a discussion of some problems associated with periodization.
26
The Proto-Urban phase is the equivalent of the Albanian Iron Age III.
See Korkuti and Petruso 1993, p. 706 for slightly higher dates.

9
sequences from the Aegean world. The creation of Proto-

Urban as a distinct phase at the end of the native Iron Age

itself reflects communist ideology and its desire to

demonstrate that there had been a substantial evolution in

native Illyrian society prior to the foundation of Greek

apoikiai in Albania.27 It is likely, as I argue later in

Chapters 8 and 9, that the latest Illyrian pottery in

Mallakastra is contemporary with the earliest stages in the

development of the colony at Apollonia.

Subsequent chapters of this thesis will present and

evaluate the evidence, both archaeological and textual, for

the earliest "Greek" presence at Apollonia and in its

hinterland. I will also expose several difficulties that

have arisen in past scholarship through attempts to

reconcile discrepancies between these two types of

evidence. As with the study of any subject that pertains

to early Greek history, primary sources for the Archaic

period are rare, and those concerning the Archaic period in

the Adriatic even more so; there are no contemporary texts

that discuss the foundation of Apollonia, the reasons for

its existence, the physical attributes of the city, the

character of the indigenous population, and/or the nature

27
See Chapter 3.

10
of interactions between colonists and natives.28 This is

partly because the colonies in southern Illyria were

peripheral to the concerns of Greek and Roman authors. The

sources that do mention the apoikiai of the eastern

Adriatic are later than the foundation period and deal with

broad topics such as political history, military campaigns,

geography, or natural history that touch only incidentally

on Epidamnus and/or Apollonia.29 The two most important

historical episodes that brought the attention of the Greek

world to this area were the key roles played by Epidamnus

and Apollonia at the onset of the Peloponnesian War and

their involvement in the coming of the Romans to the

eastern Mediterranean.

This thesis is not merely about one almost-forgotten

Greek colony in a liminal part of the Mediterranean; the

study of Apollonia has a wider relevance to modern history.

It seeks to provide a foundation for a discussion of how

the Graeco-Roman past is still used to shape dialogues

relevant to Balkan politics in the twenty-first century.

The manipulation of the past is part of the general

struggle taking place in the Balkans between competing

28
Only later grave markers, written in Greek or Latin, preserve traces
of Illyrians by recording indigenous names. See Cabanes and Drini 1995
and Cabanes and Ceka 1997 for grave markers from Apollonia. For
Albanian names, see the lengthy discussion in Wilkes 1992.
29
For a list of ancient sources that mention Apollonia, see Cabanes and
Drini 1995; Cabanes and Ceka 1997; Vreka 2004; Cabanes 2007b.

11
ethnic and nationalistic groups.30 Very recently books

about archaeology, anthropological theory, ethnicity, and

history have begun to include chapters about Albania; in

spite of this, the country is still largely terra incognita

to western intellectual discourses on these subjects. Re-

examining the history of Apollonia, and more generally of

Albania, in ancient times can act as a stepping stone for

theoretical exchanges about larger issues such as

ethnicity, the formation of national identities, the rise

of state societies, and the role of archaeology in the

politics of the present.

The Archaic period is a phase in Albania's history

that frequently has been, and still is, used to manipulate

the present.31 Although the Greeks colonized Apollonia and

Epidamnus many centuries ago, the study of these

settlements is politically loaded because they represent

the first historically recorded foreign conquest of

Albanian soil and one that, in the minds of many modern

Greeks, has had a lasting impact on the composition of the

Albanian population.32 It is crucial, therefore, to situate

Apollonia within the wider context of archaeology in the

30
A good example of a current struggle for ownership of a particular
past is the dissident claims by Greece and FYROM/Macedonia to the
heritage of Alexander the Great.
31
Such use of the past is not only a 20th century phenomenon; indeed,
this process began in ancient times. See Chapters 3 and 5.
32
Many of the people in southern Albania speak Greek and now practice
the Greek Orthodox religion.

12
Balkans to understand better how Albania's Graeco-Roman

past has figured into present-day Balkan politics. This

thesis considers ways in which the legacy from Greek

antiquity has been co-opted in the recent past by exploring

the critical role that history and archaeology have played,

and are currently playing, in structuring political and

academic discourses both inside and outside of Albania.

Highly visible ancient monuments play an essential

role in structuring local society. Ruins from the Graeco-

Roman period are exceedingly conspicuous in the countryside

around Apollonia, much more so than indigenous Illyrian

remains, of which little is preserved above ground (Fig.

1.7). For this reason the visual legacy of Greece, by its

very physicality, plays a role in negotiating movement

through the local landscape, whether consciously or

unconsciously.33 It is clear that the presence of these

ruins has an impact on the social life and modes of thought

in modern communities around Apollonia.

Thesis Structure

The remainder of Chapter 1 provides a description of

the contents and aims of subsequent sections and chapters.

33
Galaty, Stocker, and Watkinson 1999.

13
Section I: History of Apollonia and Albanian Views about

Archaeology

Section I consists of two chapters that discuss the

history of Apollonia and Albanian views about archaeology

and Apollonia under communism. Chapter 2 presents a

chronological framework for specific historical events that

are discussed throughout the remainder of this thesis. The

first part of Chapter 2 offers a brief summary of ancient

sources that are relevant to the Graeco-Roman period at

Apollonia and will be examined in greater detail in Chapter

5. The second part of Chapter 2 provides a synopsis of

important historical events and personages that shaped the

development of the colony from the Archaic through the

Hellenistic periods.

Chapter 3 gives a general introduction to the history

of scholarship about Albania and the development of

archaeology within the country. The aim of this review is

to provide background information about the historical

outlook and goals of excavations conducted in Albania since

World War II; such goals, which are a legacy of the

communist government of Enver Hoxha, have had an immense

impact on how Albanian scholars have constructed their

historical narratives. Chapter 3 also addresses the role

and practice of archaeology under communism and how the

14
government manipulated archaeological thought and

methodology to serve political and ideological ends. The

exploitation of the past is especially evident in Albanian

scholarship concerning the arrival of Greek colonists in

the eastern Adriatic and their interactions with the

indigenous Illyrians.

Section II: Colonization

Section II is about colonization, both outside and

inside southern Illyria. Chapter 4 presents general topics

in the study of Greek colonization and Chapter 5 relates

each to the specific history and development of Apollonia.

Chapter 4 begins with a review of select topics about

Greek colonization, focusing on recent scholarship,

intellectual trends, and post-colonial theory. Specific

issues and problems relevant to the study of Archaic

colonization are introduced, such as hypotheses concerning

the reasons behind early Greek movement overseas, the

relationship between colony and metropolis, the nature of

Greek and native interactions, and the development of

colonial hinterlands. Chapter 4 also examines the role

that Euboean seafarers, the first post-Mycenaean Greek

traders in the Mediterranean, played in spreading Greek

culture. The background discussion about colonization in

15
Chapter 4 provides a framework for exploring whether these

general topics help unravel the specific history of the

apoikia at Apollonia.

Chapter 5 shows how the topics visited in Chapter 4

are relevant to studying the history of Apollonia and

examines how the colonization of southern Illyria fits into

the larger picture of Archaic Greek colonization. The

chapter begins with a summary of the early history of Greek

seafaring in the eastern Adriatic, starting with a

discussion of the role that the Euboeans may have played in

setting the stage for the colonization of Apollonia by

grafting Greek legends onto that alien coastal topography.

Next, since Corinth was one of the principal protagonists

in the area, Chapter 5 provides a brief review of early

Corinthian history and its involvement in the colonization

of the Adriatic; the details and nature of the apoikia at

Apollonia are intimately tied to the activities of the

Cypselid tyrants. Corinth's early colony on Corcyra was

also important in the colonizing of Illyria. The types of

relationships that were established and maintained between

Corinth and her colonies are an issue relevant to any post-

colonial consideration of Greek settlements in Albania.34

The rest of Chapter 5 is devoted to details of the

history of Apollonia. The purpose of this discussion is to

34
See, for example, Corinto e l'Occidente 1995.

16
highlight what is known, from a textual point of view,

about the colony's foundation, myths, colonizing body, and

relationship with its metropolis. Many of the primary

sources are problematic because they preserve one-sided

accounts by ancient authors who had different specialties,

prejudices, and agendas. Chapter 5 looks at the literary

sources and contradictory information that is recorded

about Apollonia and tries to sort out various traditions.

A crucial step in understanding the early history of

Apollonia is determining the validity of the traditional

foundation date. Although the date of 588 B.C. has

attained general acceptance in academic circles, a close

reading of surviving sources scarcely supports it. It is

important to know the origins of the seemingly precise date

in order to understand why it has retained its place in

historical research and how it has influenced narratives

about the early history of Apollonia. Among other things,

Chapter 5 challenges the legitimacy of this conventional

foundation date through a detailed analysis of its origins

and a critical review of the textual evidence, proving that

the traditional and well-accepted date of 588 B.C. for the

foundation of Apollonia is a fabrication of 18th- and early

19th century scholars.

17
Section III: The Archaeological Evidence

Section III presents the archaeological evidence for

the Graeco-Roman period at Apollonia. Finds from

excavations conducted during the course of the past

century, too, suggest that the colony was not founded in

588 B.C., but rather almost a half-century earlier. Yet,

in spite of physical data, the traditional "literary" date

has maintained a tenacious hold on scholars, who have tried

to reconcile discrepancies between texts and archaeology in

a number of ways.35 How to interpret and integrate

disagreements between these two types of evidence and to

assess the role of material culture in the production of

history has recently come to the forefront in

archaeological and historical discourses. The

archaeological evidence presented in the subsequent

chapters confirms the need to discard traditional beliefs

about the early life of the colony at Apollonia once and

for all.

35
Conflict between the story told by sources (verbal communications)
and that revealed by material culture (non-verbal communication) is
especially evident in discussions about the history of Apollonia;
attempts to reconcile the literary evidence with the archaeological
record have led to a convoluted picture of what was going on before the
official "foundation." Because historians are often taught to
prioritize verbal over non-verbal evidence, it becomes almost
impossible to examine objectively the totality of all types of data.
See Snodgrass 1971, pp. vii-viii; Morris 1994a, 1998; Last 1995; Small
1995, 1999. For the supremacy of the text, see also Finley 1975, 1985,
p. 20.

18
 Chapter 6 explores economic ties between Corinth and

Apollonia through scientific analyses of local and imported

coarse ware ceramics collected from the MRAP survey

region.36 With the kind permission of our Albanian

colleagues and the generous supervision of Carolyn Koehler,

I have been able to export 102 ceramic samples from

Apollonia to the University of Cincinnati. Analyses of

their clay and mineral contents, which confirm the

identification of Corinthian imports, incorporate an

interdisciplinary approach to the exploration of

Corinthian-Apollonian economic ties.37 Once imports have

been documented scientifically, the types of products that

were exchanged can be evaluated to determine how dependent

the colony was on the mother city for these non-local

commodities. These analyses, which are presented in

Chapter 6, have generated significant new information about

Archaic Apollonia that not only challenges the traditional

date for the foundation of the colony, but documents very

early trade between Apollonia and native Illyrian centers.

Chapter 7 presents the new data from the MRAP survey

that form the core of this study. These data are critical

36
The chronological sequence for Corinthian pottery already is well
established; cf. Amyx 1988; de Vries 2003; Risser 2003. See also
Chapter 4.
37
Several studies detailing the results of similar scientific analyses
have been published recently, which include the petrographic
composition of Corinthian fabrics; these studies provide a sufficient
body of data with which the Apollonian pottery can be compared. See
Whitbread 1995a, 2003. See also Chapter 6.

19
for understanding the gradual transformation of the

hinterland of Apollonia. Previous studies have

consistently examined the settlement without reference to

its chora. Yet, because city and countryside were

interdependent, it is essential to look at the evidence

from the countryside in conjunction with that from the city

center in order to obtain a complete picture of the

evolution of the Greek apoikia.38 Although a majority of

the inhabitants lived inside the city walls at various

times in the history of Apollonia, their livelihood and

status was dependent on their land holdings in the

surrounding territory. The intensive survey conducted by

MRAP has made considerable progress towards rectifying the

separation between asty and chora and documenting

diachronic changes in settlement patterns and agricultural

productivity in the vicinity. Chapter 7 presents the

results in the form of a Gazetteer of Sites.

Chapter 8 offers a detailed analysis of the MRAP

survey results and examines the fluctuating relationship

between the city center and its adjacent countryside.

Because of ceramic analyses that were undertaken by

specialists during the 2003 study season, it is now

possible to examine diachronic settlement patterns and to

determine how intensely the hinterland was exploited

38
Cf. Wallace-Hadrill 1991.

20
throughout its history.39 This archaeological fieldwork

provides evidence about the borders of the Greek

settlement, the exploitation of the hinterland, and the

distribution of Greek material culture outside the walls of

the polis. Chapter 8 offers one interpretation of the

survey data presented in Chapter 7 as they pertain to the

history of the settlement at Apollonia.

Chapter 9 provides a synthesis of the raw data in

Chapter 7 and the analysis in Chapter 8 and examines the

evidence from both Greek and Illyrian settlements in the

survey area in order to make it possible in Chapter 10 to

draw conclusions about the meaning of shifts in settlement

patterns. The remains of material culture collected by

MRAP only become significant when placed within a

meaningful and intelligible framework. Braudel's concept

of the moyenne durée is useful for addressing enduring

broad-scale trends that survived for centuries;40 these

include movements of the Illyrians, colonization by Greeks,

the diffusion of Hellenic culture, and the arrival of the

Romans, all events that unequivocally altered the nature of

the Mediterranean world.41 In addition to discussing

39
See Chapter 7.
40
Braudel 1972, p. 353. See also Last 1995, p. 142.
41
Events on this scale are represented by changes in concepts about
ethnicity, political structure, and trade, which affect the dynamic
interactions between people and their environment. Events of the
longue durée will here not be discussed, other than to say that the
survey data do provide diachronic glimpses of how long-term geological

21
transformations in the hinterland of Apollonia, Chapter 9

examines evidence indicative of changes in the structure of

Illyrian settlements and in the production of material

goods. Although it is dangerous to equate the distribution

of archaeological finds with ancient trade, since it is not

possible to determine the mechanisms of exchange that have

led to the presence of imported objects in the

archaeological record, certain categories of objects, such

as fine imported pottery and Corinthian transport vessels,

were, nevertheless, used by the Greek colonists and those

who identified with them to assert their "Greekness." In

spite of problems that exist in using ceramics as cultural

markers, pottery is an essential component in discussions

about the settlement history of Apollonia.42 Chapter 9

evaluates artifact distributional patterns to show how the

diffusion of Greek material culture outside the asty

changed over time.43

Chapter 10 draws together conclusions from the

preceding chapters and offers a new interpretation of the

transformations in a well defined geographical area affect man's

interactions with his environment.
42
On problems associated with using ceramics to determine ethnicity or
social mores, see Earle 1982, p. 7; van der Leeuw 1984; Rice 1984b, p.
251; Hall 1997; Jones 1997, pp. 15-26; van Wijngaarden 1999, pp. 5-6.
43
One might expect to see evidence of differential distribution of fine
imported pottery and other symbolic artifacts from the necropolis and
asty, as well as from sites in the hinterland, if clear ethnic
boundaries were maintained between Greeks and Illyrian. It is likely
that, with the passage of time, older symbolic structures broke down,
blurring the distinction between Greek and non-Greek; this, too, would
be evident in the archaeological record. See Sections III and IV.

22
history and life of the Greek apoikia of Apollonia. The

detailed data presented in this dissertation make it

possible to place Apollonia into the wider context of

Mediterranean society in the Graeco-Roman period. Chapter

10 also suggests possible explanations for the diachronic

shifts in settlement patterns witnessed in the Mallakastra

and Muzakia districts and attempts to situate the results

of the MRAP survey into the larger historical narrative of

the ancient Mediterranean world.

23
24
 Chapter 2.

Sources and Historical Background for Apollonia

This Corinthian Apollonia is well

situated as regards the land and as
regards the sea, and most excellently
in respect to rivers. What I have
marveled at, however, above all else,
is that a huge fire issues from the
ground near the Aoüs river and neither
spreads to any extent over the
surrounding land nor sets on fire even
the place where it abides nor makes it
at all dry, but the grass and trees
flourishing very near it. In pouring
rains it increases and towers aloft.
For this reason it is called Nymphaeum,
and in fact it furnishes an oracle, of
this kind.44

Introduction

Chapter 2 has two goals. The first is to introduce

select ancient authors whose work is relevant to this study

of Apollonia, the second is to present an outline of

historical events in the Mediterranean that impacted the

development of the apoikia. The authors and works

discussed in the first part of Chapter 2 either contain

specific references to Apollonia or were used as source

material by later ancient writers who mentioned the colony

and/or the nearby bitumen mines associated with the oracle

44
Cass. Dio 41.45.

25
at the Nymphaeum.45 The information in this chapter is

designed to act as a backdrop for discussions about the

foundation and history of Apollonia that are presented in

Chapter 5 and necessitate a critical review of the ancient

sources. Most of the authors mentioned below were

geographers, historians, chronographers, ethnographers,

naturalists, or some combination of the above. As such,

they were constrained by conventions and methodologies that

developed within each of these genres of writing. In

addition, two Hellenistic poets, Apollonius Rhodius and

Lycophron, will also be mentioned since their works

preserve some otherwise obscure legends about Greek and

Illyrian cities near Apollonia. The following presentation

does not include all the sources that are cited in this

thesis – only the most significant.

Readers may be surprised that I have discussed the

source traditions drawn on by authors who refer to

Apollonia in such detail in this chapter. This is, I

believe, necessary since most authors who mention Apollonia

did not travel there, but repeat earlier traditions, some

of which are more trustworthy than others. Such repetition

makes them irrelevant as contemporary testimonia. Polybius

was perhaps the first historian to actually visit the site,

45
See Vrekaj 2004 for a complete list of sources relevant to Apollonia.
See below and Chapter 5 for the Nymphaeum.

26
although that cannot be proven with certainty. The

importance of this observation will be clear in Chapter 5

where I discuss the foundation and history of the colony.

The second part of Chapter 2 provides a condensed

history of events in the Mediterranean from the Archaic

through the Hellenistic periods that are relevant to the

foundation and development of Apollonia and its Illyrian

hinterland. The purpose is to elucidate Apollonia's

position within both the Graeco-Roman world and the

territory of southern Illyria. References to modern

scholarship and current historical conundrums are given in

footnotes.

Sources for Apollonia

The earliest known references to the Illyrians and/or

the east coast of the Adriatic are from the works of the

6th century B.C. Greek geographers, Scylax and Hecataeus,

who wrote about the coastal topography of Greece and

neighboring areas.46 Only fragments of their works have

survived in the writings of later authors. Both Scylax and

46
Cf. Strabo 1.4.6 [C 65]. On the Illyrians, see Pseudo-Scylax 14-27;
App. Ill. 1.1-6; Plin. HN 3.22.144. It is possible that the
appellation "Illyrian" was a name applied to one specific tribe among
the many that inhabited the territory east of the Adriatic. By
extension, the original heartland of "Illyria" is thought to have been
further north (See Chapter 1). For modern discussions of Illyrian
tribes and their territories, see Papazoglou 1965, pp. 149-179, 1978,
pp. 439-441; Hammond 1966a, pp. 239-243; Walbank 1976, pp. 266-270;
Cabanes 1988a, pp. 13-33, 61-68; Wilkes 1969, pp. 3-8, 1992, pp. 91-
104; Pajakowski 2000, pp. 5-22.

27
Hecataeus attempted to order the inhabited world (i.e., the

oikumene), as they knew it, through a systematic

description of the coast of the Mediterranean.47

Scylax of Caryanda, who was probably born in the mid-

6th century B.C., is the first known Greek writer to

produce a cohesive geographical description of the

oikumene.48 He is credited with having written a Periplus

recording important places and peoples that ringed the

shores of the Mediterranean.49 Scylax included information

about Illyrian tribes along the eastern seaboard of the

Adriatic in his study.50 The surviving version of the work

entitled “Periplus,” however, was compiled in the 4th

century B.C. by a Greek geographer known in modern

scholarship as Pseudo-Scylax.51

Pseudo-Scylax lived east of the Isthmus of Corinth and

composed his worked ca. 338-335 B.C.52 His is the first

preserved Periplus that was written to describe the order

47
The earliest attempt to impose a geographical order on the world is
found in the Catalogue of Ships in the Iliad (2.494-759).
48
Scylax, FGrH 709. Herodotus (4.44) mentions Scylax in connection
with the Persian king, Darius. See GGM I, pp. XXXIII-LI; Allain 1977,
pp. 53-60; and Counillon 2004, pp. 24-25 for what is known about
Scylax's life, and Beaumont 1936, p. 159 and Diller 1952, p. 277, n. 44
for the date of his work.
49
The periplus, or coastal voyage, was a genre of geographical writing.
See Allain 1977, pp. 1-42.
50
Cf. Scylax, FGrH 709 F10 = Ap. Rhod. 1.1177, F9 = Schol. Ap. Rhod.
4.1215 (Wendel); Marcotte 2000, pp. cxxvi-cxxvii. See below for
Apollonius Rhodius.
51
See GGM 1, pp. 15-96; Allain 1977, pp. 9-10; Counillon 2004, pp. 24-
34.
52
Pseudo-Scylax told his audience about himself in section 40. See
Counillon 2004, pp. 26-27 for Pseudo-Scylax's dates.

28
of the coast as it appeared to mariners.53 He probably

derived much of his account of Illyria from the 5th-4th

century B.C. Syracusean historian, Philistus (ca. 430-356/5

B.C.),54 making it likely that this section of the Periplus

is earlier than the rest and should be dated ca. 380-360

B.C.55 Philistus no doubt had fairly accurate information

about Illyria because he was the historian and advisor to

Dionysius I of Syracuse,56 who organized a joint Illyrian-

Syracusean attack on Molossia in 385 B.C. to restore his

ally, Alcetas, to the throne.57 He might have acquired

knowledge of the area when in charge of the organization of

Syracuse's colonies in the Adriatic, although it is unclear

whether or not he actually visited.58

Pseudo-Scylax made some errors that found their way

into later accounts of the region. He was the first to

record that the Ister river (Danube) had two branches with

one estuary at the head of the Adriatic and the other

53
Pseudo-Scylax (1) began his account of Europe at the Pillars of
Heracles.
54
Philistus, FGrH 556.
55
Hammond 1967, pp. 511, 517.
56
Philistus, FGrH 556 T3-4. For Philistus, see Pearson 1987, pp. 19-
30; Meister 1990, pp. 68-70; Lendle 1992, pp. 206-211; Bearzot 2002,
pp. 91-136.
57
Diod. Sic. 15.13.
58
Philistus, FGrH 556 T5a. See discussion in Hammond 1967, pp. 511-
517. Jacoby (FGrH III B, pp. 497-498) thinks Philistus held a naval
command in the Adriatic. For the Syracusean colonies in the Adriatic,
see Beaumont 1936, pp. 202-203; Wilkes 1969, pp. 9-10, 1992, pp. 113-
116; Caven 1990, pp. 149-153.

29
flowing into the Euxine (Black Sea).59 This geographical

misrepresentation strongly suggests that Pseudo-Scylax

never traveled very far north in the Adriatic.60 His

treatment of Epidamnus and Apollonia was no more than

cursory. In regards to Apollonia, Pseudo-Scylax recorded

its distance overland from Epidamnus (2 days march) and to

Amantia (320 stades),61 the distance between the polis and

the sea (50 stades), and that the Aous river, which he

incorrectly called the Aias, flowed below the city.62 A

later addition to the manuscript noted that the Aias sprang

from the Pindus mountains, once again repeating an older

name generated by Hecataeus.

Hecataeus of Miletus (ca. 560-480 B.C.)63 was a

slightly younger contemporary and rival of the original

Scylax.64 His approximate dates have been deduced from

59
Pseudo-Scylax 20, 67. This error was repeated by Pseudo-Scymnus
(766-774), for whom, see below. The geographical inaccuracy quite
possibly originated because of the similarities between the name of the
lower Danube river (Ister), the region at the head of the Adriatic
(Histria), and the city on the Black sea at the estuary of the Danube
(Istria). This mistake was not corrected until ca. 200 B.C. when the
Romans advanced into the Danube basin. Cf. Diod. Sic. 4.56.3-8.
60
Pseudo-Scylax 22-33 deals with the east coast of the Adriatic.
61
Distances in Pseudo-Scylax were given either in days' voyages or
stadia; the former are remnants of the older system of measuring
distance.
62
Pseudo-Scylax 26. Pseudo-Scylax identified the Aous river as the
Aias, which is the earlier, incorrect name that was used by Hecataeus
and then cited by other later authors. Cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102b =
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316], F102c = Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269]. See also Chapter 5
and Hammond 2000, pp. 345-346.
63
Hecataeus, FGrH 1.
64
See Meister 1990, pp. 20-23; Lendle 1992, pp. 10-18.

30
Herodotus' discussion of his role in the Ionian Revolt.65

Hecataeus is said to have traveled widely, but there is no

conclusive evidence to support this assumption.66 His

methodical ordering of the world and description of the

coast in his Periodos ges was divided into two books, one

about Europe, and the other, Asia. Hecataeus also wrote a

mythographic study, the Genealogies, that attempted to

ascertain historical facts embedded in exaggerated and

unrealistic stories about divine origins and to determine

chronological synchronizations between heroic generations.67

The authenticity of the works attributed to Hecataeus was

already questioned by the 4th century B.C., but most later

authors accepted their legitimacy.68

Hecataeus presented his geographical descriptions

about peoples and places around the perimeter of the

Mediterranean in a clockwise rotation, beginning at the

straights of Gibraltar. It is evident from preserved

excerpts that he had an interest in the eastern seaboard of

65
Hdt. 5.36.124-125. Cf. Suda, s.v. Ἑκαταῖος (Adler), who had him
flourishing in the 65th Olympiad ca. 520 B.C. See also West 1991, p.
147.
66
Agatharchides, FGrH 86 T19. Cf. RE VII, 1912, cols. 2688-2690, s.v.
Hekataios (F. Jacoby). Herodotus (2.143-144) placed Hecataeus in
Egypt, but it cannot be proved that Hecataeus visited the other places
he discussed. See West 1991, pp. 145, 152.
67
E.g., Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F27 about the origin of Cerberus. Hecataeus'
Genealogies, in which he sought to establish a fixed chronological
sequence by defining relationships between various mythological
generations, represented a first attempt at Greek chronography. See
Allain 1977, p. 25; Walbank 1989-1990, p. 46; Hornblower 1994, pp. 12-
16; Derow 1994, pp. 73-74; Bertelli 2001, pp. 67-94; Christesen 2007,
p. 9.
68
Cf. Ath. 2.70a.

31
the Adriatic.69 His detailed enumeration of the Illyrian

and Liburnian tribes suggests that either he himself, or an

unknown source of his, was familiar with the topography and

inhabitants of this region.70 Hecataeus' description of the

area around Apollonia is preserved in Strabo, who relied

heavily upon Hecataeus' geographical studies of Illyria.71

Pseudo-Scymnus of Chios was a later geographer whose

work also touched on Illyria and Apollonia.72 His

Periegesis was written in the late 2nd or early 1st century

B.C. (ca. 90 B.C.).73 Pseudo-Scymnus claimed to have relied

primarily on the historian Ephorus, particularly in his

account of colonization.74 He appears, however, to have

used both Ephorus and Theopompus as sources for information

on the Adriatic and to have propagated many of their

mistakes.75 Although Pseudo-Scymnus said that he visited

the cities in the Adriatic, he repeated the error found in

Pseudo-Scylax and Theopompus, the claim that one branch of

69
Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F90-108; cf. Plin. HN 3.26.150-152.
70
It is important to note that the error placing one estuary of the
Ister in the Adriatic is not found in Hecataeus. Cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1
F18b = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.257-62b (Wendel).
71
Cf. Strabo 6.2.4 [C 271], 7.5.8 [C 316] = Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102c,
F102b.
72
Pseudo-Scymnus 415-443. See GGM 1, pp. LXXIV-LXXX, 196-237. For
recent scholarship on Pseudo-Scymnus, see Allain 1977; Marcotte 2000;
Korenjak 2002, 2003; Boshnakov 2004.
73
Diller 1952, pp. 165-176; Hammond 1967, p. 515; Allain 1977, p. 11;
Marcotte 2000, pp. 1-16; Boshnakov 2004, pp. 1-19.
74
Cf. Pseudo-Scymnus 270-277; Hammond 1967, p. 521; Marcotte 2000, pp.
23, 76-78.
75
Pseudo-Scymnus 115 (Ephorus), 369-370 (Theopompus). See FGrH II 3,
p. 34; Bunbury 1883, vol. 2, pp. 73-74; Korenjak 2003, pp. 16-17. See
below for Ephorus and Theopompus.

32
the Ister river flowed into the head of that sea.76 It is

likely that the geographical description of the Adriatic

contained in Pseudo-Scymnus' Periegesis, therefore, was

copied from mid-4th century B.C. compositions and

represented the state of knowledge ca. 360-355 B.C., with

only a modest reliance on more recent information.77

History is another genre of ancient literature that

provides some information about Illyria and Apollonia.78

The Greek historians, beginning in the 5th century B.C.

with Herodotus of Halicarnassus, had only a cursory

knowledge about Illyria and the Greek colonies in the

Adriatic.

Very little is known about Herodotus' sources,79 but it

is thought that he used Hecataeus for some geographical

details.80 Although Herodotus claimed he had visited

Dodona, his understanding of the area further north was

vague,81 probably because this region was peripheral to his

narrative of the Persian Wars. Even if Herodotus did

travel to Dodona, it is unlikely that he visited Apollonia

76
Pseudo-Scymnus 193-195, 766-774; Theopompus, FGrH 115 F129; Pseudo-
Scylax 20 and above. See Pearson 1938, p. 449; Korenjak 2003, pp. 103-
104; Boshnakov 2004, pp. 206-210.
77
Franke 1955, p. 28; Hammond 1967, pp. 515-517.
78
See Meister 1990 and Lendle 1992 for general overviews of the Greek
historians discussed below.
79
Murray 2001.
80
Cf. Walbank 1962, p. 2; BNP 6, 2004, col. 267, s.v. Herodotus (K.
Meister).
81
Hdt. 2.52.1.

33
or Illyria.82 The fact that he wrote that the Aous emptied

into the sea by Oricum,83 also suggests that he was

misinformed about the geography of Apollonia's hinterland

and that, in that case, he was not using Hecataeus as his

source.84 Nevertheless, Herodotus recorded one relevant and

informative story about Apollonia when he presented the

pedigree of the Greek soothsayer, Deiphonus, who was

82
That Herodotus himself never traveled to Apollonia is certainly
confirmed by him not referencing it in his detailed description of the
bitumen mines on Zacynthus (4.195), which he probably visited on his
way to Thurii in southern Italy (Steph. Byz., s.v. Θούριοι). It is
likely that Herodotus would have referred to the mines near Apollonia
in this passage if he had seen them personally or had any knowledge
about them, especially since they were more renowned in antiquity than
those on Zacynthus. Morris (2006, p. 96) incorrectly claims that
Herodotus (4.195) described the bitumen mines near Apollonia in
Illyria. She contends that the Zacynthus mentioned in this passage is
"not the Ionian island off the coast of Greece, but a place in Illyria
he [Herodotus] locates 'four stades from the sea.'" There is no
reason, however, to equate the bitumen mines on Zacynthus with the
bitumen mines in Albania. The source Morris cites (Forbes 1936, p. 29)
clearly copied his reference from the British traveler, Chandler (1776,
vol. 2, pp. 367-368), who is speaking of the island of Zante (Italian
for Zacynthus) near, not on, the coast of Albania. Herodotus spoke of
"Ζακύνθος" three other times (3.59, 6.70, 9.37), each in reference to the
island off the coast of Greece that became a place of exile for
Spartans. Although the description of the bitumen springs on Zacynthus
might have similarities with those near Apollonia, Herodotus 4.195 is
not relevant to Apollonia (cf. Rawlinson 1875, pp. 169-170; Macan 1895,
pp. 145-146; How and Wells 1912, p. 368; Corcella 2007, pp. 717-718).
Cf. Vitr. De arch. 8.3.8; Plin. HN 35.51.178; Ael. VH 13.16 for mention
of both sources together.
Wheler (1682, p. 43) described the pitch springs on Zacynthus in
almost the same terms as those used by Herodotus. He also mentioned
(p. 28) the "Fountain of Pitch" he saw near Apollonia and was clearly
not confusing it with what he saw on "Zante." Later travelers,
including Walpole (1818, pp. 1-2) and Dodwell (1819, pp. 81-82), also
provide similar descriptions of the latter bitumen mines, which remain
to this day one of the largest tourist attraction on the island.
83
Hdt. 9.93.1.
84
Although Herodotus was ignorant about the source of the Ister
(Danube), he did not repeat the mistaken claim that one branch flowed
into the Adriatic, but knew that it emptied into the Black Sea at
Istria (2.33.3-4).

34
brought by the Corinthians to serve as the prophet for the

Greek army that went to liberate Ionia from the Persians.85

Antiochus of Syracuse,86 also a 5th century B.C.

historian, wrote a continuation to Herodotus.87 Antiochus

was emulated by his slightly younger contemporary,

Thucydides, who relied heavily on his account of the

colonization of Magna Graecia.88 Fragments of Antiochus

were preserved in Strabo89 and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.90

Antiochus was also used extensively by the 1st century B.C.

historian, Diodorus Siculus, whose Bibliotheke also

preserved some fragments of the Syracusian's history.91

In addition to Antiochus, Thucydides relied heavily on

the work of Hellanicus of Lesbos,92 a 5th century B.C. (ca.

480-395 B.C.) chronicler, historian, and ethnographer who

lived at the same time as Antiochus.93 Hellanicus was a

chronographer in the tradition of Hecataeus in that he

sought to collate and synchronize the vast body of Greek

mythology. Hellanicus was the first to organize historical

events in Greece according to the tenure of the priestess

85
Hdt. 9.92-95.
86
Antiochus, FGrH 555.
87
Antiochus, FGrH 555 T2-3. For Antiochus, see Walbank 1989-1990, pp.
44-45; Lendle 1992, pp. 32-35; Luraghi 2002.

88
Pearson 1987, pp. 7, 15-16; Hornblower 1994, p. 12.
89
Strabo 6.1.12-15 [C 262-265].
90
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.22, 1.35.
91
Cf. Diod. Sic. 12.71.2.
92
Cf. Thuc. 2.2.1; Gomme 1945, pp. 4-6.
93
Hellanicus, FGrH 4, FGrH 323a. For Hellanicus, see Walbank 1962, p.
3; Lendle 1992, pp. 63-71; Möller 2001; Christesen 2007, p. 10.

35
of Hera at Argos94 and Athenian eponymous archons.95 He does

not, however, appear to have been very interested in

geography and Strabo spoke of him with contempt in this

regard.96

Thucydides (ca. 460-400 B.C.), who wrote a

synchronistic account of the Peloponnesian War, was one of

the most famous 5th century B.C. historians.97 He provided

considerable information about Epidamnus, since it was

central to his account of the origins of the Peloponnesian

War, and also supplied a few details about Apollonia.98 It

is likely that much of Thucydides' geographical information

about the eastern Adriatic derived from Hecataeus.99

Thucydides was consulted by almost all later authors who

wrote about Greece.100

Ephorus of Cyme (ca. 405-330 B.C.)101 and Theopompus of

Chios (ca. 408/3-320 B.C.)102 were 4th century B.C.

94
Cf. Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F74-84; FGrH 323a F25-26.
95
Cf. Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F171-172.
96
Cf. Strabo 11.6.3 [C 507]. Strabo (1.2.35 [C 43]) also branded
Hellanicus a collector of fables.
97
See Lendle 1992, pp. 73-109 for a general discussion of Thucydides;
Drews 1963, p. 245 on the style of his historical narrative; and Gomme
1945 and Hornblower 1991 for commentaries on his work.
98
Thuc. 1.24-26.
99
Thucydides (1.24) described Epidamnus from a coastal point of view,
which suggests that he was following Hecataeus. Strabo's perspective,
too, was from the sea (cf. Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316], 7.7.8 [C 326-327) and
probably also derived from Hecataeus (cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F99 and
F101). For Thucydides' indebtedness to Hecataeus, see Gomme 1945, pp.
179-182, n. 46.4; Hammond 1967, p. 449; Hornblower 1991, p. 67, n.
24.1, 1994, p. 15.
100
Cf. Gomme 1945, pp. 41-84.
101
Ephorus, FGrH 70.
102
Theopompus, FGrH 115.

36
historians who were contemporaries of Pseudo-Scylax.

Ephorus and Theopompus were students together under the

Attic orator Isocrates.103 Their works were widely mined by

later writers and both included some information about

Illyria and Apollonia in their histories.104

Ephorus wrote a history of the world in 30 books, from

the return of the Heracleidae in 1069 B.C. to Philip II's

siege of Perinthus in 341/0 B.C.105 He relied on Thucydides

for the earlier history and possibly on the late 5th/early

4th century B.C. Oxyrhynchus historian for later events.106

Because Ephorus was most interested in the history of the

Greeks and colonization, he also included information about

the "barbarians" on the periphery of the Greek world. It

is likely that Ephorus followed a rival, not yet

identified, geographical tradition instead of that written

by Hecataeus and used by Thucydides for information about

Illyria.107 Ephorus was praised by later writers for his

103
Ephorus, FGrH 70 F42; Dion. Hal. Pomp. 6.6-8; Walbank 1990, p. 255.
104
See Meister 1990, pp. 85-94.
105
For Ephorus, see Bunbury 1883, vol. 1, p. 379; Drews 1963, pp. 253-
255; Rubincam 1976; Schepens 1977; Lendle 1992, pp. 136-143.
106
See Schepens 1977, pp. 103-122 for Ephorus' sources. Walker (1913)
suggested that Ephorus was the Oxyrhynchus historian. Modern research
suggests, rather, that Ephorus used the Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus as a
source. For arguments against Ephorus as the Oxyrhynchus historian,
see Gomme 1945, p. 49, n. 3; Bruce 1967, p. 24; Rubincam 1976, p. 357;
McKechnie and Kern 1988; and below.
107
For example, the information Strabo attributed to Ephorus about where
the Inachus river discharged was wrong (Strabo 7.7.7 [C 326] = Ephorus,
FGrH 70 F123), but the information taken from Hecataeus was correct
(Strabo 6.2.4 [C 316] = Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102c).

37
accuracy.108 As noted above, Pseudo-Scymnus used his

geographical descriptions,109 as did a number of other

writers, including Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, who quoted

extensively from Ephorus' history.110

Theopompus was a younger contemporary of Ephorus.111 He

traveled widely and spent some time at the court of Philip

II of Macedon. He was a prolific writer whose best-known

works, the Hellenica and the Philippica, are preserved only

in fragments.112 The Hellenica was a 12-book continuation of

Thucydides that covered the years from 411 B.C. to the

battle of Cnidus in 394 B.C. and the Philippica was a

history of the life of Philip II of Macedon (359-336 B.C.)

in 58 books.113 Theopompus included information about the

Adriatic that was not found in Ephorus, some of which was,

however, wrong.114 Theopompus, too, was considered to be

108
Strabo 9.3.11 [C 422]; Polyb. 5.33.2, 12.28.10; Joseph Ap. 1.67.
109
Pseudo-Scymnus 115. See Drews 1962, pp. 386-388.
110
Cf. Diod. Sic. 1.37.4, 12.39-40, 14.11.1; Strabo 10.3.2 [C 463],
10.4.16 [C 481].
111
See Flower (1994, pp. 15-16) and Shrimpton (1991, pp. 3-11) for
Theopompus' dates.
112
Grenfell and Hunt (1908, pp. 110-242, 1909), in the editio princeps
of P.Oxy 842, followed by Meyer (1909), suggested that Theopompus was
the author of the Oxyrhynchus fragments. This view is no longer
substantiated, although the identity of the author of the Hellenica
Oxyrhynchia remains a matter of debate. See Flower (1994, pp. 27-28)
and Shrimpton (1991, pp. 13-14) for arguments against the attribution
to Theopompus and Gomme (1948, p. 49, n. 3); see Bruce (1967, pp. 22-
27); and McKechnie and Kern (1988, pp. 7-16) for further discussion
concerning the authorship of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia.
113
Diod. Sic. 13.42.5, 14.84.7 = Theopompus, FGrH 115 T13, T14. Only 18
fragments of the Hellenica are extant.
114
Cf. Theopompus, FGrH 115 F129 = Strabo 7.5.9 [C 317]. In this
passage, Strabo listed five claims Theopompus made about the Adriatic
that he, Strabo, found "incredible." One of these was that a branch of
the Ister emptied into the Adriatic, the same error, as already noted,

38
very reliable and precise, although he was criticized in

antiquity for his frequent digressions and use of myths.115

His extensive use of digression is evident in Books 8 and 9

of the Philippica, which consisted entirely of excursuses

on natural wonders (thaumata) and had nothing to do with

the life of Philip.116

Book 1 of Theopompus' Philippica is thought to have

been a general survey of the Greeks and barbarians

inhabiting the periphery of Macedonia, and Book 2, an

ethnographic discussion about Illyrian tribes.117 It is

possible that Book 21 contained a geographical account of

Illyria and thaumata found in this region.118 If this is so,

the unassigned fragments F316 and F320 probably belong in

this section.119 The extant fragments from Theopompus,

however, suggest that he did not have first-hand experience

of the Adriatic coast north of Epirus and his presentation

that was made by Pseudo-Scylax (20) and Pseudo-Scymnus 766-775. See

above.
115
Theopompus, FGrH 115 T28a, T31; Strabo 1.2.35 [C 43].
116
Books 8 and 9 of the Philippica were known in antiquity as the
Mirabilia. The themes in these chapters included information about
famous prophets and stories associated with them and miraculous
portents loosely connected with Delphi. See Shrimpton 1991, p. 19 and
below for paradoxography.
117
Flower (1994, pp. 119-120) suggests that the extant fragments
indicate that Theopompus held the Illyrians in higher regard than other
"barbarians." Cf. Theopompus, FGrH 115 F39, F40, and F286. Shrimpton
(1991, pp. 107-109) goes so far as to postulate that Theopompus
considered the Illyrian tribe of the Ardiaeans (or Autariatae) to be
barbarized Greeks or Hellenized barbarians.
118
Pearson 1938, p. 449.
119
Theopompus, FGrH 115 F128 and F129, which are preserved in Strabo
(7.5.9 [C 317]), follow immediately after Strabo's account of the city
of Apollonia and the nearby Nymphaeum. If Strabo was consulting
Theopompus for this passage and following his narrative sequence, then
F316 and F320 would fall into place immediately preceding F128a.

39
of Illyrian geography is murky at best.120 Northern Chaonia

likely represented the boundary of his geographical

knowledge, so that accounts of anything beyond this point

were based on speculation, myth, and hearsay.121

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who was brought to the

Macedonian court as a tutor for Alexander the Great, was a

contemporary of Ephorus and Theopompus.122 Aristotle, too,

was familiar with the Greek colonies on the coast of the

Adriatic and had a detailed understanding of the

constitutions of Epidamnus and Apollonia.123 De Mirabilibus

Auscultantionibus, which is included in the Aristotelian

corpus (although modern scholars believe it is a spurious

attribution), was a collection of thaumata.124 This work

contained misinformation about the Adriatic similar to that

ascribed to Theopompus by Strabo.125 It is reasonable to

120
Even in the 4th century B.C., Apollonia was still an enclave of Greek
civilization in the midst of barbarian territory. Some information
about the colony was probably available, though, since it was well
known from the early geographers, Thucydides, and the victory monument
in the altis at Olympia (Kunze 1956, pp. 149-153; cf. Paus. 5.22).
121
Cf. Theopompus, FGrH 115 F128-131. Strabo (7.5.9 [C 317] =
Theopompus, FGrH 115 F129) disagreed with Theopompus' assessment of the
length of the voyage from the head of the Adriatic to the Ceraunian
Mountains and scoffed at his hypothesis that the Adriatic and the
Euxine were connected by a channel across an isthmus. Such
misconceptions on Theopompus' part suggest that he had never visited
the region.
122
Cf. Plut. Alex. 7.1-5. According to Christesen (2007, pp. 170-173,
179-185), Aristotle was the first to number the Olympiads.
123
Cf. Arist. Pol. 1287a6-7, 1301b21-27, 1290b11.
124
Even if the work was not by Aristotle, there is no doubt that he and
other Peripatetics were engaged in collating and describing interesting
and unusual natural phenomena. See Dickie 1990, p. 291, n. 54.
125
Theopompus' description of the connection between the Adriatic and
the Euxine (Theopompus, FGrH 115 F129) is very similar to that found in
De Mirabilibus Auscultantionibus 104.

40
assume that Aristotle and Theopompus resided concurrently

at the court of Philip II and had access to the same

geographical and historical accounts of the Adriatic. The

similar errors suggest, therefore, that the treatise on

miracles might have been written by one of Aristotle's

students at the same court, if not by the great man

himself.

Timaeus of Tauromenium (ca. 350-260 B.C.),126 the son of

Andromachus, a dynast of that city, was active in the early

3rd century B.C., slightly later than Theopompus.127 Timaeus

was extremely interested in chronological issues and made

extensive use of the Olympiad system of dating.128 He was

the first to synchronize the lists of Olympic victors,

Athenian archontes, Spartan kings and ephors, and

priestesses of Hera at the sanctuary in Argos.129 He also

wrote (Sikelikai) Historiai, the introduction of which

dealt with the foundation and history of the Greek

colonies, as well as an ethnography and geography of the

west.130 Timaeus relied heavily on the earlier work of

126
Timaeus, FGrH 566.
127
Timaeus, FGrH 566 T3. See Walbank 1989-1990, pp. 41-54.
128
Polyb. 12.11.
129
Until this time, the various systems of chronological reckoning had
developed without reference to one another, thus resulting in
confusion. Timaeus was responsible for synchronizing the four separate
dating schemes. See Brown 1958, pp. 10-14; Bickermann 1968, pp. 75-76;
Clarke 1999, pp. 11-12; Christesen 2007, pp. 24-25, 277-289.
130
Timaeus, FGrH 566 T7. Cf. Polyb. 12.11.1 = Timaeus, FGrH 566 T10.

41
Antiochus of Syracuse.131 Many later authors, including

Eratosthenes, Polybius, Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus,

Strabo, and Plutarch, consulted Timaeus' works for

chronological and historical details.132

Hieronymus of Cardia (ca. 364-260 B.C.)133 was a

contemporary of Timaeus who lived at the Macedonian court

from the time of Antigonus I Monophthalmus to that of

Antigonus II Gonatas.134 He joined the court of Antigonus I

ca. 316 B.C. and died in Macedonia after Antigonus II came

to the throne in 277 B.C.135 Hieronymus wrote a contemporary

history that was primarily concerned with Macedonia and

Epirus from the birth of Alexander the Great to the death

of Pyrrhus.136 His work, of which very little is preserved,

was used by Diodorus, Strabo, and Plutarch.137

Later pre-Christian historians who mentioned

Apollonia, Epidamnus, and/or Illyria include Polybius,

Posidonius, Diodorus Siculus, Nicholaus of Damascus, and

131
Pearson 1987, pp. 15-16.
132
Timaeus was critical of earlier historians (e.g., Timaeus, FGrH 566
F7) and criticized by later ones (e.g., Strabo 14.1.22 [C 614]). Book
12 of Polybius was an attack on Timaeus for his faulty historical
method and factual errors. See Walbank 1962.
133
Hieronymus, FGrH 154.
134
Hieronymus was perhaps 104 when he died (cf. Hieronymus, FGrH 154
T2). See Hornblower 1981, pp. 5-17; Reuss 1985, pp. 1-8.
135
See Lendle 1992, pp. 190-192.
136
Hieronymus died after Pyrrhus (d. 272 B.C.). Cf. Hieronymus, FGrH
154 F15.
137
Cf. Diod. Sic. 18.42.1, 19.100.1-3; Strabo 8.6.21 [C379], 9.5.22
[C433]; Plut. Pyrrh. 17.7, 21.7, 27.8. See Hornblower 1981, p. 3.

42
Dionysius of Halicarnassus.138 Polybius (ca. 200-118 B.C.)

was a Greek historian born in Megalopolis who spent the

later part of his life in Rome as a hostage after the

Macedonian king Perseus was defeated in 167 B.C.139 There,

he wrote a 40-book history of Rome's rise to power in the

Mediterranean that ended with the destruction of Corinth in

146 B.C. Only five books are preserved, but an abridgment

of books 1-18 exists in Excerpta Antiqua.140 The rest of his

work is very fragmentary. Book 34, which is now lost, was

devoted to geography. Polybius was critical of many of his

sources, especially Timaeus for his sloppy historical

research and for repeating the errors of earlier

geographers.141 It is possible that Polybius was among the

earliest of the ancient authors to have actually visited

Apollonia and thus to acquire first-hand knowledge of the

colony.

Posidonius of Apamea (ca. 135-51 B.C.) was one of the

dominant scholars of his day; he was a prolific writer who

dealt with a wide range of subjects, including history,

138
Dionysius of Halicarnassus is the latest of the authors mentioned
above. He was a contemporary of, and moved in the same patronage
circle as, Strabo. He was a historian and wrote Roman Antiquities, of
which the first 11 of 20 Books are extant.
139
Polybius' father was a prominent leader of the Achaean league, which
sided with Macedonia against Rome. See Walbank 1957, pp. 1-6.
140
Books 1-5 are preserved.
141
Cf. Polyb. 8.10.5, 8.9.6-13 for attacks on Theopompus and 2.16 and
above for criticism of Timaeus. For Polybius' sources and criticisms
of them, see Walbank 1957, pp. 26-37, 1962.

43
geography, seismology, mineralogy, and natural science.142

Posidonius wrote, among other treatises, a History that

covered events throughout the Mediterranean from 146 to 88

B.C. His work began where that of Polybius had ended.

Posidonius also compiled extensive information about

scientific problems and unusual environmental phenomena.143

No complete work is extant in its original form and his

scholarship and ideas have been reconstructed from the

numerous fragments preserved in later writers. Posidonius

was innovative in his approach as well as in his devotion

to reevaluating the works of earlier scholars.144

Posidonius traveled widely. He was interested in

ethnography and the causal link between individuals and

historical events.145 It is likely that Posidonius actually

traveled to Apollonia and saw the bitumen mines that he

described. He regarded geography as a philosophical

activity and in this he was followed by the geographer

Strabo.146 Athenaeus claimed that Strabo, as a young man,

met Posidonius when he was very old.147 Whether or not this

is true, Strabo respected and frequently consulted

142
Posidonius, FGrH 87. Posidonius was also a Stoic philosopher.
143
Edelstein and Kidd 1972, p. xxi; Meister 1990, pp. 166-171.
144
See von Fritz 1977; Lendle 1992, pp. 235-237.
145
I.e., agency.
146
Kidd 1988, p. 25.
147
Ath. 14.657F. See Dueck 2000, p. 8 for Posidonius and his famous,
scholarly offspring.

44
Posidonius' writings.148 Because Posidonius sought original

and current information about his topics, some of his facts

contradicted older scholarship, perhaps giving rise to

rival traditions in subsequent studies.149

Diodorus Siculus was a 1st century B.C. historian who

wrote an all-inclusive universal history (Bibliotheke) from

mythological times to 60 B.C.; only 15 of 40 books are

extant.150 Diodorus is one of the most important sources for

reconstructing the works of earlier historians because he

frequently refers to them by name.151 He is also important

for information about Illyria. Books 1-6 were a geography

of the oikumene that drew heavily on Hecataeus. Diodorus

relied on Ephorus (and thus the earlier work of the

Oxyrhynchus historian) and Timaeus for historical details.152

Contemporary with Diodorus was the historian Nicholaus

of Damascus (64-4 B.C.), who also wrote a comprehensive

universal history; his was in 144 books.153 This work,

covering earliest times to the death of Herod the Great, is

very poorly preserved. It is clear from extant fragments,

148
See below.
149
This divergence from the standard historical view is particularly
relevant to the foundation of Apollonia.
150
Diodorus was a poor geographer. See Bunbury 1883, vol. 2, p. 194;
DNP 3, 1997, cols. 592-593, s.v. Diodoros Siculus (K. Meister); BNP 4,
2004, cols. 444-445, s.v. Diodorus Siculus (K. Meister).
151
For Diodorus' sources, see Drews 1962, pp. 384-390; Bruce 1967, p.
24; Rubincam 1976; Hornblower 1981, pp. 18-75; Sacks 1994.
152
Cf. Diod. Sic. 10.29, 13.54.5, 13.60.5, 13.80.6 (Timaeus) and
11.36.1, 12.38.1. 16.14.3, 41.1 (Ephorus).
153
Nic. Dam., FGrH 90.

45
though, that Nicholaus, too, relied heavily on Ephorus as

his principle source of information for the history of

Greece.154

Strabo of Amaseia (ca. 64 B.C.-A.D. 21) was a

geographer who authored the Geographia, much of which is

extant.155 He wrote in the tradition of the earlier

geographers, but combined history with his geographical

description of the oikumene as it existed in his day.156

Strabo was an antiquarian and he relied more heavily on

older sources, rather than current, contemporaneous

studies.157 He spent some years in Rome and was a

contemporary and acquaintance of Dionysius of

Halicarnassus.158 Strabo studied under Posidonius' grandson,

Artistodemus of Nysa, and frequently referenced information

acquired from Posidonius. The accounts of Illyria in the

Geographia were not based on first-hand experience, and it

is unlikely that Strabo ever visited Epidamnus or

Apollonia.159 He cited Hecataeus, Posidonius, Theopompus,

154
Nicholaus also consulted Hellanicus for information about Greece.
155
See Dueck 2000, pp. 47-53 for a discussion of Strabo's geographical
divisions.
156
Strabo's goal was to survey the entire inhabited world, which he
defines at 1.4.5 [C 65].
157
Because Strabo himself usually recorded distances in stadia, those
recorded in days were probably taken from much older works. He
provided a list of some of the scholars he consulted in Books 1 and 8
and frequently made references to the works of Hecataeus, Theopompus,
and Ephorus, even though more current studies were available. Dueck
2000, pp. 1-2.
158
See Dueck 2000, pp. 8-15 for Strabo's intellectual milieu.
159
Dueck (2000, p. 28) entertains the possibility that Strabo visited
Apollonia on the basis of his remarks about the milestones along the

46
Eratosthenes, and Polybius in his description of Apollonia

and the area to the south, around the bay of Oricum.160

The most indispensable later authors who mentioned

Apollonia are Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Appian, Pausanias,

Cassius Dio, Aelian, and Stephanus of Byzantium. Pliny was

a naturalist and scientist who died in the eruption of

Vesuvius in A.D. 79. He wrote the Naturalis Historia,

which was an encyclopedia of contemporary knowledge about

natural phenomena, including thaumata. Although he did not

often name his sources, Pliny specifically referred to

Theopompus in connection with his discussion of Apollonia.161

Plutarch of Chaeronea (ca. A.D. 50-120) was a prolific

writer from a distinguished family. He was a biographer

and philosopher, as well as a priest at Delphi. A list of

227 works attributed to him was recorded in the "Catalogue

of Lamprias" compiled in the 4th century A.D. He is best

known for his Parallel Lives, of which 23 pairs survive.

Among those preserved that are most useful for the study of

Via Egnatia, but this seems unlikely, not least because he does not
offer an eye-witness account of the bitumen mines. Hammond (1967, p.
461) suggests that Strabo preferred Ephorus to Theopompus. It is
probable, however, that Strabo used the latter for his description of
southern Illyria and Chaonia.
160
Strabo 7.5.8-7.5.9 [C 316-317]. Strabo did not use Pseudo-Scylax for
Epirus or Illyria. It is clear, rather, that he relied on an earlier
work, probably, as mentioned above, that of Hecataeus. Strabo
disapproved of the work of Eratosthenes, as did other geographers of
his day, and criticized Eratosthenes for not visiting the places he
described (cf. Posidonius, FGrH 87 T17b = Strabo 2.4.2 [C 104]).
Eratosthenes is largely known from the Greek geographer, Dionysius
"Periegetes," who quoted Eratosthenes in his pseudo-epic account of the
oikumene. See Bianchetti 2007.
161
Plin. HN 2.100.237, 16.23.59 = Theopompus, FGrH 115 F316, F320.

47
Apollonia are the lives of Pyrrhus of Epirus, Julius

Caesar, and Pompey.162 Also extant are parts of 78 assorted

philosophical, rhetorical, and moralizing essays.

The Roman historian Appian of Alexandria (ca. late 1st

century-mid 2nd century A.D.) wrote an ethnographic account

of the people conquered by Rome; Book 9 was about the

Macedonians and Book 10 about the Illyrians. Book 9 is

very fragmentary and consists primarily of summaries

assembled from several later manuscripts. Book 10, on the

other hand, is virtually complete.

Pausanias of Magnesia was a slightly later 2nd century

A.D. author who wrote an extant "guidebook" to Greece,

today called Description of Greece.163 He traveled widely in

Greece and tried to describe accurately the things he saw.164

Pausanias' main goals were to provide a catalogue of

Archaic and Classical monuments, but his primary interests

were of an antiquarian and religious nature.165 Pausanias

also attempted to include some information about the

historical contexts of the sites he described, but his

details were not always correct. Although he must have

162
Plutarch described the campaigns of Caesar and Pompey in Illyria.
163
See Schubart 1853-1854; Frazer 1898; Diller 1955, 1957, pp. 169-170;
Arafat 1996; Habicht 1998; Hutton 2005. The current edition of
Pausanias stems from 18 preserved Renaissance manuscripts that arose
from a single 15th century A.D. archetype in the library of Niccolò
Niccoli. The first complete recension is the Schubart and Walz edition
(1838-1839). See Chapter 5.
164
Frazer 1898, pp. xv-xxv; Hutton 2005, pp. 9-11.
165
Frazer 1898, p. xxv.

48
used a variety of reliable historical sources, only a few

of whom can be identified today,166 he also included lore

that was provided by local guides.167

Cassius Dio (ca. A.D. 164-229) was a Greek born Roman

senator from Bithynia who, like his father, became governor

of Dalmatia.168 He wrote a history of Rome in 80 books that

spanned times from the arrival of Aeneas in Italy to the

end of his own second consulship in A.D 229. His Roman

History was a result of 10 years of research and 12 years

of writing.169 Dio imposed an annalistic order on history,

one that grouped together all events that occurred in the

same year. He was very concerned with his style, which he

modeled on the rhetorical speeches of Thucydides, and often

sacrificed accuracy to technique. Only parts of Cassius

Dio's history are extant.170

Aelian was a prolific writer of the mid-2nd-early 3rd

century A.D., whose Varia Historia included extraordinary

facts about history, animals, and humans. Stephanus of

166
In most instances Pausanias did not cite his sources; it is,
nevertheless, clear that he modeled his work after Herodotus and
consulted, among others, Thucydides, Polybius, and Theopompus. See
Habicht 1985, pp. 96-98; Jones 2001, p. 33; Hutton 2005, p. 6.
167
Pausanias accepted the veracity of some of the stories that were
related to him by locals, but scoffed at others. See Frazer 1898, pp.
lxx-lxxx; Habicht 1985, pp. 144-147; Jones 2001, pp. 33-39; Hutton
2005, pp. 245-247.
168
Cass. Dio 69.1.3, 72.7.2, 49.36.4.
169
Cass. Dio 72.23.5.
170
Parts of Cassius Dio's work were preserved by Zonaras (12 century
A.D.), the private secretary of emperor Alexis I Comnenus, and by the
monk Xiphilinus (11th century A.D.), who made an abridgement of books
36-80.

49
Byzantium was a Greek grammarian of the 6th century A.D.171

He wrote the now lost Ethnica, which was an alphabetical

list of place names and relevant information about each,

such as foundation legends, name changes, and oikists.

Stephanus relied most heavily on the works of Strabo and

Pausanias for his information. It appears that he was the

only author to have consulted Pausanias before the

Renaissance.172 The extant epitome was compiled sometime in

the four centuries following Stephanus' death.

Four other ancient authors who are important for the

study of Apollonia and its hinterland must be mentioned

before we turn to examine the relevance of the preceding

discussion to the history of Apollonia. Two are

Hellenistic poets, Apollonius Rhodius and Lycophron; the

other two, Eusebius and Jerome, are Christian chroniclers.

Apollonius Rhodius (300/265-235/190 B.C.) was a 3rd

century B.C. poet who wrote the Argonautica, an epic

account of the voyage of Jason and the Argonauts. Very

little is known about the author even though four accounts

about him have survived from antiquity: two "lives" were

transmitted with manuscripts of the poem, some information

is found in POxy 1241 co. ii, and Suda, s.v. Απολλώνιος

(Adler) is a fourth, late source. Much of the information

171
See Diller 1938; Billerback and Zubler 2007.
172
Diller 1956, p. 86.

50
in these different versions, however, is contradictory and

it is difficult to construct a coherent narrative of

Apollonius Rhodius' life. Three cities, Alexandria,

Naucratis, and Rhodes, laid claim to him. He appears to

have been born in Alexandria, to have been a student of

Callimachus,173 who also wrote an account of the Argonauts

and with whom Apollonius later quarreled, to have served as

the Royal Librarian in Alexandria (ca. 270-245 B.C.), and

to have moved to Rhodes after his poem was poorly received

in a public reading in Egypt.174

Apollonius Rhodius combined a variety of mythological

traditions in his epic poem, some more well known than

others. One of his specialties was ktisis poetry175 and his

work was also full of thaumata – a common theme at that

time.176 Although the Argonautica is an account of a

173
Callimachus of Cyrene was a prolific 3rd century B.C. poet who was a
member of the court at Alexandria during the reign of Ptolemy II and
Ptolemy III. Among other things, he wrote the now fragmentary Aetia,
which treated the "origins" of a variety of subjects such as cults and
cities (i.e., ktiseis). This work also contained a section on the
voyage of the Argonauts and two preserved fragments (F11, F12) mention
Illyria. Callimachus was one of the founders of paradoxography. Among
the list of the titles attributed to Callimachus are Collection of
Wonders of the Entire World According to Locations and On Wonders and
Miracles in the Peloponnesus and Italy. See Suda, s.v. Καλλίµαχος
(Adler); OCD3, pp. 276-277, s.v. Callimachus [P. J. Parsons]); Nisetich
2001, pp. xiii-xxiv; Gutzwiller 2007, pp. 60-74. See also Chapter 5.
174
Pearson 1938, pp. 446-447; Hunter 1989, pp. 1-10; Green 1997, pp. 1-
8; Clare 2002, pp. 3-6; Gutzwiller 2007, pp. 74-84.
175
Gutzwiller 2007, p. 75.
176
See Dickie 1990, pp. 275-278. Although thaumata were a popular motif
from Homer onward, as Dickie notes (1990, p. 291, n. 54), Callimachus
appears to have been the first writer to systematically collect
thaumata into a single work, probably arranged by geographical area.
Cf. Callimachus (F407-411 [Trypanis]). See discussion in RE XVIIIb,

51
mythological voyage, the author was concerned with

geographical accuracy177 and relied primarily on the work of

Hecataeus.178 Apollonius also consulted Pseudo-Scylax and

the historians Ephorus, Theopompus, and Timaeus, among

others.179 He appears to have relied on Pseudo-Scylax, or,

more likely, Scylax, for his information about the Illyrian

coast.180 Apollonius followed the geographical tradition

that maintained that one branch of the Ister flowed into

the Adriatic and another into the Black Sea, which would

have made sea travel between the two bodies of water

possible via the river.181 The Scholiast claimed that

Apollonius Rhodius drew this information from the work of

an otherwise unknown author, Timagetus,182 although, as

mentioned above, this geographical erratum was also found

in Pseudo-Scylax.183 The sources of the geographical details

in the Argonautica are particularly relevant to Apollonia

1949, col. 1138-1140, s.v. paradoxographoi (K. Ziegler); Giannini 1966,

pp. 247-264.
177
Clare 2002, pp. 125-126.
178
Cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1.256-59, 2.946-54c, 2.998-1000, 4.257-62b,
4.265-66, 4.282-91b (Wendel). One of Apollonius' models was Hecataeus,
who was the first to combine mythology and geography. See Pearson
1938, pp. 443-459.
179
See Pearson 1938, pp. 448-449. Dickie (1990, pp. 276-277) suggests
that Timaeus was the source for some of the thaumata in the
Argonautica.
180
Scylax, FGrH 709 F10 = Ap. Rhod. 1.1177, F9 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1215
(Wendel). Pearson (1938, p. 449) argues convincingly that Apollonius
Rhodius preferred older geographical accounts to those of his own time.
181
Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.257-62b, 4.282-91b, 4.323-26a (Wendel); FHG 4, p.
519. This route for the Argo was not that described by Hecataeus (FGrH
1 F18), Euripides (Med. 432), Callimachus (F9 [Trypanis]), Herodotus
(FGrH 31 F10); or Timaeus (FGrH 566 F85). Cf. Diod. Sic. 4.56.3-8;
Beaumont 1936, pp. 199-201; Green 1997, pp. 302-304.
182
Timagetus apparently wrote Περὶ λιµένων (FHG 4, pp. 519-520).
183
Pseudo-Scylax 20, 67. See above.

52
because the Argo traversed the east coast of the Adriatic

and Apollonius recorded some otherwise unknown myths about

the area.184

Almost nothing is known about Lycophron, who is said

to have written the Alexandra. The poem was composed

either in the mid-3rd century B.C. or shortly after Philip

V's defeat at Cynoscephalae in 198 B.C.185 The work itself,

which is full of obscure references and metaphorical

language, is set in the form of a prophecy uttered by the

Trojan princess, Cassandra. Among other topics, it treated

the nostoi of the Greeks after the fall of Troy. It is

thought that Timaeus was one of the main sources for

Lycophron's references to western legends.186 The 12th

century A.D. Byzantine scholar and commentator, Johannes

Tzetzes, wrote scholia on Lycophron's poem.

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. A.D. 260-339) was an

influential and learned Christian scholar and chronicler.187

He was bishop of Caesarea for 26 years until his death.

Although he was primarily a biblical scholar, he also wrote

two editions of the now lost Chronicle. The work was

divided into two parts: the first, the Chronographia, was a

184
See Chapter 5.
185
The date of the work is problematic because it refers to the
supremacy of the Romans, which suggests that it was written after
Cynoscephalae. Much of the rest of the work, however, appears to be
earlier. See below for Philip V and Cynoscephalae.
186
OCD3, p. 896, s.v. Lycophron (P. M. Fraser).
187
See Mosshammer 1979, pp. 31-34.

53
universal history composed from various older sources, the

second, the Canons, was a series of chronological tables

that synchronized Graeco-Roman, near eastern, and Old

Testament history into a continuous sequence, beginning

with the birth of Abraham in 2016 B.C. The Canons included

lists of kings, chronologies of the history of various

peoples, and sacred and profane events.188 For his research,

Eusebius had access to the renowned library of the early

Christian philosopher, Origen.

Although the original Greek work by Eusebius has been

lost, parts of it were preserved in translation. The

second part of the Chronicle was translated into Latin by

the 4th century A.D. biblical scholar from Dalmatia, Jerome

(A.D. 347-420), who added notes about important events and

people relevant to Rome.189 The Canons has survived in this

form. An Armenian translation of both parts of the

Chronicle from the 13th or 14th century A.D. that was

copied from an earlier Armenian translation also exists.190

Jerome's and the Armenian version do not always agree.191

There is a great deal of contention among modern scholars

about manuscript traditions and translations and how they

188
Burgess 1999, p. 23. Nineteen groups of people were included in the
chronological tables. The later part of Eusebius' work was organized
by Olympiads.
189
Jer. Chron. 6.8-7.3 (Helm).
190
Mosshammer 1979, pp. 29-30, 41-44; Burgess 1999, p. 25.
191
There are also two Syriac epitomes of the Chronicle.

54
are related to the original work by Eusebius. Although

Eusebius did not mention Apollonia, his work, as

transmitted via Jerome and the Armenian edition, is

invaluable for the study of ancient chronology and Greek

colonization.

Relevance of Source Traditions to Apollonia

The above discussion strongly suggests that all

geographical information about Apollonia and the eastern

Adriatic up until at least the 2nd century B.C. originated

from Hecataeus and/or Scylax. It is unlikely that either

of them or, for that matter, most other later writers

actually traveled beyond Epirus to the north and,

therefore, much of what they recorded was hearsay. In many

cases Hecataeus and Scylax provided similar details, but in

others their information diverged. It appears, for

example, there were two rival bodies of knowledge about the

Adriatic: one generated by Hecataeus, the other by Scylax.

And, as can be seen from the discussion earlier in this

chapter, later authors across a wide spectrum of literary

genres perpetuated geographical mistakes that were made in

these early works. This point is clearly illustrated by

the error that a branch of the Ister flowed into the

Adriatic, which seems to have originated with Scylax, but

55
was not recorded by Hecataeus. We know that this

misinformation about the Ister river was repeated by

Pseudo-Scylax, Pseudo-Scymnus, Theopompus, [Aristotle],

Timaeus, Timagetus, and Apollonius Rhodius, and was only

corrected by Diodorus Siculus in the mid-first century B.C.

Many of the ancient authors discussed above embedded

information about Apollonia in descriptions of the nearby

oracle associated with the Nymphaeum and the mysterious

flaming bitumen fields.192 Such narratives fall within the

literary genre of marvel writing, or paradoxa. Accounts of

thaumata and natural curiosities were presented primarily

by a group of writers known as paradoxographers, who were

interested in the unexpected or the unbelievable, although

a variety of other ancient scholars, including historians,

scientists, geographers, and compilers, also showed

interest in thaumata.193 Works on paradoxa are attributed to

Theopompus, Ephorus, and Aristotle, but these were probably

spurious attributions since the genre probably was not

established before the 3rd century B.C.194

192
The precise location of the ancient bitumen mines and the Nymphaeum
are unknown, although Early Modern travelers associate them with
Selenica. See Chapter 5. For a discussion of bitumen in antiquity,
see Morris 2006.
193
OCD3, p. 1112, s.v. paradoxographers (J. S. Rusten). See Giannini
1966; Gutzwiller 2007, pp. 166-167. I am grateful to Kathryn
Gutzwiller and Matthew Dickie for discussing this genre of literature
with me.
194
See Giannini 1966, pp. 365-368 (Theopompus), p. 364 (Ephorus), and
pp. 221-314 (Pseudo-Aristotle). The evidence for Ephorus' interest in

56
 Descriptions of "marvels" were usually rendered in a

very formulaic way with certain details being repeated by

multiple authors in a manner that suggests all were drawn

from a limited number of earlier accounts. Most marvel

stories included locative information in order to provide a

geographical setting for the wonder. Because, however, the

descriptions of thaumata were frequently plagiarized and

were focused chiefly on the nature of the novelty,

topographical details about ancillary places that were used

to provide spatial contexts were not always reliable or

accurate. This is especially evident in the case of

Apollonia where, for example, the various strands of

information about the polis that were included by different

authors were inconsistent and undependable. Moreover, it

is likely that all the accounts of the bitumen mines and

the Nymphaeum originally stemmed from one of two writers:

Theopompus or Posidonius. Extant references to the oracle

at the Nymphaeum that mention Apollonia are found in

[Aristotle], Strabo, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Cassius

Dio, Aelian, and Ampelius.

As we have seen above, Pliny and Cassius Dio probably

used Theopompus as their source on Apollonia; both were

really only interested in the oracle and bitumen mines.

paradoxa is the strongest; cf. Strabo 7.3.9 [C 302-303], 5.4.5 [C 244-

245].

57
Pliny specifically referenced Theopompus in connection with

his discussion of the Nymphaeum and Apollonia.195 As also

noted above, Theopompus liked digressions on thaumata and

it is clear that much of Pliny's information about

Apollonia and the nearby oracle came from one such example.

Theopompus was probably also the basis for the accounts of

the Nymphaeum and bitumen mines in [Aristotle], Plutarch,

Cassius Dio, and Aelian.196 Pliny, Cassius Dio, and Aelian

were concerned primarily with the thauma, rather than the

history of the area. Either Cassius Dio or Aelian copied

directly from the other, or both copied, almost word for

word, from another source.

Strabo, on the other hand, went into greater detail

about the scientific workings of the bitumen fields and

mentioned Posidonius as his source.197 Posidonius, who was

very interested in the scientific workings of the mines,

probably visited Apollonia.198 Strabo also, however,

195
Plin. HN 2.100.237, 16.23.59 = Theopompus, FGrH 115 F316, F320.
Pliny is following an early source here, one that places the Nymphaeum
at the border between Apollonia and the barbarians. In the 4th century
B.C., when Theopompus was writing, everything outside the hinterland of
the Greek colony was considered barbarian territory. By the time of
Posidonius, on the other hand, most of Illyria had been incorporated
into the Graeco-Roman orbit and the inhabitants of places like Amantia
and Byllis were Hellenized to the point that they were no longer
considered barbarians. See Flower (1994, p. 35) for digressions in
Theopompus.
196
[Arist.] Mir. ausc. 127 [842b11]; Plut. Sull. 27; Cass. Dio 41.45;
and Ael. VH 13.16.
197
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316] = Posidonius, FGrH 87 F93.
198
Cf. Posidonius, FGrH 87 T17b, F19, F93 (cf., Kidd 1999). Because of
the likelihood that Posidonius visited the cities along the east coast
of the Adriatic, Strabo's account of his research is probably the most

58
subsequently mentioned Theopompus in his description of the

Illyrian coast.199 It is likely, therefore, that Strabo

consulted both Theopompus and Posidonius for information

about Apollonia and the Nymphaeum. Since Ampelius made

some of the same points as Strabo, i.e., regarding the fire

that issued forth from the oracle and the nature of the

pitch, it is likely that he either took his information

directly from Strabo, or at least consulted the same

sources.200

As already noted, most of the intelligence about

Apollonia in the ancient authors stems from only a few

accounts. This is especially true for discussions about

the Nymphaeum and the bitumen mines. The details about

Apollonia found in the marvel stories, therefore, do not

provide unambiguous historical information about the

colony. All the thauma descriptions contained essentially

the same observations and few were based on first-hand

knowledge. This is also the case for many of the

"geographical" details about the colony that were reported

by ancient historians and geographers, many of which also

appear to have been copied from earlier works and, as a

reliable ancient testimonia about Apollonia. Strabo, too, might have

visited Apollonia, but this is less likely given that he acknowledged
quoting other sources.
199
Strabo 7.5.9 [C 317].
200
Ampelius 8.1. Lucius Ampelius compiled his Liber Memorialis in the
late 3rd-early 4th century A.D. This work included a discussion of
unusual geographical features and marvels.

59
result, duplicate the same errors. As will be discussed in

Chapter 5, this repetition makes it possible to recognize,

in both ancient and modern scholarship, individual strands

of rival traditions concerning the ktisis of Apollonia and

geographical details pertaining to its location.

Subsequent chapters of this thesis will use archaeological

evidence to resolve some of the contradictions that have

been handed down from antiquity.

History of Apollonia from the 6th-1st Century B.C.

We are the descendants of the

Illyrian tribes. This territory of our
ancestors has been ruled by the Greeks,
the Romans, the Normans, the Slavs, the
Angevins, the Byzantines, the
Venetians, the Ottomans, and numerous
other invaders who did not manage to
eradicate the Albanian people, the old
Illyrian civilization, and the later
Albanians.201

The short time span encapsulated in the concept of

l'histoire événementielle as discussed by Braudel provides

a useful framework for a narrative history of Apollonia

because it emphasizes the role of agency and individual

actions in effecting changes in the trajectory of the

201
"Ne jemi pasardhësit e fiseve ilire. Në këto troje të lashta të
parëve tanë kanë vërshuar grekët, romakët, normandët, sllavët,
anshuinët, bizantinët, venedikasit, osmanët e shumë e shumë pushtues të
tjerë, por ata nuk i zhdukën dot as popullin shqiptar, as kulturën e
vjetër ilire, as vazhdimësinë e saj shqiptare (Hoxha 1985, p. 40)."

60
moyenne durée.202 A rather detailed "history" of Apollonia

is offered below that attempts to integrate specific

historical events with longer-term trends in the

development of the polis. This section of Chapter 2 and

also Chapter 5 examine the history of Apollonia through the

surviving textual evidence about specific individuals and

historical episodes. Section III, on the other hand, looks

at the evolution of the apoikia based on changes that are

visible in the archaeological record.

The Archaic-Hellenistic periods are the primary focus

of this study and, therefore, only a few cursory paragraphs

will be included about events that occur after Rome

incorporated the area of southern Illyria as a province in

146 B.C. Although specific information is lacking for much

of the Greek period at Apollonia, which must result in huge

gaps in the flow of any story about the colony,

nevertheless, a skeletal framework of important events and

people can be worked out from the extant textual citations.

Aside from Apollonia's fragmentary ktisis, which is

discussed in Chapter 5, and its role as a geographical

locator for the thauma at the Nymphaeum, which is discussed

202
Braudel (1972, pp. 20-21) defines three historical phases: the longue
durée or the slow, imperceptible, almost timeless history of "man in
relationship to the environment (vol. 1, p. 20);" the moyenne durée or
the slow, perceptible, "social history" of "groups, collective
destinies, and general trends (vol. 1, p. 353);" and l'histoire
événementielle or the history of events and individual men (vol. 2, pp.
901-903).

61
above, the extant sources preserve a mere three major

episodes in the history of the Graeco-Roman world in which

Apollonia played a prominent role: the inception of the

Peloponnesian War, the arrival of Rome in the eastern

Mediterranean, and the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar.

The second episode, which spanned two generations

straddling the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 2nd

centuries B.C. and had long-term consequences in the

moyenne durée, irrevocably altered the balance of power in

the Mediterranean and is discussed in the most detail,

largely because it is the period for which the most textual

evidence has survived.

Albania, part of southern Illyria in Graeco-Roman

times, is a country that occupies and perhaps always has

occupied contested territory; the area has been ruled by

outsiders throughout much of its history. The first

historically documented foreign occupation of Albanian

territory occurred in the Archaic period, when emigrants

from two prominent Greek city-states, Corcyra and Corinth,

founded colonies on the east coast of the Adriatic at

Epidamnus and Apollonia.203 These colonies introduced Greek

culture to the area, which is thought by some to have

203
Among the earliest documented writing from Albania is an inscription
on an Archaic sarcophagus from the necropolis of Apollonia that is
written in the Corinthian script (Amore 2003-2004). The earliest Greek
pottery dates to the later 7th century B.C. See Chapter 5 for a
discussion of the colonization of Epidamnus and Apollonia.

62
accelerated the processes of state formation among

indigenous Illyrian tribes.204 Epidamnus and Apollonia were

the only Greek colonies founded in the Adriatic during the

Archaic period and the only colonies established in Illyria

by mainland Greeks.205 Because of their strategic locations,

Apollonia, only 60 km from Italy via the straits of

Otranto, and Epidamnus, just to the north, were involved in

continuous power struggles between natives and outsiders.206

Control of the eastern coast of the Adriatic in what is

today Albania was hotly contested during antiquity, at some

times more than others.

There was considerable movement up and down the

Adriatic coast during the Classical period as Greeks,

Illyrian tribes, and Macedonians fought for control of

portions of modern-day Albania. Very little is known from

ancient sources about the history of Epidamnus and

Apollonia before the mid-5th century, although Pausanias

recorded, and archaeological evidence confirms, that the

Epidamnians had built a treasury in the sanctuary at

Olympia already during the 6th century B.C. and that the

204
See Wilkes 1992, pp. 109-113, 129-136 and Chapter 3.
205
No evidence indicates that any Greek apoikiai were founded on the
mainland north of Epidamnus. The other, later Adriatic colonies, such
as Black Corcyra, Issa, and Pharos, were all on islands. The earliest
of these, Black Corcyra, was settled by people from Cnidus, and Issa by
people from Syracuse. Pharos was founded in 385 B.C. from Paros (Diod.
Sic. 15.13.4-15.14.2). See Wilkes 1992, pp. 110-116.
206
The Latin colony of Brundisium on the east coast of Italy and across
the Straits of Otranto from Apollonia was founded in 244 B.C. See
Deniaux 2005b; Cabanes 2005.

63
Apollonians had dedicated a victory monument there in the

mid-5th century B.C. to commemorate their conquest of

Thronium.207 Even though the colonies functioned as

autonomous units, the 5th century B.C. witnessed the

projection of the conflict between Corinth and Corcyra onto

their apoikiai. Both settlements functioned as catalysts

at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War in the 430s B.C.,

when stasis between the democrats and aristocrats at

Epidamnus brought Corcyraean and Corinthian warships to the

area.208

Slightly more information is preserved in the ancient

sources about the 4th century B.C., although the texts

present a confusing picture of the names and territories of

the various Illyrian tribes. From the Late Classical

through the Hellenistic period, the history of the

Illyrians and the Greek colonies was inextricably bound

with the fortunes of the Epirote and Macedonian kingdoms.209

By the beginning of the 4th century B.C., dynastic

struggles between them resulted in shifting borders of

territories belonging to Illyrian tribes and had far-

reaching consequences for the stability and control of

207
Paus. 6.19.8, 5.22.2-4.
208
439-438 B.C. Thuc. 1.24-30; Diod. Sic. 12.30.2-5, 12.31.2. See
Hammond 1945, pp. 30-32. The incident involved a dispute between the
aristocrats and democrats at Epidamnus in which the native Taulantii
sided with the aristocrats. Thucydides 1.31-43 is noteworthy for its
discussion about the relationship between colony and metropolis.
209
See Hammond 1989a for a thorough treatment of the Macedonian kingdom
and Hammond 1967 for Epirus.

64
Apollonia. Illyrians were said to have defeated Amyntas

III and expelled him temporarily from the Macedonian throne

in 393/2 B.C.210 In 385/384 B.C., another tribe, probably

led by Bardylis, ruler of the powerful Dardanians, overran

northern Epirus and killed as many as 15,000 Molossians.211

The ruler, Alcetas, was only restored to the throne with

the help of Dionysius I of Syracuse.212

In 360 B.C., Arybbas of Molossia was also faced with a

large invasion from Illyria, again spearheaded by

Bardylis.213 In this same year, Perdiccas, king of Macedon,

was defeated and killed in a battle with the Illyrians.

His death paved the way for his brother, Philip II, to take

the throne.214 The situation was temporarily stabilized in

359/358 B.C. when Philip defeated a large Illyrian force

and annexed territory up to Lake Lychnitis.215 Some years

later, in 344/343 B.C., Philip again came into conflict

210
Diod. Sic. 14.92.3-4, 15.19.2.
211
Diod. Sic. 15.13.2-3, 16.2.1. Strabo 7.5.6 [C 315] listed the three
most powerful Illyrian tribes as the Autariatae, the Ardiaei, and the
Dardanii. It is unclear whether Bardylis actually ruled over Molossia
briefly as a result of his victory or merely posed a continuous threat
to the Epirote kings. See Papazoglou 1965, pp. 143-146; Hammond 1994,
pp. 428-429, 1998, pp. 405-407; Cabanes 1988a, pp. 93-101, 2005, p. 23;
Gattinoni 2004, pp. 47-48.
212
Diod. Sic. 15.13. See Philistus above and Caven 1990, pp. 150-151.
213
Callisthenes, FGrH 124 F27. Cf. Frontin. Str. 2.5.19; Lucian Macr.
10; Hammond 1967, pp. 533-534.
214
Diod. Sic. 16.1.3, 16.2. Bardylis died in 358 B.C. at the age of 90.
He was succeeded by his son Cleitus, who fought against Alexander the
Great and was subsequently deposed from the Dardanian throne in 335
B.C. Hammond 1966a, pp. 244-245; Cabanes 1988a, pp. 101-106.
215
Diod. Sic. 16.4.3-7. See Hammond 1966a, p. 244, 1978, p. 138, 1980b,
pp. 463-464, 1981. According to Plutarch (Alex. 3.4-5), Philip's
general, Parmenio, conquered a large Illyrian force in 356 B.C., the
same year that Alexander was born.

65
with the Illyrians, this time led by Pleurias.216 Philip won

a decisive victory that left him with direct rule over a

“Balkan Empire” from which he was able to exact tribute.217

Alexander the Great, Philip's son, first had contact

with Illyria during his exile in 337 B.C., self-imposed

after quarreling with his father. Plutarch noted that

Alexander visited one or more Illyrian kings at that time.218

In 335 B.C., before leaving for Persia, Alexander

strengthened Macedonian control in Illyria by quelling a

revolt led by Glaucias, king of the Taulantians,219 and

Cleitus, son of Bardylis.220 The Macedonians won a decisive

victory against the Illyrians in a battle fought at

Pelion.221 Following this, large numbers of Illyrians,

216
Didymus InD. col. 12.64. Hammond (1978, p. 138), on the other hand,
mistakenly gives the name of the Illyrian leader as Pleuratus. See
Gattinoni 2004, pp. 50-51.
217
Diod. Sic. 16.69.7. Isocrates (Philippus 21) noted that Philip
controlled all the Illyrian territory, except that which lay along the
Adriatic coast. Demosthenes Philippic I 48 and Olynthiac I 13 also
mention Philip's successes in Illyria. Philip cemented his
relationship with Molossia by marrying Olympias, the king’s niece and
future mother of Alexander the Great. For Phillip II's Balkan
territories, see Hammond 1966a, pp. 244-246, 1978, p. 138, 1981, 1994,
pp. 436-439; Hatzopoulos 1987.
218
Plut. Alex. 9.5. Cf. Just. 9.7. See Hammond 1966a, p. 245; Cabanes
2001, pp. 65-67.
219
Glaucias was king of the Taulantii from 335-317 B.C.
220
Arr. Anab. 1.1.4-5. See Cabanes 1988a, pp. 133-137.
221
Diod Sic. 17.8.1; Arr. Anab. 1.5-6. Alexander defeated his
opposition and his Companion Cavalry pursued the retreating Illyrians
as far as Elbasan. From there Alexander moved southward to quell a
revolt in Thebes. The exact location of Pelion is unknown, although at
the time of the battle, it was in Illyrian territory held by the
Dassaretis. On the other hand, Little Lake Prespa, also once in the
territory of the Dassaretis, had been annexed by Philip and was thus a
part of Macedonia. Arrian described the battle and is the main source
for Alexander's Balkan campaign. For modern discussions of the battle
and speculation about the location of Pelion, see Hammond 1974a, pp.
77-87, 1977, pp. 506-509, 1978, pp. 138-140, 1980b, pp. 463-464, 1994,

66
including some who had fought against him, joined

Alexander's expedition to Asia.222 It is likely that

Epidamnus and Apollonia entered into an alliance with

Alexander as free and independent allies rather than as

tributaries and so benefited from the peace he established

in the Balkans. Hammond and Walbank note that the

widespread finds of silver coins minted at Apollonia and

Epidamnus during the last decades of the 4th century B.C.

are indicative of the prosperity of these two apoikiai at

the beginning of the Hellenistic period and their

importance as staging grounds for trade northwards and

eastwards into central Illyria.223

The Hellenistic period was one of rapid change

throughout the Mediterranean and ushered in a period of

increased mobility and demographic development. Power

struggles for control of the lucrative Greek ports in

southern Illyria increased under the warring successors of

Alexander.224 Antipater was left in charge of Macedonia when

Alexander marched east and continued to govern parts of

pp. 440-441, 1998, pp. 416-417; Hammond and Walbank 1988, p. 47. For a
discussion of the borders between Macedonia and Illyria, see Hammond
1970, 1977, pp. 503-509; 1981; Dell 1970b.
222
See Hammond 1998, pp. 407-410.
223
Hammond and Walbank 1988, p. 53.
224
The fact that both Apollonia and Epidamnus minted their own coinage
by the mid-4th century B.C. attests to their wealth (cf. Ceka 1972, pp.
23-33). For the importance of Apollonia and Epidamnus in the
Hellenistic period, see Gitti 1936, pp. 183-195; Derow 1970; Hammond
1967, pp. 595-613; Cabanes 1988a, pp. 67-69, 1988b; Errington 1989a;
Wilkes 1992, pp. 156-170. For their coinage see H. Ceka 1965, pp. 15-
73, 1972, pp. 21-177, 1982; Gjongecaj 1987, 1998; Picard and Gjongecaj
1995; Gjongecaj and Picard 1999, 2000.

67
Illyria.225 During his tenure, he founded a city at modern-

day Berat, which he named Antipatrea after himself.

Antipater appointed Polyperchon as his successor in 319

B.C. Polyperchon, however, was ousted by Antipater's son,

Cassander, who ruled Macedonia until his death ca. 298 B.C.

Already in 317 B.C., Cassander had forced Aeacides,

king of Epirus, to abandon the Epirote throne and flee from

Molossia.226 Aeacides' infant son, Pyrrhus, was taken in and

raised by the king of the Taulantians, Glaucias, and his

wife Beroea, a Molossian princess.227 In 314 B.C., Cassander

attacked and defeated the Taulantians, whose territory at

the time included both Apollonia and Epidamnus.228 Cassander

held the two city-states and used them as Macedonian ports

until 312 B.C., when they were recovered by Corcyra.

225
Arr., FGrH 156 F1.7; Hammond 1966a, p. 248, 1980b, pp. 471-474.
Antipater ruled Illyria in the manner of a Macedonian monarch, as
indeed his predecessors had and successors would. See Hammond 1993 and
Errington 1977 for discussions of the Macedonian monarchy and its
continuation in the Hellenistic period.
226
Cassander organized the territory of Epirus, now directly under
Macedonian control, as a republic and installed Lyciscus as
"epimelete." Cassander further alienated Epirus when he slew Olympias,
the mother of Alexander the Great, in 316 B.C. In 313 B.C., Cassander
was able to install a pro-Macedonian ruler in Epirus who lasted until
307 B.C. Cross 1932, pp. 128-134; Errington 1977.
227
Plut. Pyrrh. 2. Pyrrhus was born around 319 B.C. For the life of
Pyrrhus, see Lévêque 1957, pp. 83-116; Oikonomedes 1983; Cabanes 1988a,
pp. 142-158; Franke 1989. The Taulantii were the most powerful
Illyrian tribe in central Albania. Their capital was near Tirana, but
their holdings extended south of the Genusus and perhaps to Apollonia.
Cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F101; Thuc. 1.24.1; Pseudo-Scylax 26; Diod. Sic.
19.70.7; Ptolemy 5.12.2.
228
Hammond 1966a, p. 246. On the territory of the Atintania, see Cross
1932, p. 38; Hammond 1989b, pp. 12-23.

68
Epidamnus was then returned to Glaucias and the besieging

Macedonians were chased out of Apollonia.229

In 307 B.C., the anti-Macedonian faction in Molossia,

aided by Glaucias, restored Pyrrhus to the Epirote throne.230

Cassander tried to have Pyrrhus replaced, but was

unsuccessful. Eventually Pyrrhus extended his Molossian

empire to include Apollonia, Epidamnus, and other Illyrian

territories, perhaps even as far north as Shkodra.231 Upon

his death in 272 B.C., however, his northern holdings

reverted to Illyrian kings.232

Between the death of Cassander in 298 B.C. and the

beginning of the long reign of Antigonus II Gonatas in 276

B.C., Macedonia had five short-lived rulers.233 Antigonus

Gonatas ruled for 38 years until his death in 239 B.C.; his

reign was a period of peace and prosperity for Macedonia

and Illyria.234 He was succeeded by his son, Demetrius II of

Macedonia (r. 239-229 B.C.). Upon his death, Demetrius'

229
Diod. Sic. 19.67.6-7, 19.78.1; Polyaenus 4.11.4.
230
Tarn 1913, p. 19; Lévêque 1957, pp. 103-104. Glaucias and Pyrrhus
remained in close contact. Plut. Pyrrh. 2; Just. 17.3; Diod. Sic.
19.67, 70, 78.
231
App. Ill. 2.7. Anna Comnena (Alexiad 3.12.8) claims that Pyrrhus
lived in the city of Dürres; see Cross 1932, pp. 110-115; Franke 1955;
Lévêque 1957, pp. 183-187; Hammond 1967, pp. 585-588, 1992, p. 36;
Nederlof 1978; Cabanes 2001, pp. 69-73.
232
Pyrrhus was succeeded by his son, Alexander II. Cf. Plut. Pyrrh. 30;
Just. 26.2.9; Hammond 1967, pp. 588-589; Shipley 2000, p. 127.
233
Demetrius I (r. 294-288 B.C.), Pyrrhus (r. 288/7-285 B.C.),
Lysimachus (r. 288/7-281 B.C.), briefly Seleucus I (r. 281 B.C.), and
finally Ptolemy Keraunus (r. 281-279 B.C.). Shipley 2000, p. 116.
234
Antigonus was the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes and grandson of
Antigonus Monophthalmus. See Tarn 1913 for an old, but still
important, study of Antigonus Gonatas.

69
cousin, Antigonus Doson, married his widow and took over as

regent for Demetrius' son, the young Philip V.235 It is

possible that some type of "friendship" existed between

Apollonia and Rome during the reign of Antigonus II, since

several texts mentioned that the colony sent an embassy to

Rome in 266 B.C.; the reasons, however, are unknown.236

In the final decades of the 3rd century B.C.,

Apollonia and her hinterland were subjected to constant

warfare resulting from power struggles between the

Macedonians, Romans, and Illyrians.237 Rome became involved

in these struggles in 229 B.C., first against Illyrian

pirates,238 and then against the Macedonian kings. The

dispatching of Republican armies to the Adriatic to

terminate Illyrian piracy marked the beginning of Roman

military involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean.239 By 230

235
Plut. Aem. 7.1-4; Hammond and Walbank 1988, pp. 317-336.
236
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 20.14; Livy Per. 15; Zonar. 8.6.11; Val. Max.
6.6.5; Cass. Dio 41.49.2, 10 F42. See Holleaux 1921, pp. 1-5.
237
Rome first came into contact with "Illyrians" in 280 B.C when Pyrrhus
invaded Italian soil to assist the Tarentines, who, besieged by the
Romans, had asked him and his mercenary army for assistance. Although
victorious, Pyrrhus suffered heavy casualties and withdrew with his
force in 278 B.C. to the court of Dionysus of Syracuse. He returned to
mainland Italy in 276 B.C., but the Romans were ready for him and in
275 B.C. Pyrrhus retreated to Epirus. Tarentum did not surrender to
Rome until after Pyrrhus' death in 272 B.C. See Cross 1932, pp. 115-
120; Lévêque 1957, pp. 245-550; Franke 1989, p. 456; Cabanes 2001, pp.
69-73, 2005, pp. 27-30.
238
Cf. App. Ill. 1.3 on Illyrian piracy. See Holleaux 1921, pp. 22-28,
1928, pp. 824-827; Gruen 1984, pp. 359-367.
239
On Roman involvement in Illyria, see Heuzey 1886; Holleaux 1921, pp.
97-160, 1928, pp. 824-851; Swoboda 1932; Fine 1936; May 1946; Badian
1952; Oost 1954; Dell 1967a; Hammond 1968, pp. 4-7; Petzold 1971;
Errington 1972; Walbank 1976, pp. 266-269; Cabanes 1976, pp. 216-231,
1983, pp. 187-193, 1986a, pp. 75-79, 1988a, pp. 255-325, 2001, pp. 73-

70
B.C., Agron, king of the Ardiaei, had established garrisons

in Epidamnus, Apollonia, and Corcyra and was using these

ports as bases for piratical raids.240 Upon his death,

attacks on Italian trading vessels escalated under his

widow, Queen Teuta, who took power as regent for Agron's

infant son, Pinnes. Rome sent two ambassadors to Illyria

to confront Teuta, one of whom was killed, allegedly on her

orders.241 This assassination led to the first Illyrian War

and resulted in a permanent Roman presence in the Adriatic.

In response to the murder of its ambassador, Rome

dispatched both consuls.242 Gnaeus Fulvius Centumalus sailed

with 200 ships to Corcyra, which had recently been captured

by Agron, shortly before his death, and was being held for

Teuta by Demetrius of Pharos.243 Both the Corcyraeans and

Demetrius surrendered to Rome upon the arrival of the

fleet.244 The other consul, A. Postumius Albinus, was sent

82; Gruen 1984, pp. 358-436; Deniaux 1988, pp. 143-145; Wilkes 1992,
pp. 156-167.
240
App. Ill. 2.7-8; Polyb. 2.8-9. Gitti 1935; Badian 1952, pp. 72-73;
Papazoglou 1965, pp. 147-149; Hammond 1968, p. 4; Harris 1985, p. 195.
The Illyrian Ardiaei lived along the coast north of Lake Shkodra, with
their capital at Rhizon. These infamous seafaring pirates, who often
occupied coastal cities along the Adriatic and raided as far south as
Pylos in western Greece, had begun to expand southwards in the early
4th century B.C. See Hammond 1966a, pp. 243-247 for a genealogy of the
Ardiaei.
241
Polyb. 2.8. Cf. Appian (Ill. 2.7) for a slightly different version.
242
Polyb. 2.11. See Holleaux 1921, pp. 97-112; Hammond 1967, pp. 597-
598; Cabanes 1983, 1988a, pp. 268-278.
243
Scullard 2007, pp. 192-193. See Coppola 1993, pp. 29-31 for a
thorough discussion of Demetrius of Pharos and his relationship with
the Illyrians, Macedonians, and Romans.
244
App. Ill. 2.7. Corcyra was used as a Roman port until the early 2nd
century B.C. and was governed by a prefect until it was attached to the

71
with a large land force to Apollonia, where he was met by

the victorious Centumalus. Apollonia promptly surrendered

and joined the Roman alliance, reinforcing that polis's

already friendly relations with Rome. Both consuls then

went north to relieve Issa, which was under siege by

Teuta's forces, stopping at Epidamnus on the way to expel a

hostile Illyrian garrison.245 Teuta conceded defeat and

signed a treaty with Rome; she agreed to pay tribute to

Rome, to allow not more than two lembi at a time to sail

south of Lissus, and to cede control of Epidamnus,

Apollonia, and Corcyra.246 As a reward for his cooperation

with the Romans, Demetrius of Pharos was installed as

dynast in his native city, had his holdings in Illyria

increased, and was made regent of Agron's son, Pinnes,

giving him control of Teuta's kingdom upon her death.247

The Roman settlement in Illyria in 228 B.C. was

designed to establish a separation of alliances in order to

maintain a balance of power. Through the Treaty of Teuta,

Rome sought to weaken the power of individual Illyrian

tribes by creating "friends" who would act as checks on

province of Macedonia in 146 B.C. Polyb. 2.11; OCD3, p. 389, s.v.

Corcyra (W. M. Murray).
245
Polyb. 2.11. Epidamnus surrendered unconditionally to Rome, as did
the Taulantii, the Partheni, and several other Illyrian tribes.
Although Rome granted them their "freedom" in the Treaty of Teuta, in
reality this settlement marked the end of their independence.
246
Polyb. 2.11; App. Ill. 2.7. Polybius and Appian gave conflicting
reports on the terms of the treaty. See Errington 1989b, pp. 89-90.
247
Fine 1936, p. 29; Badian 1952, pp. 79-80; Hammond 1968, p. 6; Coppola
1993, pp. 41-51.

72
each other.248 Corcyra and Apollonia were made free by the

Romans under the terms of the treaty, although the

formalities of their relationships are not clear.249 Many of

the coastal cities and some of the inland tribes

surrendered unconditionally when the Romans first appeared

in 229 B.C.250 These, too, were allowed to remain

independent and were free from tribute, although all

essentially passed under Roman control at this point.

Demetrius of Pharos married Pinnes' mother, thereby

effecting his regency of the Ardiaei. Demetrius' ambition

provoked the Second Illyrian War with Rome because he

stopped honoring the terms of the Treaty of Teuta.251 He

began to raid cities that were considered "friends of Rome"

and his pirates ranged as far south as Pylos.252 He also

built a defensive fortress on the island of Pharos and

installed a garrison inland from Apollonia at the site of

248
The nature of the relationship between Rome and the Greek cities and
Illyrian tribes after the Treaty of Teuta remains a topic of debate.
App. (Ill. 2.7) called them φιλία of Rome and it has never been proven
conclusively whether or not any of them had a formal treaty with Rome.
On the status of Greek coastal cities and Illyrian tribes after they
surrendered to Rome, see Badian 1952, pp. 80-81; Walbank 1963, pp. 6-8;
Astin 1968; Petzold 1971, pp. 214-215; Errington 1972, 1989b, p. 89;
Derow 1973, 1991, pp. 261-270; Gruen 1984, pp. 367-368; Ferrary 1988,
pp. 24-33; Hammond 1989b; Eckstein 1999; Scullard 2007, p. 193.
249
App. Ill. 2.8. See discussion in Eckstein 1999, pp. 403-404.
250
Polyb. 2.11 and Derow 2003, p. 53.
251
Cf. App. Ill. 2.8.
252
See Holleaux 1921, pp. 130-139, 1928, pp. 844-849; Badian 1952, pp.
83-86; Dell 1970a, pp. 32-38; Gruen 1984, pp. 368-373; Coppola 1993,
pp. 53-84.

73
Dimale.253 In 219 B.C., Rome sent both consuls with a fleet

to Illyria to deal with him. Dimale fell within seven days

and the surrounding cities once again surrendered to Rome.

The rest of Demetrius' forces were defeated at Pharos; his

lands were confiscated and he was driven into exile, taking

refuge at the court of Philip V of Macedon.254 The Romans

established Pinnes on the Ardiaei throne, restored the

status quo, and went home.255

In 217 B.C., Scerdilaidas, a powerful Illyrian pirate,

began raiding cities along the Illyrian coast and in

Macedonian territory.256 Philip was impelled to retaliate

against Scerdilaidas and perceived this as an opportunity

to increase his territorial holdings in Illyria and gain

access to a port on the Adriatic.257 When Philip attacked

Scerdilaidas, the pirate asked for Roman assistance.

Rome's response was to demand that Philip hand over

253
Polyb. 3.18-19; App. Ill. 2.8. See Holleaux 1921, pp. 848-849;
Badian 1952, pp. 86-87, 1968, p. 16; Hammond 1967, pp. 602-603. This
event occurred immediately prior to the beginning of the Second Punic
War.
254
Dell 1970a; Wilkes 1992, pp. 163-164; Scullard 2007, pp. 194-195.
Antigonus III (Doson) had ruled in Macedonia as regent for Philip V
until his death in 221 B.C. Philip was only 15 years old when he
assumed the Macedonian throne. See Dell 1967b for the reign of
Antigonus III and Walbank 1940 for the reign of Philip V.
255
Badian 1952, p. 88; Dell 1977, p. 306; Wilkes 1992, p. 164. The
following year Hannibal invaded Italy.
256
Cabanes 1976, pp. 241-254; Will 1982, pp. 69-84; Papazoglou 1986, p.
446. See Hammond 1966a, p. 243 for the genealogy of Scerdilaidas.
257
Philip was involved in the "Social War (220-217 B.C.)" with the
Aetolian League in 217 B.C., but he put a speedy end to this war with
the Peace of Naupactus. Rome was unable to send immediate help to
Scerdilaidas because of its recent defeat by Hannibal at Lake
Trasimene. Holleaux 1928, pp. 852-855; Fine 1936, p. 39; Hammond 1968,
p. 15; Shipley 2000, pp. 372-373.

74
Demetrius of Pharos, which Philip refused to do.258 In 216

B.C. Philip sailed into the Adriatic with ships he had

built during the previous winter and attempted to annex

part of southern Illyria, concentrating on the area around

Apollonia. Scerdilaidas again appealed to the Romans for

help, but they, because they were still busy defending

Italian soil against Hannibal's invasion, sent a mere ten

ships; these, however, proved to be sufficient to scare

Philip into retreat.259

Philip made a treaty with Hannibal in 215 B.C.

specifying that the Romans be expelled from the eastern

Adriatic cities including Apollonia, Corcyra, Epidamnus,

and Dimale.260 The alliance greatly alarmed the Romans and

paved the way for the First Macedonian War. In 214 B.C.,

Philip again attempted to reconquer his former holdings in

Illyria (now under the protection of Rome) and initiated

attacks, beginning at Oricum and Apollonia. He failed to

take either city; there was a Roman army waiting for him at

Oricum and a garrison of 200 men inside the city of

258
Hammond 1968, pp. 5, 16; Harris 1985, p. 205; Coppola 1993, pp. 131-
168.
259
Polyb. 5.110; App. Mac. 1.
260
App. Mac. 1; Polyb. 7.9. The treaty between Philip V and Hannibal
was designed to return control of Epidamnus, Apollonia, and Corcyra to
Demetrius of Pharos, thereby giving Macedonia several ports on the
Adriatic. See Holleaux 1921, pp. 173-212, 1930a, pp. 116-122; Badian
1952, p. 89; Gruen 1984, pp. 375-377; Wilkes 1992, p. 165; Coppola
1993, pp. 169-194.

75
Apollonia that withstood his siege.261 Philip's army was

decimated as it camped outside the city walls of Apollonia

and Philip was forced to burn his fleet in order to retreat

overland into the interior.262 The Romans henceforth used

Apollonia as a permanent military base for their skirmishes

with the Macedonians as both vied for control of the Myzeqe

plain.263 In 210 B.C., after Rome made a treaty with

Philip's enemy, the Aetolian League,264 Philip once again

raided coastal Illyria, including Apollonia.265 Philip's

aggressive actions brought about an escalation in Roman

involvement in Illyria and paved the way for Rome's

conquest of Greece.

The First Macedonian War ended because of the lack of

initiative on both sides. In 205 B.C. the Romans sent a

force to Epidamnus and Philip came as far as Apollonia, but

did not engage.266 The Romans and Philip signed the Peace of

Phoenice, which brought about a short-lived cessation of

261
Dell 1977, p. 307.
262
Livy 24.40.17; Hammond 1967, pp. 608-609; Papazoglou 1986, p. 447;
Wilkes 1992, pp. 165-167.
263
Livy 29.12. Philip was able to forge an alliance among several
Illyrian tribes, including those in the vicinity of Apollonia, who had
pledged support to Rome (Polyb. 8.16; Livy 29.12).
264
App. Mac. 3.1; Polyb. 9.37. According to Livy (26.24.7-15) the
Senate, unable to send troops to Illyria immediately because of
Hannibal's threat to Rome, instructed the praetor, Laevinus, to find a
strong ally against Philip in the Balkans. Laevinus asked the
Aetolians and a treaty was cemented between them in 211 B.C. Holleaux
1930a, pp. 122-126; Badian 1952, pp. 89-90; Hammond 1968, pp. 18-19;
Dell 1977, p. 307; Harris 1985, p. 207.
265
Livy 26.25.1-2 describes the raids.
266
Livy 29.12; Derow 2003, pp. 57-58.

76
hostilities.267 This bilateral treaty was designed to

maintain the status quo and to delineate Roman and

Macedonian spheres of interest in Illyria.268 In exchange,

Philip was given control of inland routes through Lychnidus

to Dassaretis.269

In 201 B.C. the Macedonians again encroached upon

Illyrian territory when they tried to annex several Greek

cities that were friends of Rome and were allied with the

Aetolian League.270 In spite of the treaty, Rome had

received continuous complaints between 203-201 B.C. –

especially from Pergamum and Rhodes – about Philip, who had

begun attacking cities in the Aegean.271 The Romans sent an

embassy to investigate Macedonian activities and issued an

ultimatum. War was then declared by Rome.272 The Second

267
Livy 29.12.11-16. See Badian 1952, p. 90; Balsdon 1954, p. 32; Oost
1959, pp. 159-163; Gruen 1984, p. 381; Papazoglou 1978, pp. 148-155,
1986, pp. 447-448.
268
The port of Oricum was still independent in 206 B.C. Cf. Inscr.
Magn. No. 44 1.45.
269
Dell 1977, p. 307; Errington 1989b, p. 104.
270
Hammond 1967, p. 613; Dell 1977, p. 308.
271
App. Mac. 4. Pergamum and Rhodes both had firm, friendly relations
with the Romans. In 201 B.C. they sent a joint embassy to Rome to
inform the Senate about a secret pact between Antiochus III and Philip
V. The envoys alleged that Macedon and Syria were plotting to occupy
Egypt and Rome's holdings in the Aegean. Rhodes and Pergamum played on
Roman paranoia to get their point across: the united power of the
Macedonians and the Syrians would overwhelm the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Romans initially tried to alleviate (and investigate) the situation
through diplomatic channels. See Holleaux 1930b, pp. 144-161; Balsdon
1954, p. 34; Hammond 1966b; Gruen 1984, pp. 382-398; Errington 1989a,
pp. 244-289; Derow 2003, pp. 59-63.
272
App. Mac. 4; Livy 31.44.2-9. The goal of the embassy was to warn
Philip and Antiochus to stay away from Egypt. It is unlikely that
Philip actually understood the Roman policy in Illyria or believed that
the Romans cared about what happened there. See Badian 1952, pp. 91-
93; Balsdon 1954, pp. 38-40.

77
Macedonian War began in 200 B.C. when 200 Roman troops led

by the consul P. Sulpicius Galba landed at Apollonia and

took up a position along the Apsus.273 From there they tried

to dislodge Philip from his stronghold in the Aous valley.

Another Roman detachment marched east from Apollonia

through the mountains to the Macedonian frontier.274 The

Romans met with little success until the consul Flamininus

took charge of the Roman troops in 198 B.C. Less than a

year later, Flamininus defeated Philip at the Battle of

Cynoscephalae in Thessaly, the event that put an end to

Macedonian independence.275

Philip died in 179 B.C. and was succeeded by his son

Perseus, who was responsible for the Third Macedonian War

(171-168 B.C.), primarily fought in and over Greece.276 Rome

had been receiving complaints against Perseus since he had

assumed the throne, primarily from Eumenes II of Pergamum,277

and so in 171 B.C. the consul P. Licinius Crassus arrived

273
Hammond 1966b; Dell 1977, p. 309. The Apsus river is located between
Apollonia and Epidamnus.
274
Holleaux 1930b, pp. 173-179; Jacques 1995, p. 113.
275
Polyb. 18.19-27; Plut. Aem. 7.3, 8.4-5, Flam. 3-4. See Polyb. 18.44-
47 and App. Mac. 9.1-5 for the terms of the treaty.
276
Polyb. 27; Livy 42; App. Mac. 11, Ill. 2.9; Plut. Aem. 8.6-7. See
Plut. Aem. 7.5 and 8.5-9 on the strength of the Macedonian army that
Perseus inherited. Plutarch did not think highly of Perseus and
frequently remarked on his avarice (Aem. 8.9-9.1). See Dell 1977, pp.
311-315; Walbank 1977, pp. 84-86, 91-92; Will 1982, pp. 255-282; Gruen
1984, pp. 497-502; Derow 1989, p. 316, 2003, pp. 67-69.
277
App. Mac. 11-12. Cf. SIG3 643; Bagnall and Derow 2004, no. 44.
Eumenes, jealous of Perseus, played on the Senate's suspicions about
Perseus and claimed that he was "attacked" by the Macedonians at
Delphi. In 172 B.C., therefore, the Senate had already resolved on war
with Macedonia and sent an advance force to Greece. See Gruen 1984,
pp. 409-419.

78
in Apollonia with 37,000 soldiers.278 The force moved west

to meet Perseus and suffered a series of defeats in

northern Greece.279 The fighting was removed from the

Adriatic until 169 B.C., when Perseus was able to win the

Illyrian king, Genthius, to the Macedonian cause with a

bribe of 300 talents.280 The praetor L. Anicius Gallus was

based at Apollonia in 168 B.C. with a contingent that, in

addition to Roman soldiers, included 2000 Parthini

infantrymen and 200 cavalry. Anicius promptly captured

Genthius when he stormed the Illyrian stronghold at

Shkodra.281 Anicius then marched through Epirus to join

forces with Aemilius Paullus, who had been dispatched at

the same time to take control of the Roman troops fighting

in Greece against Perseus.282 The Romans won a decisive

victory in June of 168 B.C. against Perseus' united

Illyrian-Macedonian fighting force at the battle of Pydna

and completely annihilated the Macedonian army.283

278
Plut. Aem. 9.2.
279
Plut. Aem. 9.2-4; Polyb. 27.9-10.
280
App. Mac. 18.1, Ill. 2.9; Plut. Aem. 9.6, 13.1-3. Genthius was the
grandson of Scerdilaidas. Perseus induced him to fight against the
Romans by paying him half of the bribe up front. After Genthius
committed to battle, Perseus refused to pay the other half. Wilkes
1969, pp. 23-28, 1992, p. 173.
281
Plut. Aem. 13.3; App. Ill. 2.9. See Wilkes 1992, pp. 174-175.
282
App. Mac. 19; Plut. Aem. 10.
283
Plutarch (Aem. 12.3-12) attributes the Macedonian defeat to Perseus'
parsimony. Although he left Macedonia in good order and as a friend
of Rome, Aemilius Paullus authorized his soldiers to plunder over 70
Epirote cities because they had sided with Perseus. More than 150,000
inhabitants were taken as captives to Rome (Plut. Aem. 29; App. Mac.
18.3, Ill. 2.9). An ash layer at Antigonea is thought to be from this
destruction. While it is unlikely that the plundering reached as far

79
 Perseus was the last of the Antigonids and the last

Macedonian king. Upon his defeat in 167 B.C., the Romans

put an end to the Macedonian monarchy. Rome's policy of

establishing "friendships" with the Hellenistic cities had

failed. The Romans divided Macedonia into four

independent, self-governing parts and Illyria into three;

each part was prohibited from cooperating with the others

politically, militarily, or economically.284 This plan might

have been successful, but a Macedonian pretender to the

throne, Andriscus, emerged; when the Romans defeated him,

again at Pydna, in 148 B.C.,285 in 146 B.C. Macedonia was

made into a new Roman province and a permanent Roman

governor was installed.286 Apollonia and Epidamnus probably

fell within the territory of this province since Illyricum

is usually thought to begin north of the Drin and Shkodra

seems to have been the dividing line in 40 B.C.287 This

north as Apollonia, it is nevertheless clear that this episode of

massive destruction had a profound impact on that polis, which can be
seen in the changes in settlement patterns that are described in
Sections III and IV. For a discussion of the impact of Paullus' policy
in Epirus, see Hammond 1967, pp. 629-635; Wilkes 1992, pp. 173-174.
284
The Taulantii, as well as other Illyrian tribes who had remained
loyal to Rome, were rewarded in the settlement of 168 B.C. "with a
grant of freedom and with immunity from taxation (Livy 45.26.13)." See
Hammond 1966a, p. 247. The Romans were attempting to destroy Illyrian
and Macedonian unity by dividing the territory into independently
functioning republics.
285
Morgan 1969, pp. 423-427; Will 1982, pp. 387-390; Gruen 1984, pp.
431-433; Helliesen 1986.
286
Morgan 1969, pp. 422, 428-430; Papazoglou 1972; Gruen 1984, pp. 433-
434; Shipley 2000, p. 151; Shpuza 2006, pp. 166-167.
287
Deniaux 1988, pp. 143-155. The area later became part of Epirus Nova
when Diocletian reorganized the provinces in the late 3rd century A.D.
See Wilkes 1969, p. 31, 1992, pp. 207-208.

80
settlement in 146 B.C. appears to have led to a period of

peace and prosperity for the former Greek colonies at

Apollonia and Epidamnus.

In Late Hellenistic times, Apollonia was described by

Cicero as an "urbem magnam et gravem."288 The city played an

important strategic role in the wars between Pompey and

Caesar, because it was used as a staging ground by both

generals.289 Octavian was sent to Apollonia to pursue his

military training and other studies in 45 B.C. and he

returned to Italy from there when he received word that his

uncle, Caesar, had been killed.290 Shortly afterwards, in

the winter of 44/3 B.C., Brutus besieged the forces of C.

Antonius that were stationed at Apollonia.291

The polis appears to have flourished as an important

trading post and intellectual center throughout the first

centuries of the Empire. The site of Apollonia became less

important after an earthquake changed the course of the

Aous river in the 4th century A.D. Felix, bishop of

Apollonia and Byllis, was listed at the Council of Ephesus

in A.D. 431292 and Eusebius, the bishop of Apollonia alone,

288
Cic. Phil. 27. Cf. Zippel 1877, pp. 132-139; N. Ceka 1982b, p. 33.

289
Caes. B Civ. 3.12; App. Ill. 3.13. See Heuzey 1886.
290
App. B Civ. 2.9; Plut. Brut. 22; Suet. Aug. 10; Vell. Pat. 2.59.
291
Cabanes 2001, pp. 85-87.
292
I.33.47, 62.11 (Schwartz). The bishop from Dyrrachium, which was a
metropolitan see, was also listed (33.15, 45.63, 62.17 [Schwartz]).
See Camelot 1962, pp. 25-43.

81
attended the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451.293 The city

remained an episcopal center and was mentioned in the 6th

century A.D. by Hierocles in the Synekdemos as one of 20

settlements worthy to be called a city in the Illyrian

provinces, now a part of Epirus Nova.294 The Paleo-Christian

period between 4th century A.D. and the construction of the

church of Shën Mri in the 13th century A.D. is currently

under investigation by Skender Muçaj.295

With the disintegration of the Roman Empire, the

territory of modern Albania was incorporated into the

Byzantine Empire. From the 4th until the late 14th century

A.D., Albania was variously ravaged and/or ruled by

Byzantines, Epirotes, Bulgars, Slavs, Avars, Normans, and

Venetians.296 Albanian troops fought with the Serbs against

the Turks in the fatal battle on the plain of Kosovo in

1389 and Albania was subsequently incorporated into the

Ottoman Empire.297 One bright note in late Medieval Albanian

history was the hero Skënderbeg, who succeeded in uniting

disparate petty Albanian rulers and led a revolt against

the Ottomans in the following century.

293
I.3.319; III.1.281; IV.1.128, 9.94; VI.1.299, 9.312 (Schwartz).
Eucharius of Dyrrachium is mentioned no less than 19 times. See
Camelot 1962, pp. 115-137; Price and Gaddis 2005.
294
Hierocles Synekdemos 653.3 (Honigmann). Dyrrachium, Byllis, Aulona,
and Buthrotum are also included on this list. See Anamali 1984, p. 70.
295
Muçaj 2003-2004.
296
Hill 1992; Martin 1992; Stephenson 2000; Wilkes 1992, pp. 267-280.
297
Cf. Winnifrith 1992, pp. 74-88.

82
 The many sources revealed in this chapter permit one

to cobble together a skeletal history for Apollonia, as I

have done, particularly for the tumultuous decades in the

Hellenistic period that witnessed the arrival of the Romans

in the eastern Mediterranean. A pivotal geographic

location at the mouth of the Adriatic brought in succession

Greeks and Romans to its shores.298 The native Illyrians

that they met were strange both to easterners and to

westerners, sometimes viewed as pirates, other times as

fierce but undisciplined fighters, and always as

barbarians.299 Any further analysis of the sources relevant

to their character must be, however, outside the scope of

this thesis.

298
See Chapter 5 on the desirability of the location of Apollonia.
299
Cf. Thuc. 4.125-126; Pseudo-Scylax 14-27; Theopompus, FGrH 115 F39-
40; Polyb 2.8; Diod. Sic. 16.2.8-9; Arr. Anab. 1.1-6.

83
84
 Chapter 3.

Albanian Archaeology since World War II

Each age, in each country, writes

its own history and its own
archaeology.300

The problem of the origin of our

people deserves to be treated in depth.
This problem can be studied in part
from archaeological discoveries, which
furnish irrefutable proofs, and from
language, which despite its evolution
along the axis of time, is one of the
indications of the origins of peoples.301

Introduction

History and archaeology have always played and

continue to play a vital role in the formation of

identities; the past has been used as a tool to support

conflicting ethnic, territorial, and nationalistic claims.302

The manipulation of history to bolster nationalistic

demands for contested territories is highlighted by recent

events in the Balkans, which have attracted the attention

300
Hodder 1991, p. 10.
301
"Problemi i rëndësishëm që meriton të diskutohet është ai i
prejardhjes së popullit tonë. Ky problem mund të studiohet duke u
nisur, e para, nga objektet arkeologjike, të cilat nuk të lënë të
lëfizësh, dhe e dyta, nga gjuha, e cila, megjithëse gjatë kohës pëson
ndryshime, është një nga treguesit e origjinës së popujve (Hoxha 1985,
p. 30; Vepra 17 [1959], p. 177)."
302
For recent articles and edited volumes discussing the use of the past
to support ethnic and nationalistic claims, see Ganthercole and
Lowenthal 1990; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Arnold 1996; Diaz-Andreu and
Champion 1996; Graves-Brown, Jones, and Gamble 1996; Jones 1996;
Meskell 1998, 2002; Wallace 1998; Fotiadis 2001; Galaty and Watkinson
2004a; Hamiliakis 2007; Meskell 2007; Davis 2007.

85
of the popular press.303 This process is especially evident

in the way the past has been used in Albania.304 Although

most of the Balkan countries have received extensive

treatment in academic literature, Albania was, until very

recently, almost completely ignored in scholarly discourse,

western and eastern alike.305 This exclusion perhaps arises

because it has been one of the most "mysterious" and least

well known of the Balkan countries due to the restrictive

policies of its communist government. Albania has not

always been marginalized within the wider European

community, as it is currently: the monumental remains from

the Graeco-Roman period bear witness to the splendor of

Albania's Classical past and lend a certain power to the

past in the present.306

The Graeco-Roman past in particular has been called

upon to play many and varied roles in the promotion of

nationalist ideologies both in Albania and in Western

Civilization in general.307 The discourse about the

importance and meaning of the Graeco-Roman legacy in

Western Culture and beyond has recently undergone intense

303
See, for example, Kaplan 1993; Boulat 2000; Vesilind 2000; Meskel
2002, pp. 288-289. Two recent examples of the manipulation of history
for nationalistic claims are evident in the struggle between Greece and
FYROM for use of the name "Macedonia" and between Serbia and Kossovo
over the latter's independence. Cf. Fotiadis 2001.
304
Cf. Veseli 2006, pp. 323-324.
305
Kaplan 1993. For other areas of the Balkans, see Danforth 1995;
Karakasidou 1997; Todorova 1997.
306
See Droit 1998.
307
See below.

86
restructuring and is currently the focus of heated debate

that has led to a re-evaluation and reinterpretation that

extends beyond academically defined disciplinary

boundaries.308 The manipulation of antiquity for

nationalistic purposes is especially evident in Albania,

where the communist government that kept the country

isolated for almost half a century used the past to serve

its ideological ends.309 Such ideologies determined how the

meager textual references to Albania and Apollonia, as

reviewed in Chapter 2, have been interpreted and how

material culture from archaeological excavations was read,

especially in relation to Greek – Illyrian interactions.

This chapter explores the ideological use of the

Classical past in Albania, specifically as it has affected

scholarship exploring the ethnic identity and material

culture of the indigenous Illyrian population, the Greek

colonization of the area, interactions between the native

peoples and the Greek colonists, and the position of

Albania in the wider Classical world. The view of the

Graeco-Roman period in southern Illyria presented to the

academic community, both inside and outside Albania, was

molded by specific political needs for almost two

generations. This chapter seeks to clarify the ideological

308
Cf. Whitley 2001, pp. 17-41; Meskel 2002, pp. 286-289; Owen 2005, p.
14.
309
Veseli 2006, pp. 326-329.

87
underpinnings of archaeological conclusions that have been

reached about the Greek colony at Apollonia by Albanian

scholars over the past six decades and to reassess their

validity. I begin by situating modern Albania in space and

time, with a brief review of the history of the state.

Next I outline the history of scholarship about Albania and

the development of archaeology within the country,

discussing investigations by non-Albanians in the period

between the founding of the modern state of Albania and

World War II. Following this is a review of the political

and cultural agenda of Enver Hoxha, the ideology and aims

of excavations conducted in Albania since World War II

during the period of Hoxha’s rule, and the post-communist

reopening of research to collaborative projects between

Albanian and foreign institutions. As of yet, no coherent

post-communist theoretical orientation has emerged nor is

there any distinct Albanian voice as yet.

Today the West views Albania as a small, poor,

"backward" country situated on the fringes of Eastern

Europe. Its current territorial definition was only

established by the Great Powers at the conclusion of World

War I.310 To the east Albania is bordered by Kosovo; to the

northeast lies Serbia (Fig. 2.1). To the southeast is the

newly constituted country of Macedonia or FYROM (Former

310
Swire 1930; Hutchings 1992; Vickers 1995.

88
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). In the south Albania is

bordered by Greece, a country where some politicians and

inhabitants still covet the territory of Albania's Greek-

speaking minority.311 To the west, only sixty kilometers

across the Straits of Otranto, is Italy. Each of these

neighboring countries, in addition to others farther

afield, have sought to conquer, to rule, or to exert

territorial claims over parts or all of Albania. Most of

these territorial claims cite some historical foundation

that has been bolstered by the manipulation of Albania's

Graeco-Roman past.312

Albania was one of the last countries to be liberated

from the yoke of Ottoman rule and was recognized as an

independent state only in 1912.313 During the Balkan Wars

and World War I the fledgling state was occupied by Austro-

Hungarians, Serbs, Italians, and Greeks.314 The Greeks set

up an "independent" government of Northern Epirus in 1914

that controlled southern Albania from Himara in the west to

Korça in the east in opposition to the newly created

Albanian government headed by Fan Noli.315 The Greeks, as

311
This "Megali Idea" ("Great Idea" of "recovering" supposedly Greek
territory outside the borders of the modern Greek state) was introduced
by John Kolettis in 1844. See Kitromilidis 1998.
312
See Ceka 2005, p. 7, who notes that Albania was occupied by
foreigners at least 16 times.
313
See Winnifrith 1992 and Falaschi 1992 for the end of Ottoman rule and
the beginning of Albanian statehood.
314
Logoreci 1977; Kaplan 1993, p. 44.
315
Vickers 1995, p. 66; Davis 2000, p. 80.

89
part of their vision of "Greater Greece," urged the

commission investigating minorities in the former Ottoman

territories in Europe to draw up borders that would unite

this territory with Greece.316 The present day borders of

the country were established by the Great Powers at the

Conference of Ambassadors in 1921 as a result of the

commission's report.317 Shortly after the official

"definition" of Albania's territory, Benito Mussolini

initiated an Italian occupation of the country as a first

step in his attempt to recreate the "Roman Empire."318

Albania was finally liberated from foreign domination at

the end of World War II, only to be closed off from the

outside world in 1945 by the hard-line communist regime

spearheaded by the former guerilla leader Enver Hoxha.319

The policies established then continued throughout the

entire period of socialism until the government collapsed

in 1991, six years after Hoxha's death. Since that time, a

fledgling "democracy" has struggled to define the

orientation of the modern state.

Albania's Classical legacy has figured prominently in

20th century politics, from its liberation from the Ottoman

316
Stickney 1926. See Davis 2000 for a discussion of state sponsored
archaeological work undertaken by the Greeks at Classical sites in
Albania in an effort to strengthen their territorial claims.
317
Stickney 1926; Swire 1930, p. 427; Hutchings 1992; Davis 2000, p. 83.
318
Cf. Gilkes 2003b, pp. 39-47, 2004, pp. 44-50.
319
Bland 1992.

90
Empire in the early twentieth century through Mussolini's

fascist regime (which used history and archaeology to

support the ideal of the New Roman Empire), during the

communist government of Hoxha, to the present day and the

current British (some would say neo-colonial) attempts to

reshape the face of the archaeological infrastructure in

the country.320 Until the end of World War II, archaeology

in Albania had been almost solely in the hands of foreign

researchers.321 An "Albanian Archaeology" that is uniquely

Albanian was, in any case, a relatively new creation.

Foreign Archaeology in Albania

Wherever elements drawn from the

past are purposefully incorporated into
a national narrative under the
sponsorship of a central authority,
alterations in attitude to that past,
inevitable over time given changes in
popular perception, state ideology and
scholarship, will affect the national
self-image, so that the past becomes
relevant in itself. What may have
begun as inert raw material from the

320
In 1991 Hodder (p. 8) noted that it was difficult to evaluate "the
impact on archaeology of the events leading up to the 1989
transformation of Eastern Europe." Almost 20 years later it is
possible in Albania to see the revival of a "colonial" type of
archaeology at a time when "colonialism" is dying out in the rest of
the world. This is due in large measure to the economic difficulties
experienced by Albania and the shortage of government/state money
available for archaeology. Albanian archaeologists are thus forced to
turn to foreign "collaboraters" in order to continue their research.
Cf. Hodges 2004, pp. 151-156.
321
See below.

91
 quarry, acquires the power to shape the
present and future.322

The internal factor and the

ideological factor have always been two
essential elements in the study of
Albanian problems. It is for this
reason that the studies of our nation
are incontestably better and more
profound than those of any foreign
Albanologist, independent of the fact
that the foreign researcher has been
able to be or still is in our day a
great scientific expert.323

Archaeology in Albania began as the domain of

foreigners who were primarily interested in Albania's

Graeco-Roman past. The exploration and documentation of

Albania's Classical antiquities was initiated with accounts

produced by foreign travelers of visible ruins and known

artifacts. Although most were well versed in the Classics,

as archaeologists they were amateurs at best, focused on

exploring Greek and Roman monuments rather than native

Illyrian culture.324 The most famous of these include the

French consul François Pouqueville and the British traveler

322
Carras 2004, p. 294.
323
"Fakotrë kryesorë për studimin e problemeve shqiptare kanë qënë dhe
mbeten faktori i brendshëm dhe ai ideologjik. Për këtë arsye studimet
e njerëzve tanë janë, pa diskutim, me nivel më të lartë e më të thella
se të çdo albanologu të huaj, sado autoritet i madh shkencor që mund të
ketë qënë ai edhe në ditët tona (Hoxha 1985, p. 42)."
324
E.g., Korkuti 1971, pp. i-ii: "The limited research and studies we
have from the pre-liberation period were done by foreign scholars.
They traced mainly the Greek and Roman civilizations, restricting the
scope of their activity to our coastal cities of antiquity. Even when
they went beyond these limits, their investigations did not touch the
basic problems of the history and culture of the Illyrians." Cf.
Gilkes 2003b, pp. 36-39.

92
William Leake.325 The English landscape artist Edward Lear

also visited and made sketches of many Albanian sites.326

Leon Heuzey and Honoré Daumet were, however, the first

modern academics to discuss extensively the archaeology of

Albania. They visited Albania in 1861 as part of the

French archaeological mission to Macedonia and published a

description of the monuments and inscriptions they

encountered.327 Shortly before their visit, Johann von Hahn,

an Austrian, had published Albanesische Studien, the first

detailed study of the ancient Illyrians.328 The earliest

systematic recording of ancient sites in Albania was made

prior to the First World War by Carl Patsch.329 During the

war, important topographical investigations were conducted

by Austrians Camille Praschniker and Arnold Schober; these

remain the foundation for the modern study of many Greek

and Illyrian sites.330 The first scientific excavations in

the country were conducted during World War I by

Praschniker.331

Following the war, the Albanian government issued

permission first to the French and then to the Italians to

set up archaeological missions in the central and southern

325
Pouqueville 1805, 1820; Leake 1835.
326
Lear 1851.
327
Heuzey and Daumet 1876; Heuzey 1886.
328
von Hahn 1854.
329
Patsch 1904.
330
Praschniker and Schober 1919.
331
Praschniker 1922-1924; Wilkes 1992, p. 10. See Legrand 1912 for a
bibliography of early publications related to Albania.

93
parts of the country respectively. The French began work

at Apollonia, the Italians at Butrint and Phoenice.332 Thus

was Albania's antiquity the preserve of non-Albanians who

arrived with their own political agendas and prejudices,333

from the very first extant accounts of Albania's

antiquities left by travelers until the end of World War II

and the rise of the communist government of Hoxha.

Enver Hoxha and Communist Albania

Over a long period the Party of

Labour of Albania and Comrade Enver
Hoxha have frequently pointed out the
phenomenon of the indomitable
resistance of the Albanian people who,
through the centuries, have faced up to
the most difficult situations in which
their very existence, their ethnic and
cultural identity were endangered.334

I responded to comrade Stalin that

the origin of our people is very
ancient and that Albanian is an Indo-
European language. There are numerous
theories on this proposition, but the
truth is that we are of Illyrian
origin. Our people descend from the
Illyrians. There also exists a theory
according to which the Albanian people
is the most ancient people of the

332
For a history of the French at Apollonia, see Cabanes 2003-2004; Ceka
2003-2004; Nallbani 2003-2004; Dimo, Quantin, and Vrekaj 2007; for the
Italians at Butrint, see Gilkes and Miraj 2000, pp. 111-120; Gilkes
2003a, pp. 3-18, 2004, pp. 44-50, 2005, pp. 1-2; Miraj 2003, pp. 29-33;
Hodges et al. 2004; Hodges 2006, pp. 25-50; Hodges and Hansen 2007; for
the Italians at Phoenice, see de Maria 2004; de Maria and Gjongecaj
2002.
333
E.g., the Italians were fixated on substantiating their own
territorial claims in Albania based on the past. Cf. Gilkes 2003a, pp.
18-21; Miraj 2003, pp. 23-28.
334
Buda 1984, p. 9.

94
 Balkans and that the pre-Homeric origin
of the Albanians reaches back to the
Pelasgians.335

Enver Hoxha was very much attuned to the power of the

past, which he used to create a national identity. Through

the manipulation of history and archaeology, he shaped the

way modern Albanians think about themselves.336 Hoxha placed

emphasis on the role of the indigenous Illyrians, who

inhabited Albania prior to the first historic invasion, the

arrival of Archaic Greek colonists. He ordered the

production of a "master narrative" to which all were

required to adhere, in which it was essential to highlight

the intellectual and artistic achievements of the natives

prior to the appearance of "civilized" societies and

culture. The indigenous people did not evolve through

diffusion, but rather through their own innate abilities;

ethnogenesis was therefore forcefully promoted. It was

additionally necessary to demonstrate a historical

continuum from ancient to modern times that would eradicate

335
"Unë iu përgjigja shokut Stalin se origjina e popullit tonë është
shumë e lashtë dhe gjuha e tij është indoevropiane. Ka shumë teori për
këtë çështje, por e vërteta është se origjina jonë është ilire. Ne
jemi një popull me prejardhje ilire. Ka, gjithashtu, një teori që
shtron tezën se populli shqiptar është populli më i vjetër i Ballkanit
dhe origjina e lashtë parahomerike e shqiptarëve janë pellazgët (Hoxha
1985, p. 40)."
336
Hoxha's creation of an Albanian national consciousness is not so
unlike that created by the modern Greek state. See Hamilakis 2003, pp.
59-69 and Carras 2004 for a discussion of the formation of the Greek
national consciousness.

95
any imprints left by foreign dominion. Thus was the

Illyrian culture used for political purposes to promote a

sense of national and ethnic unity.

Hoxha's political and social agenda dictated the

program of archaeological and historical investigation and

outlined specific goals for both disciplines: scholars were

to investigate the origin of the Illyrians and the genesis

of the Albanian people.337 The resulting history of Albania

was to be written within a Marxist-Leninist framework.338

"We are able to affirm without deceiving ourselves that it

is for the first time that we have in our hands a 'History

of Albania' written from the point of view of Marxism-

Leninism. Naturally the purposed text has lacunae but the

discussions that it will subsequently provoke will

ameliorate that."339 This passage, written by Hoxha in 1959,

a decade after the beginning of the communist era, affirms

the intellectual framework for future studies.

Hoxha emphasized the need to investigate the

ethnogenesis of the Illyrians and the unbroken continuity

that existed in Albania.340 Although Albania had been

337
Korkuti 1988, p. 10.
338
Cf. Anamali and Korkuti 1971, p. 12.
339
"Ne mund të themi pa u gabuar se kemi në duar për herë të parë një
"Histori të Shqipërisë" të shkruar në dritëen e marksizëm-leninizmit.
Natyrisht, në maketin që është përgatitur ka edhe boshllëqe, por me
diskutimit që po zhvillohen ai do të përmirësohet (Hoxha 1985, p. 30;
Vepra 17 [1959], p. 177)."
340
Cf. Galaty and Watkinson 2004b, pp. 8-10; Hodges 2004, pp. 149-150.
See Golden and Toohey 1997, pp. 1-7 for some of the problems

96
subjected to numerous foreign incursions throughout her

history, the official interpretation asserted that none of

these had had a lasting effect on the "Albanian people,"

who remained the direct descendents of the Illyrians. In

the face of their continuous struggle against outsiders,

archaeology and history were used as tools to define who

the Albanians are not, rather than who they are, which

promoted an "us" versus "them" view of the past.341

Material culture was to be used as a means to identify

ethnicity.342 Yet the Classical past was in direct conflict

with Hoxha's emphasis on the autochthonous origin of the

Albanian people.343 While Hoxha as the head of the Party of

Labor of the Albanian State insisted that the

archaeological agenda emphasize research into the

ethnogenesis of the Albanian people, Hoxha the humanist,

who had been educated in post-World War I France, could not

bring himself to ignore entirely the rich Classical

heritage of his homeland.344 He was aware that the Illyrian

civilization did not play the same role in world history as

surrounding discussions of continuity and change in "historical

research."
341
Petruso 2002.
342
The idea that sets of artifacts could be used to define distinct
groups of people or "cultures," which have come to be equated with
ethnicities, was developed in English scholarship by Childe (1925).
See Jones 1997, pp. 15-26, 1998 for a discussion of the relevance of
archaeological cultures.
343
For a discussion of Hoxha's philosophy of archaeology, see Korkuti
1988.
344
See Hoxha 1985, p. 33-35.

97
the Greek and Roman, but Albanian archaeologists could

prove that their past had contributed to the richness of

humanity.345 He attempted to reconcile the discrepancies

inherent in a colonial Greek presence within an indigenous

landscape and to fit the "Classical past" into communist

ideology by stressing the reciprocal nature of interactions

between the Greeks and the Illyrians.346 These tensions are

manifested in research agendas and archaeological

publications.

As Muzafer Korkuti and Karl Petruso note, "Albania

might well be the best place in Europe to study archaeology

of historical-materialist stripe, since the country

remained hard line Socialist long after the U.S.S.R. had

softened and broadened its own official orientation in the

post-Stalin era."347 Censorship was rigid in Albania during

the communist era and the centralized government tightly

controlled the production of knowledge, determining what

was appropriate to print. One needed to pay tribute to the

party line and "the paeans to Hoxha typically found in

books on Albanian archaeology that appeared during his

345
"We have contributed to the culture and richness of humanity. (Ka
kontribuar në kulturën e përgjithshme të njerëzimit) (Hoxha 1984, p.
32; Vepra 17 [1959], p. 481)." This passage is also quoted in Korkuti
1988, p. 9. Cf. Anamali 1976a.
346
Anamali 1970, pp. 89-90, 1972, p. 12; Strazimiri, Nallbani, and Ceka
1973, p. xix; Mano 1971, pp. 202-203, 1976, pp. 307-308; Korkuti 1988.
347
Korkuti and Petruso 1993, p. 703.

98
reign were a prerequisite to publication."348 Nationalism

"is always at the surface of research into the archaeology

and history of Albania."349

The title of the opening paper in the 1985 volume of

Iliria speaks eloquently to the role of government in

archaeology and to the political agenda endorsed by the

archaeologists: "Enver Hoxha – Inspirateur et protecteur de

l'archéologie albanaise."350

Albanian Archaeology Uniquely Albanian

With the level achieved in

economic and social development, with
their resistance in the centuries to
the assimilating pressure exerted by
the empires of Antiquity and the Middle
Ages, and with their ceaseless
struggles against social and national
oppression, the Albanian people have
been the decisive factor for historical
progress, and have preserved and
further developed their identity, have
created their Albanian nationality with
common cultural features and have
developed into a modern nation.351

"Albanian" archaeology was born with the communist

government and the creation of the ethno-archaeological

348
Korkuti and Petruso 1993, pp. 703-705; Galaty and Watkinson 2004b,
pp. 8-10.
349
Korkuti and Petruso 1993, p. 705.
350
The article is written by one of the leading Albanian archaeologists,
S. Islami (1985). The Albanian title is "Enver Hoxha – Frymëzues dhe
përkrahës i arkeologjisë albanaise."
351
Editorial 1984, p. 4.

99
museum in Tirana in 1948.352 Prior to this, all excavations

had been undertaken by foreigners. Albanian archaeology

conducted by Albanians did not begin until after Albania

was "liberated" by the communists in 1944.353 Even at that

time there was no centralized organization or institution

that could immediately undertake archaeological research

nor were there any scholars available to conduct scientific

and systematic investigations. Archaeology first became

somewhat later a part of the government sponsored

educational program under the aegis of the Institute of

Science and of the fledgling ethnographic-archaeological

museum. The tasks of the staff members of the museum were

"the protection, preservation, and study of archaeological

monuments."354 An archaeological section was added to the

Institute of History and Linguistics in 1955 and to the

Institute of History in 1972. These remained the main

governmental mechanism for archaeological study and

fieldwork until the Center for Archaeological Research was

created in Tirana in 1976.355 The Center, which was

"reorganized and renamed the Institute of Archaeology in

1992," was a branch of the Academy of Sciences and, until

2007, was responsible for all archaeological research and

352
Editorial 1976, p. 13.
353
Cf. Korkuti 1971, pp. i-ii; Ceka 2005, pp. 9-15.
354
Andrea 1984, p. 102.
355
See Ceka 2001, p. 16; Hodges 2004, p. 149; Veseli 2006, p. 325;
Martin 2006, pp. 370-372.

100
museum curation in Albania.356 From its inception, the

Center was "divided into three scientific sections

(prehistory, Illyrian antiquity, and mediaeval)" and also

curated numismatic and anthropological collections.357

"Albanian" archaeology was essentially an Albanian

product, although it used other European schools as models

in some respects.358 As noted above, Marxism was the

dominant ideology.359 Communism dictated that all historical

and archaeological interpretation fall within a processual

Marxist-Leninist framework that was explanatory in nature.

This framework was immalleable and could not be questioned.

The goal was to uncover material culture that could be used

to write cultural history that would explain (originally

create) the history of the Albanian people. Models were

developed to explain social change as a product of

indigenous initiative rather than outside stimuli.

Archaeologists were required to provide evidence to support

the model rather than to challenge it. Thus, considerable

energy was expended on developing and interpreting

typologies of "Albanian" material culture.

356
Korkuti and Petruso 1993, p. 705. The International Center for
Albanian Archaeology (ICAA), a private institution funded by the
Packard Humanities Institute, was created in Tirana in 1999. See Lafe
2005, p. 119.
357
Andrea 1984, p. 102.
358
Bejko 1998, p. 197.
359
Cf. Korkuti 1971, p. ii.

101
 The "National Conference on the Formation of the

Albanian People, their Language, and Culture" was held in

Tirana in 1982 to discuss "the genesis of the Albanian

people and its fundamental aspects, the Illyrian-Albanian

continuity, the autochthony of the Albanians on their

territories, and the formation of the Albanian nation with

its language, culture and territory in the Middle Ages."360

These topics comprised the science of Albanology. The

starting point for these studies was the definition of the

"ethnos," which is more or less equivalent to Gordon

Childe's "culture." The ethnos was "a social community

formed historically on the basis of coexistence, with a

common or cognate language, with identical or similar

material and spiritual culture, with inter-relations of

production and exchange, all this on the basis of a

definite territory without which these factors cannot

operate."361 The "ethnos" could be recognized from evidence

of language, religion, material culture, and physio-

biological characteristics.362 Such investigations, "carried

out on an objective scientific basis," would show the

360
Editorial 1984, p. 3.
361
Korkuti 1971, pp. iii-iv; Buda 1984, p. 11.
362
See Hall 1995 for the role of language in defining ancient
ethnicities.

102
indigenous Illyrian origin of all the characteristics that

comprise the modern Albanian "ethnos."363

It is important to recognize that many of the dominant

concepts of the "theoretical approach" practiced in

Albanian archaeology, as well as Childe's ideas, originated

from Gustaf Kossinna's 1920 publication of Die Herkunft der

Germanen which outlined the definition of archaeological

"cultures."364 This concept of archaeological cultures was

carried to its infamous and illogical terminus in the 1930s

and early 1940s by the Third Reich in Germany, which used

it to support the idea of a Nordic-Aryan "race." A crucial

insight into Albanian archaeology is provided by the "Nazi

link between ethnogenesis and archaeology."365 Ian Hodder

illustrates the link between fascism and ethnogenesis with

the example of Portugal from 1926 to 1974:

The ideology of the regime was

based to a large extent on the
glorification of the past, and on the
identification with those same
'glorious' traditions. Even the
prehistoric past was used to justify
the independent existence of the
Portuguese state. . . It was argued
that there was a cultural
distinctiveness to the populations
living in the Portuguese territory as
early as the neolithic period and that
there was a racial continuity between

363
Buda 1984, p. 12.
364
Hodder 1991, p. 1.
365
Hodder 1991, p. 2.

103
 the modern Portuguese and the neolithic
peoples of western Iberia.366

Another aspect of Kossinna's work that persisted in

Albanian archaeology after the communist "liberation" was

the commitment to empirical description, the collection of

data, and the cataloguing of artifacts, rather than the

development of any body of abstract theory or questioning

of the data. This method arose, in part, because of the

difficulty that Albanian archaeologists had in applying the

state mandated Marxist theory to the interpretation of the

results of their scientific inquiries. "It is through

Marxism in particular that the historical emphasis in

European archaeology achieves an abstract theoretical and

generalising character."367 The lack of theory building can

also be attributed to the difficulty that Albanian scholars

experienced in maintaining contact with western

archaeological trends and developments.

Albanian scientists were aware of the importance of

the past in the modern definition of their nationhood.

"These studies constitute a powerful theoretical weapon in

the hands of the peoples, nationalities and nations, either

oppressed or on the road to their liberation, for the

affirmation, on the basis of historical laws, of their

366
Hodder 1991, p. 2.
367
Hodder 1991, p. 10

104
national political identity, of their aspirations to a

democratic progressive culture which responds to their

ethnic-historical physiognomy and demands for social

progress, and to their struggle for freedom and

independence against any form of exploitation."368

Studies of the origin of the Albanian people, however,

were not an original creation of the communist

intelligentsia; they built on foreign works that had begun

the study of the Albanian people and language much earlier.

Such topics, for example, had been investigated already in

the 18th century by Johann Thunmann, who concluded that the

modern Albanian people and their language descended from

the Illyrians.369 In the 19th and early 20th centuries

several detailed studies were produced that underscored the

divergence of Albanian from the Indo-European language

branch.370 Investigations into the physical traits of the

Albanians were also initiated already prior to 1900.

Leopold Glück, for example, and Albanian physical

anthropologists after him offered biological "evidence" to

define the "ethno-psychological physiognomy" of the

Albanian people.371

368
Buda 1984, p. 12.
369
Thunmann 1774.
370
Meyer 1884, 1888, 1891; Jokl 1923, 1929, 1984. See Çabej 1970, 1976;
Ölberg 1977; Domi 1984.
371
Glück 1897. See Tildesley 1933; Nemeskéri 1986; Dhima 1983, 1985.

105
 In the post-liberation years,
archaeological research work has been
concentrated mainly in the fields of
Illyrian and mediaeval Albanian
culture. Linked with the researches
are problems of fundamental historical
importance such as the ethnogenesis of
the Illyrians, the level of their
cultural, social and economic
development, and their political role
in the Balkan Peninsula and the
Mediterranean Basin, as well as the
problem of Illyrian-Albanian
continuity, the autochthony of the
mediaeval Albanians, and the formation
of the Albanian nation.372

Speeches, like the proceeding one given on the

occasion of the creation and inauguration of the Center for

Archaeological Research in January, 1976, stress that the

most important goal of archaeological research was to prove

the autochthonous ethnogenesis of the Albanian people.373

This was to be done by unearthing material culture that

would define the ethnos and emphasize the social and

economic developments of the Illyrians; such discoveries

were to be used to rewrite the previous historiography of

Albania, which was viewed as antiscientific and foreign,

bourgeois and revisionist, and that had emphasized the

primitive, non-urban character of the Illyrians.374

372
Andrea 1984, p. 102.
373
Editorial 1976, p. 13.
374
Editorial 1976, p. 13. See for example Korkuti 1976.

106
 Archaeology was tied closely to history, which was

charged with the task of constructing a narrative of the

country and its people that emphasized resistance to, and

victory over, foreign domination, and, like archaeology,

the autochthonous development and the ethno-cultural

continuity of the Albanian people. Albanian archaeological

publications reveal the ambivalence toward the Greeks that

has already been mentioned.375 The Albanians maintained

that, although contact with Greek colonists promoted urban

development, this interaction was not the impetus for

social change in the tribal structure of the Illyrians, but

rather that urban development was already in motion when

the Greeks arrived.376 This process of urbanization was

alleged to have influenced the nature of Illyrian-Greek

interactions and to have created the conditions that

permitted colonization to occur in Albania, i.e., the

existence of Illyrian centers demanded imports from abroad;

trade followed, and Greeks were attracted to Albania and

realized the potential for colonization there.

Albanian archaeology in general, however, has

struggled, as did Hoxha himself, to find a consistent and

ideologically acceptable interpretation for the colonial

375
Cf. Korkuti 1971, pp. vii-x.
376
Cf. Anamali 1970, p. 90; Strazimiri, Nallbani, and Ceka 1973, pp. xx-
xxi; Korkuti 1971, pp. vi-vii. For a similar situation in Italy, see
de Angelis 1994; Herring and Lomas 2000.

107
Greek presence in Albania: attitudes towards Apollonia,

Epidamnus, and Buthrotum have been ambiguous, at best. On

the one hand, these archaeological sites are in some sense

seen as an intrusive and disruptive foreign presence in

Albania. It is these places that have traditionally been

of interest to foreigners, and the very fact of their

existence in Albania has been used to support nationalist

Greek claims on Albanian soil. On the other hand, Hoxha's

own minority policy emphasized the contributions that many

different ethnic groups made to the Albanian nation. In

the eyes of many Albanians, the Greek colonies thus were

transformed into Illyrian cities, and many of their

monuments became important indigenous symbols.

To this end, communist archaeology sought to

essentialize both Greeks and Illyrians. The Greek colonies

were vehicles that facilitated the transition of the

numerically dominant Illyrians from a stage of barbarism to

full urbanism. Greek culture was expropriated, and

Hellenization itself became a feature of Illyrian

civilization.377 In choosing to emphasize the essential

nature of the Illyrian population, the actual

archaeological evidence was prejudged by the imposition of

predetermined deductive frameworks, and scholars shifted

377
Cf. Ceka and Ceka 1971, pp. 144-146; Mano 1972, pp. 9-12, 1976, pp.
307-309; Anamali 1976a, pp. 71-74; Ceka 1983a, pp. 135-140.

108
their focus to problems that held little promise of

explaining the process of Hellenization in Albania.378 The

task of the epigrapher was to recognize Illyrians from the

appearance of their names in Hellenistic inscriptions; the

job of the historian of religion was to bring to light

Illyrian elements in cults of the Greek colonies; and the

role of the archaeologist was to uncover "local" (Illyrian)

material culture at colonial sites.379

The problem with this approach to Albanian (or any

other) archaeology was the assumption of answers to

questions still unresolved. Research focused on the

Hellenistic and Roman periods, for which evidence,

particularly inscriptional, was most plentiful – but from

time periods long after the indigenous population of

Albania had adopted Greek customs and culture, i.e., been

Hellenized. Earlier periods were neglected and there was

no attempt to develop a social archaeology that could

investigate issues of ethnicity in the Archaic and

Classical periods.380 One goal of this dissertation is to

rectify this situation by collating and reinterpreting old

data and presenting for the first time new data from MRAP

378
Cf. Anamali 1970, pp. 96-97.
379
Editorial 1976, p. 14.
380
Cf. Korkuti 1971, pp. vii-ix, where the 6th-5th centuries B.C. at
Apollonia and Epidamnus are completely absent from his narrative about
the development of Illyrian cities and Ceka and Ceka 1971, pp. 139-143
where Illyrian urban and political development is linked to the
Chaonians and Epirotes rather than the Greek apoikiai.

109
that is relevant to the history of the Graeco-Roman period,

the nature of Greek colonization, and Greek-Illyrian

interactions.

Although the Classical sites of Epidamnus, Apollonia,

and Buthrotum were extensively explored under communism,

the focus of Albanian archaeology at these places was

predictably Illyrio-centric. Albanian archaeologists and

historians rejected a Western colonialist point of view,

which was considered foreign, that emphasized the passive

role of the Illyrians in the Hellenization of Albania.381

Encouraged by Hoxha, they envisioned a dynamic exchange

between cultures in which the Greeks were as much

influenced and changed by Illyrian culture as the Illyrians

were by the Greeks. "While it is clear that the

civilization of ancient Greece influenced that of our

people, it is also unthinkable that the ancient

civilization of our people did not influence that of the

Greek people (italics added)."382 On the other hand, it was

crucial for "scientists" to maintain separation between the

two cultures: "That which is Illyrian is Illyrian and that

381
The Western colonialist point of view stressed the superiority of the
Greeks and their culture. See below.
382
"Dihet se kultura e Greqisë së lashtë ka influencuar në kulturën e
popullit tonë, por është e pamundur që edhe kultura e lashtë e popullit
tonë të mos ketë influencuar në kulturën e popullit grek (Vepra 21
[1961], p. 362, 1985, p. 33; Korkuti 1988, p. 9)."

110
which is Greek should be considered Greek."383 Material

culture, the desired product of excavation, was therefore

used at Apollonia, Buthrotum, and Epidamnus as a means to

distinguish ethnicities. In this way, the study and

presentation of the Graeco-Roman past were politically

dictated for decades under Hoxha.

The Politics of the First Greeks at Apollonia

The foundation by the Greeks of Apollonia, a new

apoikia, in the foreign territory of the Illyrians during

the Archaic period, is one of the most significant topics

examined in this thesis. Although this episode of

colonization took place over two and a half millennia ago,

the study of the Archaic period is politically loaded and

is still used by politicians in both Albania and Greece to

manipulate the present. For this reason, the

identification and separation of Greek and Illyrian

elements in the material culture continues to be viewed as

an important undertaking for Albanian archaeologists. The

legacy of the communist political agenda is an attempt to

minimize the importance of the Greek presence during the

383
". . . ç'është ilire është ilire dhe ç'është greke duhet konsideruar
greke (Korkuti 1988, p. 9)." This was said with reference to Hoxha's
writings. See also p. 12 where this statement is rephrased to include
the Romans.

111
Archaic period and to maximize the importance of the native

Illyrian population.

The principle concern of Albanian archaeologists and

historians under communism had been questions pertaining to

Illyrian urbanization and social development.384 As a

consequence, scholars only explored the Greek Archaic

period and the history of colonization in so far as they

impacted the Albanian "Proto-Urban" period.385 As previously

noted, a determination that contact with Greek colonists

had promoted urban development, thereby altering the tribal

structure of the Illyrians, but not causing it, prompted

Albanian scholars to attempt to prove that the Illyrians

had already evolved from a tribal phase and had entered a

"Proto-Urban" phase of development by the time the Greek

colonists arrived. This transformation was, in a sense,

what made Greek colonization possible, since Greeks were

attracted to Albania by possibilities for exchange with the

native population.386 The process of Greek colonization,

therefore, had very little to do with the Greeks

384
Albanian Chronology: EIA = 1050-750; DIA ("Developed Iron Age) = 750-
625; PU (Proto-Urban) = 625-450. See Table 1.1. The ideological
emphasis on the Illyrians' movement towards urbanization prior to the
arrival of the Greeks resulted in the definition of "Proto-Urban" as a
phase of the Illyrian Iron Age, which was roughly contemporaneous with
the later Archaic period and the initial stages in the development of
the Greek apoikiai.
385
Cf. Korkuti 1971, pp. vii-ix; Islami 1972; Anamali 1976a, pp. 73-78;
Ceka 1983a, pp. 178-180.
386
Cf. Ceka 2005, pp. 41-42. See De Angelis 1994; Lomas 1995, pp. 348-
350; Herring and Lomas 2000; Domínguez 2002, pp. 85-87 for similar
scenarios imagined elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

112
themselves, but rather with the state of Illyrian

development. By distinguishing Illyrian from Greek

material culture, it was possible to maintain that the

colonial cities were Illyrian before the arrival of the

Greeks, that there remained a strong Illyrian element even

after colonization, and that the Illyrian contribution to

the survival of the colonized cities was essential.387 With

this primary focus and a Marxist theoretical framework, it

was impossible to explore larger themes in Greek

colonization from a pan-Mediterranean perspective.

One way to emphasize the role of the native Illyrians

at the principal Greek colonies was to endorse and

emphasize traditional foundation dates as the beginning of

Greek occupation at apoikiai in Albania.388 Any Greek

imports or influences prior to these "historic" foundation

dates had, therefore, to be interpreted as products of

Illyrian interactions with Greek traders.389 Such a line of

reasoning produced proof for a strong Illyrian presence at

colonial sites before the arrival of the Greeks.390 Albanian

historians also adduced Hellenistic and Roman grave stele

with "Illyrian" names as proof of a continued Illyrian

element in the population of the cities and a demonstration

387
Cf. Ceka 2005, pp. 60-61, 66-69.
388
For foundation dates in general, see Chapter 4; for the foundation
dates of Epidamnus and Apollonia, see Chapter 5.
389
Cf. Mano 1976, p. 307; Ceka 2005, pp. 58-59.
390
Cf. Korkuti 1971, pp. vii-viii.

113
that the Greeks mingled and intermarried with the Illyrian

population upon their arrival.391 In addition, at Apollonia,

the Greeks were believed to have abandoned their own burial

rituals and to have adopted Illyrian burial customs through

the interment of their dead in tumuli.392

The treatment of Apollonia's history during the

communist period affords a clear example of the way the

Greek colonial past was manipulated for political ends.

Apollonia's traditional foundation date of 588 B.C., for

which, as shown in Chapter 5, no firm evidence exists, was

reified by Albanian archaeologists.393 The artifacts from

the site that predated this time were taken as evidence for

pre-colonial trade with the Illyrians, which was, in turn,

used to prove that Illyrians were living at Apollonia

before the Greek colony was founded. Emphasis was placed

on the importance of the interactions between the Illyrians

and the Greeks and the role the indigenous population

played in the survival of the new colony.394 Hammond goes so

far as to support the theory that Apollonia was a joint

Illyrian-Corinthian foundation, although all textual

evidence suggests otherwise.395

391
Cf. Anamali 1970, pp. 96-97.
392
Cf. Hammond 1967, p. 426, 1982b, pp. 267-268; Ceka 2005, pp. 71-72.
See Chapter 5.
393
Cf. Anamali 1970, p. 89; Ceka 1972, p. 21; N. Ceka 1982a, pp. 18-19.
394
Cf. Mano 1971, pp. 202-203, 1976, pp. 307-308; Anamali 1972, p. 12;
N. Ceka 1982a, p. 19.
395
Hammond 1982b, p. 267.

114
 In the case of Greek colonization, it is clear that

the production of the past in the present in Albania

continues to be structured and dominated by two competing

intellectual perspectives that converge and clash in their

versions of "ancient history:" an idealized Western version

that prioritizes the superiority of the Greeks and the

process of "Hellenizing the natives"396 and the communist

politically motivated approach that asserts indigenous

development. The communist version might appear to voice

the resistance of a subjugated group, i.e., the Albanians

themselves, who did not participate in the production of

history until after the "liberation" of the country

following World War II, but its motives are hardly more

pure than the Western approach to "Classical Civilization,"

which claims the Greeks as the progenitors of Western

Civilization.397 Albanians and foreigners have produced

different accounts of the Graeco-Roman period based on

different agendas. The current dominant communist paradigm

of the Albanian past, which still has its adherents,398 is no

396
E.g., colonialism: cf. Bérard 1960; Boardman 1964. See van Dommelen
1997, pp. 205-308; Meskel 2002, pp. 289-292; Owen 2005, pp. 10-16; Hall
2007b, pp. 350-351 for a critique of colonialism.
397
Cf. Whitley 2001, pp. 17-41 for modern paradigms of Western
Civilization. See also Morris 2003, p. 40 for the breakdown of this
paradigm.
398
Cf. Ceka 2005 for an enunciation of the current "communist" version
of Illyrian/Albanian ethnogenesis. See Galaty and Watkinson 2004b, p.
11.

115
less propagandistic or potent than that of the "West."399

"Each set of ideas and their representations of the past

have their own practical consequences. They provide

justifications and rationalizations for social and

intellectual hierarchies, imperial conquest and the

exclusion and subjugation of populations."400 Although these

accounts "resist" each other, there has been very little

resistance to the hegemonic structures as a whole by un-

empowered minority groups.401 For example, the current

generation of Albanian scholars has not yet found a voice,

although it is seeking to break free from both Western-

imperialist and Communist dominated modes of thought.402 Is

it possible to negotiate a course between these two

viewpoints that have dominated scholarship for so long?

399
See Winnifrith 2002, pp. 39-41 for both views.
400
Bond and Gilliam 1994, p. 8. The dominant western colonialist
interpretation of Greek colonization, with its imperialistic overtones,
is based on analogies with the British empire. See Wilson 2000, pp.
31-32; Morris 2003, pp. 40-45; Owen 2005, pp. 10-16; Shepherd 2005, pp.
25-31; Snodgrass 2005.
401
See van Dommelen 1997, pp. 205-308; Meskel 2002, pp. 289-292.
402
Cf. abstracts from the session "Deconstructing and Reconstructing
Albanian Archaeology" organized by O. Gilkes and me at the 2002 meeting
of the Archaeological Institute of America (AJA 106, pp. 279-281).
Recent edited volumes with papers by different generations of scholars
illustrate various current approaches to interpreting Albania's past,
including communist, younger generation, and western narratives. One
of the first such collections is the issue of Iliria with papers from
the 1998 conference in Tirana celebrating 50 years of Albanian
archaeology. See also New Directions. The recent publication edited
by Hysa and N. Molla (2009) is designed as a handbook for young
archaeologists and seeks to replace outdated communist methodologies.
For post-Hoxha archaeology, see Galaty and Watkinson 2004b, pp. 11-12.
For problems confronting the future of Albanian archaeology and some
possible solutions, see Hodges 2004, pp. 151-156 and Martin 2006, pp.
373-377.

116
 This study is not designed to prove that the older

generation of Albanian archaeologists and historians is

wrong. Much of what they have written about the Archaic

period and Greek colonization is probably as close to the

truth as one can hope to get; it is, moreover, their

truth.403 Rather, this thesis adds to the mix different

methodologies and current western, postcolonial theoretical

paradigms and presents new data gathered by MRAP. By

posing different questions, I reach some divergent

conclusions. Additionally, I point out gaps in the current

knowledge and outline some avenues for future studies. For

these reasons, it has been necessary to take a critical

approach to the Albanian archaeological perspective that

arose as a result of the communist program during the Hoxha

era and to consider the effects it has had on current views

of the Illyrians. The past was used by the communist

Albanian intellectual elite for political ends and to

legitimize power. By working under Hoxha's repressive

403
The Albanians' approach to the study of the past that emphasizes
bilateral cultural exchanges between indigenous and colonizing
populations is very much in tune with current postcolonial theory that
stresses hybridity and cultural interaction. The communist approach
also anticipated current reception theory. Reception theory, developed
by Hans-Robert Jauss in the 1960s, originated as a form of textual
analysis that emphasized an audience's scope for "negotiation" and
"opposition" in the interpretation of literary texts, rather than their
passive acceptance.

117
regime and seeking to document his agenda they acknowledged

their acceptance of, and lack of resistance to, it.404

An Archaeology Unknown to the Outside World

Many aspects of the archaeology of Albania remain

relatively unknown in the west, even though the discoveries

of Albanian archaeologists are relevant to themes that have

been of longstanding concern to Classical scholars and

other archaeologists. For example, the significant Greek

colonies of coastal Albania are under-represented in

Boardman's The Greeks Overseas, as is its Iron Age

archaeology in Well's The Barbarians Speak.405 In general,

discussions of Greek colonization also tend to overlook the

east coast of the Adriatic.406 This is regrettable, since,

as I have documented, the exploration, publication, and

interpretation of the rich archaeological heritage of the

country has been in process by Albanian archaeologists

since 1948.407 Much of their most recent work has been

conducted in collaboration with foreign teams, American,

404
See Wilkes 1992, pp. 3-26.
405
Boardman 1999a; Wells 1999.
406
See for example: Graham 1983; The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation
1994; The Archaeology of Colonialism 2002. Some exceptions to this are
Descoeudres 1990 and Malkin 1998a, 2001b.
407
See extensive bibliographies in Jubani 1972; Drini 1985; Korkuti and
Kamberi 1997. Until quite recently, however, archaeological literature
has been published largely only in Albanian journals, making it all but
inaccessible to scholars outside the country.

118
British, French, and Italian.408 As a result of these

ongoing collaborative projects, since 1991, great strides

have been made in placing Albania in dialogues concerned

with the larger Graeco-Roman world.

Two recent expeditions – the Mallakastra Regional

Archaeological Project (MRAP) and the Durrës Regional

Archaeological Project (DRAP) – have attempted to document

the history of habitation in the territories of the Greek

apoikiai in Albania, and thus the spread of Greek material

culture into the countryside, and to bring both Apollonia

and Dyrrachium-Epidamnus into current academic discourses

concerning the nature of Archaic colonization. These two

intensive surface surveys, sponsored by the University of

Cincinnati, were multidisciplinary and diachronic. Each

sought to explore changes in settlement patterns and to

produce maps of sites that would assist in the preservation

of the archaeological heritage of the country in the face

of rapid urban expansion and looting.

MRAP was a collaboration between the Institute of

Archaeology in Tirana and an international team of

archaeologists, primarily from the United States. Field

operations were begun in the areas around Apollonia in 1998

and completed in 2003. The project was the first

interdisciplinary surface survey to be organized in Albania

408
Lafe 2005, p. 119.

119
and combined geological, geomorphological, and botanical

research with archaeological and historical investigation.

MRAP was only the second American archaeological project to

be initiated in Albania and from 1998-2003 was the sole

American project operating there.409 The groundwork for the

project had been laid in 1994 during an exploratory trip to

Albania.410

The Durrës Regional Archaeological Project intensively

surveyed the hilly hinterland immediately to the north of

ancient Dyrrachium-Epidamnus in the spring of 2001.411 It

documented extensive, but previously unreported, evidence

for Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic settlement and land

use.

Albania is well-suited to the modern techniques of

surface survey, as they have been developed in Greece and

elsewhere in the Mediterranean.412 Such techniques had

already been successfully applied in Greece and neighboring

countries prior to their introduction in Albania by MRAP

and DRAP.413 Antiquities of all periods in both areas had

409
The first American project was the excavation of Konispol cave
directed by Karl Petruso and Muzafer Kortuti. See Korkuti and Petruso
1993.
410
Since the inception of the project I was a co-director of MRAP with
responsibility for oversight of the processing and analysis of
artifacts collected in the field.
411
Davis et al. 2003.
412
Cf. Davis, Stocker, and Wallrodt 2009, pp. 12-21.
413
Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Alcock and Cherry 2004.

120
already been well-explored and documented through

excavation by both foreign and Albanian archaeologists.

The present study seeks to refocus investigation of

the Greek colonies in Albania, paving the way to building a

new synthesis of Albanian history through promoting a

dialectic between the old and the new, one that retains the

finest of earlier approaches in both Albanian and foreign

scholarship. At the same time, I hope to contribute to

laying foundations for an ongoing conversation about the

Albanian past that lets go of vested interests for the sake

of genuine collaborative efforts. The work of MRAP, as

described in the remainder of my thesis, has a role to play

in that process. The following two chapters are, however,

essential first steps toward the achievement of that goal,

first to consider Greek colonization as it is generally

understood today, then to reconsider the evidence for

colonization in southern Illyria in that light.

121
122
 Chapter 4.

Greek Colonization as a General Phenomenon

Changing interests demand

different versions of the past.414

The history of colonies in modern

times shows the difference between the
arrangements and aspirations of the
original founders and the colonists and
the subsequent relations of the two
communities. Closely linked though
they are, the act of foundation is one
thing, the subsequent relations
another.415

Introduction

This chapter will review some general themes and

problems inherent to the study of Greek colonization in the

Archaic period. Chapter 5 will then discuss how these

broad issues relate to the local history of Apollonia in

southern Illyria. The goal here is to introduce current

theoretical approaches to ongoing debates about Greek

colonization that are relevant to the apoikiai in the

eastern Adriatic. Topics addressed here and in Chapter 5

include motives for colonization, the return to seafaring

in the 8th century B.C., the role that the Euboeans played

in opening the Mediterranean to mariners, and the two types

of settlements that Greeks established abroad during the

414
Osborne 1996a, p. 15.
415
Graham 1983, p. 4.

123
Archaic period, the emporion and the apoikia. Chapter 4

will also examine the controversy about mother cities,

whether or not they existed, the role they played in

founding colonies and designating oikists, and the

relationship that existed between metropolis and apoikia.

Most of the information preserved about colonies is found

in ktiseis, or foundation stories, although caution must be

exercised in interpreting such stories as "historical

fact." Some of the common elements in ktiseis will be

presented here, and a new ktisis for Apollonia will be

constructed in Chapter 5. The final topic that will be

addressed in Chapter 4 is the validity of foundation dates.

A variety of historical and archaeological debates are

encompassed within the broad topic of "Greek colonization"

in the Archaic period, as are a multitude of theoretical

approaches; different generations of scholars have assigned

various of these sub-topics greater or lesser importance.

Jean-Paul Morel noted, "in our discipline the problems of

the moment are replaced or modified with amazing rapidity"

in scholarship on colonization.416 Although this is true, it

is also true that old topics of investigation that have

fallen out of fashion during one period have been revived

and have taken on a new sense of importance in another.

Indeed, all avenues of research about various aspects of

416
Morel 1984, p. 133.

124
the Archaic Greek expansion abroad continue to produce

missing pieces of the puzzle that are indispensable to the

whole. It is imperative that "old" questions be reexamined

in the light of new theoretical paradigms and recent

archaeological discoveries.417

Until the end of the 20th century, scholarship about

Greek colonization frequently focused on questions that had

been defined and answered by the 5th century B.C.

historian, Thucydides. These subjects of inquiry included

the causes of Greek colonization, i.e., the social,

political, and/or economic conditions that fostered it; the

relationship between colonies and their mother cities; and

the specific foundation date for each settlement.418 The

search for the impetus of colonization was a high priority;

indeed, early 20th century studies were principally

concerned with elucidating a raison d'êntre.419

In addition to the search for the causes of

colonization, there was a desire to define the types of

settlements that existed and to piece together unequivocal

historical facts about each colony. Until the late 1970s,

the primacy of texts in historical research was almost

417
Cf. Boardman 1999a, pp. 267-268. Morris (2003, pp. 31-32) notes that
a paradigm shift, in Kuhn's sense of the word, has taken place in the
study of the Mediterranean that began with the work of Braudel (1966,
1972) and the Annales school and has recently been articulated by
Horden and Purcell (2000).
418
See Gwynn 1918.
419
For example, Gwynn 1918; Myres 1911, 1925. Cf. Owen 2005, p. 10.

125
unquestioned and archaeology was largely ignored.420 Early

scholarship was based solely on literary testimonia, and

was the domain of ancient historians. Even as excavations

progressed, both in Greece and in Magna Graecia,

archaeological evidence was only incorporated to augment

textual arguments, e.g., to confirm foundation dates, and

artifacts were ancillary to the written word; thus,

archaeology assumed a role as the "handmaiden of history."421

Archaeologists themselves, on the other hand, showed an

interest in forming ceramic typologies that could be used

to establish absolute dates based on the material record.422

Already by the mid-1980s, however, a new generation of

scholars started to question the validity of old-guard

420
Cf. Blakeway 1935, who makes a plea for historians to give attention
to archaeological evidence. Blakeway's student, Thomas Dunbabin, was
among the first to incorporate archaeology into a narrative about Greek
colonization. Cf. Dunbabin 1948a; Shepherds 2000, pp. 30-36.
421
Finley 1975, 1985, pp. 18-26; Snodgrass 1980; Whitehouse and Wilkins
1985, p. 89; Last 1995, p. 141; Morris 1999b, p. xxv, 2000; Herring
2000, p. 47; Owen 2000, p. 7. Until recently, ancient history and
Classical archaeology were strictly separated academic disciplines: the
historian relied on literary evidence, the archaeologist on material
culture. Archaeology itself is fragmented in its approach to, and
interpretation of, material culture and the archaeological record. Art
history and anthropology developed vastly divergent agendas; the former
approach was commonly employed by Classical archaeologists, while the
latter provided the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the
"New Archaeology." Fortunately, however, new generations of scholars
have recognized the importance of utilizing an approach that combines
archaeology, anthropology, and history in order to produce more
contextual and rewarding interpretations of the data. As a result, the
role played by archaeology in the study of Archaic history has also
changed considerably in the past 30 years, spearheaded, in large part,
by Snodgrass's book (1980) on Archaic Greek history.
For a discussion of approaches to archaeology that characterize
the "Great Divide," see Dyson 1981, pp. 7-13, 1989, pp. 211-220, 1993,
pp. 195-206; Renfrew 1980, pp. 287-298; Snodgrass 1985, pp. 1-17, 1987,
pp. 1-35; Morris, 1994a, pp. 8-47; Whitley 1991, pp. 13-53. See Morris
1998, 2000 for a discussion of the role of archaeology in history.
422
Boardman 1964.

126
approaches to Greek colonization. Some queried the

usefulness of the questions being asked and the way

colonization was discussed.423 Other questions that could be

debated within new theoretical frameworks were posed of the

data. In the early 1980s, Morel, for example, listed the

causes of colonization, the conditions that spawned it, and

the relationship between colony (apoikia) and mother city

(metropolis) as three of the five topics that were no

longer in vogue.424 By the end of the 20th century, the

trend in scholarship was to discard the notions that Greek

expansion abroad was a single, cohesive movement, and that

colonization was the result of a planned course of action

in response to specific, identifiable causes. There was a

reaction against the search for a single, all encompassing

explanation and against the view that colonization was part

of an inevitable "grand design" of historical

circumstances. Young theoreticians attacked earlier

scholars for attempting to impose a non-existent order on

the growth and proliferation of Greek overseas settlements

in the Archaic period.

423
These topics were explored using analogies to the British Empire,
which, in many cases, produced a colonialist view of Greek
colonization. Cf. Owen 2005, pp. 10-12; Shepherd 2005, pp. 23-32;
Snodgrass 2005, pp. 45-48.
424
Morel 1984, pp. 123-124. The other two topics he considered outdated
were the issue of continuity or discontinuity between the Mycenaean
period and the 8th century B.C. and the political history of the
western colonies. Two areas of investigation he emphasized were 1)
relations between Greeks and natives; 2) social and economic questions.

127
 Current theoretical approaches, which fall under the

rubric of postmodern and postcolonial theory,425 have led

some scholars to suggest that it is inappropriate to talk

about an Archaic "colonization" movement, the "foundation"

of colonies, an historical "founder" (oikist), or the

existence of a "mother city." They contend that there was

no organized movement to colonize the Mediterranean, that

colonization was not a process that evolved through time,

that the establishment of a colony was not an event that

took place at a specific point in time, that colonies were

not "founded" by one particular polis or person, that

ktiseis lack historical validity because they were later

political inventions of the Classical period, and, indeed,

that no verifiable facts about the early history of

settlements can be retrieved from the literary tradition.426

425
Postmodern theory rejects the existence of "historical facts" and
objective knowledge. Rather, all historical narratives are subjective
and dependent on the perspective of the writer. It is, therefore,
impossible to regain one single reality of the past, but merely to
present one's view of it. History becomes the creation of a plurality
of equally valid, imaginative narratives. Postcolonial theory seeks to
reinsert the role of under-enfranchised groups, such as women and
indigenous populations, into narratives about colonization. It rejects
"Hellenization" as a western imperialist approach to colonization based
on faulty analogies to modern colonization movements. This approach
emphasizes cultural fusion and interaction, rather than dominance and
resistance, and the concept of "hybridity," which Antonaccio (2005, p.
100) defines as "a status or quality between colonizer and colonized, a
'third-space' of 'in-between-ness' where communication between the
parties takes place and negotiation happens in whatever form,
engendered by the need for communication among people who utilize
different languages, cultures and ideologies." See Hodder 1992, 2001;
Shepherd 1995, p. 51, 2005; van Dommelen 1997, pp. 306-308; Morgan
1999, p. 85; Owen 2005; Snodgrass 2005; Hall 2007b, pp. 350-351.
426
Purcell 1990; Osborne 1998. See Malkin 2002a, pp. 195-196 for a
critique of these positions.

128
Postmodern scholarship is intent on reasserting the role of

the individual, or agency, into the appearance of Greeks

outside Greece, at the expense of processualist or

structuralist explanations. Colonization is now presented

as a sporadic phenomenon that was not part of a process of

adaptation to specific stresses in Greece. Recognition has

also grown of polysemous interpretations of the same data.

Decades after Morel, the original Thucydidean

questions about colonization continue to be disdained by

many ancient historians.427 These old topics do, however,

provide a useful heuristic framework for a discussion of

the appearance and proliferation of Greeks in the

Mediterranean and, in particular, in the Adriatic. For

this reason, I intend briefly to revisit three "obsolete"

topics: the causes of colonization, the nature of the

relationship between colony and mother city, and the

efficacy of establishing foundation dates for colonies.

Chapter 5 considers how these general issues relate

specifically to the Greek settlements in southern Illyria.

Regardless of the theoretical approach taken to the

subject of the Greeks moving abroad (i.e., colonization) in

the Archaic period, there is no doubt that long distance

trade between Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean

427
Cf. Lepore 2000, pp. 41-43, who thinks that the debate about the
motives for colonization is obsolete.

129
intensified at the end of the 9th century B.C.428 and

increased dramatically during the first quarter of the 8th

century B.C., primarily fueled by the search for metals and

new markets. The Euboeans, who originally did not reside

in the places with which they traded, forged the earliest

contacts outside Greece proper in both the east and west.

Such overseas "proto-colonial activities," as they have

been called, with the express purposes of exchanging goods

and procuring raw materials, were the precursors to the

establishment of permanent overseas settlements.429

The so genannten first "wave of colonization" began in

the second half of the 8th century B.C., a period that is

often referred to as the "Greek Renaissance."430 During the

span of roughly a century and a half, the Greeks founded

numerous colonies along the coasts of eastern Sicily,

southern Italy, northern Greece, and Albania. Inland trade

routes, such as the one north from Corinth through

428
For Mycenaean trade in the Mediterranean, see Harding 1976, 1984;
Hammond 1982a; Marazzi, Tusa, and Vagnetti 1986; Smith 1987; Gale 1991;
Ridgway 1992, pp. 3-8; for a discussion of the beginning of post-
Mycenaean Greek seafaring, see Snodgrass 1994a, 1994b; Purcell 1990;
Tandy 1997; Stampolidis and Karageorghis 2003.
429
"Proto-colonisation," which Malkin (1998b, p. 1) defines as the
period from "the ninth to mid-8th century B.C.," is used to distinguish
early overseas contacts from later permanent settlements. Cf. Gwynn
1918; Blakeway 1935; Myres 1925; Malkin 1998b; Ridgway 1990; Whitley
2001, p. 125.
430
See Hägg 1983 for the Greek Renaissance of the 8th century B.C. For
a different interpretation, see Purcell 1990; Osborne 1998. See Malkin
2002a, pp. 195-196 for a discussion of both positions.

130
Ioannina, were abandoned in favor of sea routes.431 Traces

of this movement abroad and the role played by the colonies

in the spread of Greek culture are preserved in the

archaeological record and in early Greek literature.432

Motives for Colonization

The impetus for Greek colonization in the mid-8th

century B.C. has long been debated, giving rise to a

variety of apparently diverse hypotheses. Originally there

were two schools of thought: one believed that the primary

reason for colonization was the search for new agricultural

land, stimulated by stenochoria (overpopulation) at home,

the other, that it was the hunt for new commercial markets

generated by an expanding interest in overseas trade. The

current range of suggested explanations for Greek

emigration overseas has grown to include: the acquisition

of luxury commodities, political dissatisfaction at home,

431
Morgan 1988; Malkin 1998a, p. 18; Purcell 1990, 2005, pp. 120-125.
See Chapter 5. During the 8th century B.C. there was a shift from fear
of the sea to extensive use of it. For the connective properties of
the Mediterranean, see Purcell 1990, 2005. A new theoretical model
that emphasizes "interconnectedness," sparked by globilization, is
being applied to the study of the ancient Mediterranean. This approach
views the Mediterranean and its shores as a single unit composed of
numerous microregions, all of which are all interconnected by the sea.
Cf. Morris 2003 and Purcell 2003 on Mediterraneanization.
432
Homer provides a description of an ideal site for a colony in the
Cyclops episode (Od. 9.116-141) and offers insight into what the
establishment of a new settlement entailed in his discussion of the
Phaeacian foundation of Scheria (Od. 6.9-10). For a discussion of
"colonization" in Homer and Hesiod, see Graham 1982, p. 85; Dougherty
1993a, pp. 21-24; Osborne 1996a, p. 118; Tandy 1997; Malkin 1998a,
2002b.

131
the desire for access to political power, the opportunity

for upward social mobility, and/or the prospect of locating

and exploiting new resources.433 Still cited, too, are the

older explanations of overpopulation, land hunger, economic

profit, and the search for new trade networks.434 Although

many of these reasons have been engendered by a desire to

incorporate trendy theoretical approaches, all can be

categorized on one side or the other of the larger agrarian

versus economic debate.

The agrarian argument emphasizes the search for

agricultural land as the principle cause for colonization.

Aubrey Gwynn was one of the early proponents of this

theory: "Greek colonisation was due, above all else, to the

need for land."435 Land hunger was thought to have been

generated, in large part, by overpopulation.436 This

explanation gained popularity because it was proposed by

Thucydides and Plato, who considered land shortage to be a

433
Cf. Papadopoulos 2001, p. 382.
434
Myres 1911, 1925; Gwynn 1918; Graham 1982, 1983; Cawkwell 1992;
Dougherty 1993a; Williams 1995; Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-127, 1998; Tandy
1997.
435
Gwynn 1918, p. 89. Gwynn was reacting to Myres (1911, 1925) who
favored an economic explanation for colonization. According to the
agrarian model, overseas colonization is an adaptive strategy employed
as a reaction to land shortage. This solution is not, however, either
inevitable or the only possible solution: Solon found a different way
to resolve the land crisis in Attica that involved redistribution of
land and new laws, instead of colonization. Solon F5, 28, 36, 5;
Arist. Ath. Pol. 5.1-6.4; Cawkwell 1995, p. 81.
436
Snodgrass 1980; Coldstream 2003, pp. 221-222.

132
driving force behind colonization.437 As the population in

certain areas of Greece grew, the scarcity of land for

cultivation increased; additionally because of the division

of property through inheritance, some people in those

places were no longer able to subsist on their land.438 The

main attraction for moving overseas, therefore, was that

each colonist was assured a plot of land (kleros).439 The

agrarianists consider the promise of a kleros, which also

had the potential to alter an individual's social status,

to be the principal incentive for someone to leave home.440

The economic explanation for colonization, on the

other hand, emphasizes the importance of trade. This view

was championed by the German historians Julius von Beloch

and Eduard Meyer, who hypothesized that an economic

revolution in the 8th century B.C. was sparked by, and led

to, the development of overseas commerce; this revolution

provided the main impetus for colonization and promoted the

437
Thuc. 1.15; Pl. Laws 702c-708b, 740e. For a discussion of
stenochoria as an important cause for colonization, see Bérard 1960, p.
60; Malkin 1994a, pp. 2-3. For arguments against overpopulation as a
cause for colonization, see Morris 1987, pp. 156-167; Purcell 1990, pp.
44-49.
438
See Tandy 1997, pp. 127-135 on the laws governing inheritance of land
in the Archaic period, and Finley 1968 on its alienability. Hall
(2007a, pp. 114-117) notes that the practice of partible inheritance
resulted in increasingly smaller and more fragmented parcels of land.
439
Archilochus, F293 (West) = Athenaeus 4.167d. Cf. ML 5, 18, 49. See
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, p. 63; Malkin 1987; Hall 2007a, pp. 114-
118 on the distribution of kleroi.
440
For ancient testimonia on the importance of land, see Dougherty
1993a, pp. 21-24.

133
search for new import and export venues.441 Alan Blakeway

emphasized the importance of pre-colonial commercial

enterprise as a precursor to permanent settlement and he

was the first to demonstrate archaeologically the

importance of Greek trade with the west in the early 8th

century B.C.442 The story of Demaratus of Corinth, who

settled in Etruria and made a fortune trading Greek and

Etruscan goods, speaks to the importance of commerce and

the potential for individual citizens to make a profit by

moving abroad.443

The acceptance or rejection of commercial motivation

for Archaic colonization depends in large measure on a

broader understanding of the ancient economy, on which the

work of Moses Finley has exerted a great influence. Until

Finley's seminal work in the 1970s, the debate about the

nature of the ancient economy was between "primativists,"444

who favored agrarian motives for colonization and

"modernists,"445 who favored trade. Finley rejected both

441
Beloch 1886, pp. 29-33, 275-306; Meyer 1893, pp. 433-444, 470-484;
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, pp. 53-56; Finley 1979.
442
Blakeway 1932-1933. He made famous the concept of "trade before the
flag," which was not originally popular with ancient historians. See
Ridgway 1990; Graham 1990; Whitley 2001, p. 125; Shepherd 2005, p. 30.
443
Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 3.46-47; Strabo 5.2.2 [C 219-220]. Demaratus
might also have been a political exile who was fleeing the newly
established Cypselid tyranny. Cf. Blakeway 1935, pp. 147-148; Osborne
1996a, pp. 119-125. See Chapter 5.
444
The primary tenet of the "primitivist" school of economic thought is
that the ancient economy was a household (subsistence) economy.
445
The "modernists," on the other hand, contend that the main difference
between the ancient and modern economy is one of scale.

134
views.446 According to him, the ancient world did not

support a free market economy, but rather followed Karl

Polanyi's redistributive model.447 Instead of functioning in

a separate sphere, the ancient economy was embedded within

the ideology and resultant network of social relationships

that operated within the polis.448 Hence Greek society was

never really concerned with class per se, but rather was

primarily governed by decisions about status.449

Individuals, therefore, were not interested in profit or in

the exploitation of commercial opportunities.450

446
This debate stemmed from the opposing views of the German scholars K.
Bücher and E. Meyer and was subsequently dismissed by Max Weber (see
below). Rostovtzeff (1953) was a noteworthy proponent of the
modernizing view of the ancient economy. See Finley 1979, 1985, pp.
12-13; Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, pp. 3-7; Morris 1994b, 1999b, pp.
ix-x; Cartledge 2002, pp. 11-12; Reed 2003, pp. 62-63; Morris, Saller,
and Scheidel 2007, pp. 2-5. As Owen notes (2005, p. 10), neither
school questioned the validity of the analogies to modern economies,
but rather debated about which periods were appropriate for comparison.
447
Finley 1982a, 1999. Finley built on the pivotal works of Karl
Polanyi and Weber. See Purcell 2005, pp. 120-120, who is also a
proponent for redistribution in the ancient world, although on a much
larger scale.
448
Finley borrowed Polanyi's "substantivist" approach to the ancient
economy and maintained that the economy was embedded in social
institutions. The opposing "formalist" approach holds that the modern
economy has become dis-embedded from society and social institutions;
it operates, therefore, within its own separate sphere, and can be
examined in and of itself (i.e., separate from society and its
institutions). For the influences of Marx, Weber, Polanyi, and Finley
on current views of the ancient economy, see Humphreys 1970, 1978;
Morris 1999b, p. xii, 2003, pp. 30-31. See also Austin and Vidal-
Naquet 1977, ch. 1; Morris 1999b; Scheidel and von Reden 2002.
449
The importance of status in the ancient economy came from the work of
Weber and was further developed by Finley (1999, ch. 2). Weber was
instrumental in defining status, how it was achieved, and the roles it
played within society. One of his most important points about status
is its fluidity and constant redefinition within a society; status
groups are created, defined, and contested through competition. For a
short summary of Weber's position on status, see Shaw and Saller 1982,
p. xvii; Morris 1999b, pp. xii-xvii.
450
Thus, the ancient economy was very distinct and different from the
modern economy.

135
 According to the substantivist model, economic self-

sufficiency was the goal for individuals as well as for

colonies and whatever trade existed was small scale and

short distance; thus, economic profit was never an

important consideration in the establishment of colonies.451

All ancient cities depended on agricultural land for their

sustenance. Therefore, because the city was dependent on

its territory and could never survive in isolation from the

countryside, arable land was the most essential component

of all new settlements, and was, therefore, the principal

reason for colonization.452

Recent discussions about the reasons for colonization

have produced a number of hybrid hypotheses that combine

old ideas with new theoretical twists; they stress

individual initiative, private entrepreneurship, civic

crisis, increased mobility, and political disillusionment.453

In an attempt to incorporate postmodern theoretical

platforms, emphasis is currently placed on the importance

of individual enterprise and personal profit, i.e., the

role of agency.454 The role of the individual is now being

inserted into historical narratives, resulting in a view

451
Finley 1982b, pp. 4-5, 1999.
452
For more recent discussions of the ancient economy, see Humphreys
1970, 1978; Garnsey, Hopkins, and Whittaker 1983; Silver 1995; Tandy
1997; Scheidel and von Reden 2002; Scheidel, Morris, and Saller 2007.
453
Purcell 1990; Dougherty 1993a; Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-126;
Papadopoulos 2001, p. 382.
454
Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-127, 1998, p. 268; Tandy 1997.

136
that personal incentive provided the primary impetus for an

individual to move overseas and seek a new home in the 8th

and 7th century B.C.455

Trade is still championed as a chief cause for

colonization. For example, David Tandy thinks that

overseas expansion was economically motivated and spurred

primarily by the search for new markets.456 The quest for

profitable sources of luxury items and critical resources

to be exploited was correlated with the opening of new

markets abroad.457 Resources that were in high demand

included metal ores, timber, animal pelts, and silver.458

Slaves, too, would have been a valuable and much sought

after commodity.459 It is currently argued that many

colonies were established as trade centers from the

beginning since they were not located near desirable

agricultural land.460 Indeed, the earliest overseas

settlements at both Al Mina and Pithekoussai were certainly

455
Osborne 1998, p. 268.
456
Tandy 1997. See also Sherratt and Sherratt 1993, pp. 374-375;
Purcell 1990; Reed 2003, pp. 66-67.
457
And vice versa.
458
Osborne 1996a. Resource exploitation and land exploitation produce
divergent cultural assemblages and leave different patterns on the
landscape. The physical residues of resource exploitation are often
more difficult to discern since the objects in question frequently
involved perishable commodities like timber, animal pelts, bitumen,
wine, oil, and other foodstuffs that are archaeologically untraceable.
See Papadopoulos 2001, p. 382; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, p. 14.
459
On the importance of slavery in the ancient world, see Finley 1982a,
pp. 97-166, 1999, pp. 62-94.
460
Tandy 1997.

137
established for commercial, rather than agricultural,

purposes, as discussed below.

The agrarian argument, however, also remains popular

in modern scholarship.461 Anthony Snodgrass suggests that

"injustices, perceived or real, personal or collective, in

the distribution of land and the access to power" were

compelling motives for colonization.462 James Whitley

suggests that commercial considerations were often minimal

since some settlements with fertile agriculture land, like

Metapontum, were not positioned on trade routes or near

natural resources. In this and similar instances, he

contends, the Greeks moved abroad in search of good arable

land.463 Peregrine Horden and Nicholas Purcell take a

slightly different tact and hypothesize that "the

establishment of cash-crop production" provided the impetus

for new colonies.464 Cash-crop production was part of a

large, highly mobilized redistribution network that

461
Most recent scholarship has, however, moved away from the
deterministic approach that views colonization was an inevitable
consequence of land shortage.
462
Snodgrass 1994a, p. 2.
463
Whitley 2001, pp. 125-126. He does not, however, suggest that the
movement overseas was a result of overpopulation. See also Hall 2007a,
pp. 114-117, who notes that the sites of Sybaris and Leontini were
chosen because of their agricultural potential.
464
Horden and Purcell 2000, pp. 134, 286. See also Morris 2003, pp. 37-
43.

138
operated in antiquity and was connected by the

Mediterranean.465

Irad Malkin notes that civic strife (stasis) in the

mother city was another factor that prompted colonization.466

Sources suggest that sometimes the colonists were composed

of less desirable elements of society, potential

troublemakers, or political dissidents and were, therefore,

expelled by the state.467 For example, the Partheniae, who

were born out of wedlock to Spartan women and denied

citizenship, were sent to colonize Taras after forming a

plot against the Spartan citizen body.468 People who might

not otherwise have inherited land, such as illegitimate

children or second sons, had the opportunity to receive a

kleros if they moved abroad. In some cases the oikist

himself was a disenfranchised member of a community who was

unlikely to receive land and/or political power in his

mother city. The illegitimate sons of the Cypselid

465
"The archaeology of 'colonization' is the archaeology of
redistribution (Purcell 2005, p. 120)." Purcell (2005, p. 123) goes on
to note that it is difficult to separate private from public
initiatives in colonization.
466
Malkin 1994a, pp. 2-7. Plato (Leg. 708b) discusses political stasis
as a reason for colonization. See also Dougherty 1993a, p. 17.
467
For example, according to Nicholaus of Damascus (FGrH 90 F57.7) some
of the colonists who founded Anactorium and Leucas were hostile to the
government. See Chapter 5.
468
Antiochus, FGrH 555 F13; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F216; Theopompus, FGrH 115
F171; Diod. Sic. 8.21; Strabo 6.3.2-3 [C 278-280]. See Malkin 1994a,
pp. 4-5; Osborne 1996, pp. 179-180; Wilson 2000, pp. 35-36; Hall 2007a,
pp. 116-117.

139
tyrants, for example, discussed in Chapter 5, were sent

abroad as the leaders of new colonies.469

The establishment of a new community in a foreign land

involved extensive organization and substantial capital.

For this reason, colonization was probably an

aristocratically backed movement.470 Some scholars contend

that the expansion of long distance trade evolved out of

the Dark Age practice of guest friendship (xenia) and the

need for prestige goods.471 According to this view,

seafaring and overseas activities were primarily the

prerogative of the aristocracy, who alone in Greek society

could afford to finance commercial ventures.472 Elite

participation in colonization is evident in the

aristocratic status of many oikists; their involvement in

colonization would be especially desirable if it resulted

in profit and the accumulation of luxury goods. Literary

sources also cited political reasons for why some members

of the aristocracy chose to move abroad.473

On the other hand, it is unlikely that all

participants in overseas ventures were aristocrats. Land

469
Cf. Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F57.7; Strabo 7.7.6 [C 325]. The sons of
tyrants who founded colonies probably ruled as tyrants themselves. See
below and McGlew 1993, pp. 161-182.
470
Cf. Snodgrass 1980, pp. 120-122; Malkin 1994a, p. 6; Coldstream 2003,
pp. 311-312; Reed 2003, pp. 62-74; Purcell 2005, pp. 119-120.
471
See Purcell 1990; Malkin 2004, p. 349; Antonaccio 2005, p. 106.
472
Morris 1986; Whitbread 1995a, p. 21; Papadopoulos 1997a, p. 199.
473
For example, some members of the Bacchiad oligarchy immigrated to
Corcyra at the beginning of Cypselus's reign. Cf. Nic. Dam., FGrH 90
F58.7. See Chapter 5.

140
ownership, which offered the possibility of upward social

mobility, would have induced some people to venture

abroad.474 If the economy in the Archaic period was embedded

in its social institutions, an elevation in status must

have been a powerful incentive for acquiring land; this

could best be achieved by moving to a new colony where land

was being distributed to all colonists.475 Various Classical

and Hellenistic texts identified the self-sufficient

landowner as the ideal occupation for a gentleman;

accomplishment of this modus vivendi implied one had elite

status. Colonization offered under-enfranchised people an

opportunity to attain elite social standing through the

acquisition of property.476

Individual mobility, which contributed to the ease

with which settlers might be attracted to new colonial

ventures, was, until recently, an often-overlooked feature

of the late Iron Age and Archaic periods.477 Purcell offers

an insightful critique of the "small Greece" picture found

in modern scholarship that portrays Archaic Greece as an

isolated, provincial, inward looking society.478 This

perspective has encouraged scholars to see the movement of

474
Cf. Hes. Op. 37-39, 376-377. See Tandy 1997, pp. 135-137; Hodos
2006, pp. 5-6.
475
Cf. Malkin 1994a, p. 6; Purcell 2005, pp. 117-118.
476
Cf. Hes. Op. 37-39.
477
Purcell 1990; Malkin 1994a; Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-126; Reed 2003,
pp. 64-65.
478
Purcell (2005, p. 121) notes instead the connective role that the
Mediterranean played, which facilitated mobility.

141
Greeks abroad as a revolutionary phenomenon.479 Yet

individual mobility is reflected in the works of both Homer

and Hesiod.480 The Odyssey itself is a story about seafaring

and traders.481 Hesiod described in the Works and Days (630-

640) how his father moved from Kyme in Asia Minor to

Boeotia in an attempt to escape poverty and attain a better

life. Archaeological evidence suggests that artisans were

among those who participated in colonizing ventures, as,

indeed, they apparently moved between established poleis in

Greece.482 Another opportunity for people to leave home

arose from the need for mercenary soldiers.483 It is clear

that people in the Archaic period were free to change their

place of residence, and many of them did.

As we have seen above, individuals in the Archaic

period were prompted to move abroad for a variety of

reasons. The earliest voyagers, the Euboeans, were

probably motivated by the search for raw materials,

especially metals (see below). Other Greeks were

stimulated by opportunities such as access to fertile

479
Purcell 1990.
480
Cf. Hom. Od. 9.322-3; Hes. Op. 630-40. For a discussion of mobility
in Homer and Hesiod, see Purcell 1990; Malkin 1994a; Osborne 1998, pp.
256-257.
481
See Tandy 1997; Malkin 1998a.
482
This is evident in the myth of Demaratus of Corinth who fled to
Tarquinii at the beginning of Cypselus' reign. Cf. Dion. Hal. Ant.
Rom. 3.46-47; Strabo 5.2.2 [C 219], 8.6.20 [C 378]. See Chapter 5.
483
Purcell 1990, pp. 46-47. The movement of mercenary soldiers is
evident in the nostoi and in later lyric poetry, especially that of
Archilochus.

142
agricultural land, wealth, political power, and elevated

social status. Some colonists were probably political

dissidents who were forced to leave home, while others went

of their own volition. Such a variety of motives suggests

that colonies were founded for both agrarian and commercial

reasons. In many cases, the location of the colony

reflected these preferences. As Purcell says, "the

dichotomy between land and trade as factors promoting

overseas settlement, dear as it has been, especially to

British scholarship, must be abandoned."484

Types of Settlements Abroad

In addition to the search for the raison d'êntre of

Greek colonies, there has also been an attempt to classify

the types of settlements that were established abroad,

despite considerable homogeneity among Archaic colonies.485

Scholars distinguish two different categories of

settlements that were spawned by the early colonization

movement: the emporion, "a settlement devoted first and

foremost to trade, a settlement whose primary purpose was

to facilitate exchanges between Greeks and foreigners,"486

484
Purcell 2005, p. 120.
485
See Osborne 1998 for a recent discussion of the character of Archaic
Greek settlements abroad.
486
Whitley 2001, p. 124.

143
and the apoikia, a "home away from home."487 The

identification of these two classes of colonies embodies

the trade versus agrarian division discussed above.

The validity of the emporion/apoikia classification

that distinguishes Al Mina and Pithekoussai from the later

Archaic colonies has recently been subjected to intense

criticism. John-Paul Wilson concludes that the "emporion –

apoikia opposition is ultimately a creation of the

Classical period and reflects the concerns and desires of

that era."488 It is clear, nevertheless, that there were

ideological differences between the two types of

settlements in their economic structures, ethnic

demographics, foundation stories, and sources of

immigrants.

The earliest overseas settlements have been labeled

"emporia."489 Most such commercial settlements were

487
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, pp. 61-68; Graham 1983.
488
Wilson 1997, p. 206.
489
Wilson (1997) discusses the evolution of the meaning of "emporion" in
antiquity. He argues that, according to the 5th century B.C.
definition, any community that engaged in commercial activity was an
emporion. Therefore, all apoikiai, as well as all poleis, were
emporia. As Bakhuizen (1987, p. 186) points out, the modern use of
emporion and apoikia does not really correspond to the ancient, nor is
it applicable to the time frame here under study. Nevertheless, it is
expedient to use these terms to distinguish between types of Archaic
overseas foundations, as discussed further below. Additionally,
postcolonial scholars have noted that the English term "colony" is
problematic, because it has inherent "statist" overtones that are
evident in older discussions of Archaic settlements outside Greece.
Cf. Finley 1976, pp. 173-174; Purcell 1990, pp. 55-56; Osborne 1998;
Morgan 1999, pp. 120-121; van Dommelen 2002; Shepherd 2005, pp. 25-35;
Snodgrass 2005, pp. 45-51. Although the validity of this term has been
challenged, I will, for convenience's sake, use "apoikia" and "colony"
interchangeably.

144
international, multi-ethnic trading posts that were not

founded by Greeks. Emporia were not created as autonomous

city-states, nor were they political foundations backed by

a strong central government in a metropolis. There are no

known oikists or ktiseis attached to emporia, as there are

for later colonies; the absence of foundation stories for

emporia may account for the general lack of information

about them in the literary tradition.490 The populations in

emporia were constantly changing, and they lacked a well-

defined body of colonists who resided in them; they instead

were comprised of small groups of settlers who were

probably present as the result of personal initiative.

Such communities were not self-sufficient or self-

governing. Al Mina is the best known example of an

emporion in the east, a position held by Pithekoussai in

the west. Euboean traders are generally thought to make up

the Greek component in emporia.

Euboeans in the Mediterranean

Of particular importance in understanding the Archaic

colonization of Illyria by Greeks is the role played there

and elsewhere in the Mediterranean by adventurers from the

island of Euboea, who have been dubbed the "first western

490
Wilson 1997; Osborne 1998.

145
Greeks."491 The earliest contacts abroad in both the east

and the west were forged by Euboeans. Their first ventures

were proto-colonial and were motivated by commercial

interests; they were undertaken by seafarer-traders who did

not, at least in the beginning, establish permanent

settlements, but rather set up trading centers.492 Evidence

suggests that Euboean immigrants began to reside

permanently in these emporia in the first quarter of the

8th century B.C., prior to the "wave of colonization"

during the "Greek Renaissance."493 The discussion that

follows in Chapter 5 will show that the genesis for the

colonies along the east coast of the Adriatic resulted from

this historical process of exploration that began with the

voyages of the Euboeans.

Although ancient sources record that the Euboeans were

among the first explorers and settlers abroad, recognition

of the importance of their role in the Greek expansion

throughout the Mediterranean has been confirmed with

archaeological evidence only in scholarship after World War

491
Ridgway 1992. Cf. Snodgrass 1994b; Coldstream 2003.
492
See Snodgrass 1994b and Malkin 1998a for the role of the Euboeans in
the proto-colonization of the western Mediterranean.
493
Malkin 2002b, p. 151; Hall 2007a, p. 97. Hall notes that 93.3% of
the early 8th century B.C. pottery from Al Mina is Greek. While pots
do not necessarily equal people, such a high percentage suggests that
at least some Greeks were living in the settlement. Cf. Hall 2007a,
pp. 106-110 and Boardman 2004, p. 149 on pots and people.

146
II.494 Prior to this, the only record of the early maritime

prowess of these islanders was preserved in myths and

legends reported by much later ancient authors, whose

historicicity was generally regarded with skepticism.495

Giorgio Buchner initiated a change in this attitude with

systematic excavations beginning in 1952 at the early 8th

century B.C. trading post on the island of Pithekoussai

(Ischia) in the Bay of Naples.496 Additionally, since the

1950s startling discoveries have been made in excavations

on Euboea itself,497 and detailed studies of local ceramics

from secure archaeological contexts on the island have

aided in the recognition of Euboean products abroad.498 As a

result of ongoing excavations, both on Euboea and overseas,

and specialized studies of Euboean ceramic sequences, the

Euboean maritime presence abroad no longer needs to be

defined solely on the basis of literary evidence, and the

presence of Euboeans can be attested archaeologically in

many of the locations where literary tradition alone had

once placed them.499

494
Snodgrass 1994b, p. 87; Papadopoulos 1996, p. 151. Cf. Blakeway
(1932-1933), who hardly mentions the Euboeans. See Bakhuizen (1976)
for ancient texts that mention the Euboeans abroad.
495
See, however, Myres (1925, pp. 649-654), who discusses in detail the
role of the Euboeans in colonization.
496
See Ridgway 1992 for Buchner's excavations and bibliography.
497
See Coldstream 2003, pp. 191-201, 388-389.
498
Kearsley 1995, 1999.
499
Cf. Buchner and Ridgway 1993. For recent discussions of the role of
the Euboeans in trade and colonization, see Ridgway 1992, 2004;

147
 There are several theories about why the Euboeans

began their overseas explorations. Tandy argues that

pressure from overpopulation, combined with the desire for

economic profit, explains the Euboean presence at Al Mina

and Pithekoussai, and that the colonists were not in either

place for agricultural purposes.500 Simon Bakhuizen

similarly suggests that the earliest Euboean settlements in

the west, especially Pithekoussai, were founded for

commercial reasons, principally for access to iron ore.501

Unlike the later Greek colonies that were founded

between the second half of the 8th and the end of the 7th

centuries B.C., the earliest Euboean settlements were

ethnically mixed.502 Although references in ancient texts

Snodgrass 1994a, 1994b; Papadopoulos 1996, 1997a; Whitley 2001, pp.

126-127.
Recent excavations in the Chalkidike provide an example of how
archaeology has confirmed Euboean penetration in an area where only
questionable literary evidence had previously hinted at their presence.
See Popham 1994, pp. 30-33; Snodgrass 1994b. Papadopoulos (1996,
1997a, pp. 157-159), on the other hand, based on his interpretation of
the archaeological evidence and literary texts, downplays the role of
the Euboeans in the colonization of the northern Aegean. He (1997a, p.
158) maintains that "the momentous Euboian enterprise is a figment of
our scholarly imagination: that it did not happen at all." For
arguments that the Euboeans played a minimal role in early Greek
colonization, see also Bakhuizen 1975; Morgan 1998, pp. 281-290. For a
reaction against this "anti-Euobean campaign," see Ridgway 2004, pp.
24-28.
500
Tandy (1997) in general suggests that overpopulation in Greece
stimulated economic development, a resurrection of Snodgrass's argument
advanced in Archaic Greece (1980).
501
Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 65-69.
502
Cf. Hall 2007a, pp. 96-98. It should be noted, however, that
ethnicity is notoriously difficult to detect in the archaeological
record. I am not here concerned, however, with an ethnic definition of
Euboeans or issues of ethnicity in the archaeological record. For a
discussion of ethnicity, see Hall 1995, 1997; Graves-Brown, Jones, and
Gamble 1996; Jones 1997, 1998; Malkin 2001a, 2001b; Wilson 2000; Lomas
2000; Herring 2000.

148
suggest that the Euboeans were independent explorers and

intrepid seamen, it is likely that they acted in concert

with Phoenician traders and other Greeks in their earliest

endeavors abroad.503 Archaeological evidence beyond the mere

presence of their products (which might have been

transported there by other merchants) indicates that some

Euboeans were themselves living in these emporia.504 Al Mina

in Syria and Pithekoussai in the west are two of the

overseas settlements discussed briefly below where

archaeological evidence such as ceramics and burial customs

suggest that Euboeans resided on a permanent basis.

Evidence supports a strong Euboean maritime influence in

the Mediterranean that spanned most of the 8th century

B.C., from ca. 775-700 B.C.505

503
For the role of the Phoenicians in colonization and early trade in
the Mediterranean, see Blakeway 1932-1933, p. 171, n. 5; Aubet 1993;
Ridgway 1994; Snodgrass 1994a; Crielaard 1996; Osborne 1996a, pp. 105-
115; Papadopoulos 1997a; Morris and Papadopoulos 1998; Markoe 2000.
Some scholars contend that the Euboeans relied on the Phoenicians for
the success of their voyages. Whitley (2001, p. 127), for example,
writes that "the Euboeans had to have had inside information" supplied
by the Phoenicians. Compare Kopcke 1992, who downplays the role of the
Phoenicians.
504
As noted above, the presence of a Euboean sherd in the archaeological
record need not be interpreted as evidence that it was brought there by
a Euboean trader or used by a Euboean inhabitant; pottery is neither
transported nor consumed exclusively by those who make it. Cf.
Papadopoulos 1996, p. 158, 1997a, 2001, p. 374; Osborne 1996a, p. 115.
This does not mean, however, that ceramics were not transported by
merchants and used by people from their places of origin. Cf. Boardman
1999a, pp. 271-272, 2004, p. 149; Ridgway 2004, pp. 24-28.
505
Ridgway 1990, p. 64. On Euboean exports, see Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 3-
13; Ridgway 1990; Morgan 1998, pp. 285-296.

149
 Al Mina, located in the delta of the Orontes river,

was excavated in the 1930s by Sir Leonard Woolley.506 The

settlement was established early in the 8th century B.C.

and has been interpreted by most modern scholars as the

earliest overseas emporion with a resident Greek

population. Al Mina was a multi-ethnic settlement whose

economy was based solely on trade.507 It was established

principally for the exchange of metals; trade was focused

on the export of raw materials transported to the coast

from inland sources, rather than on the import of pan-

Mediterranean goods. Those metals attracted the Euboeans,

who traded their pottery as part of the process; eventually

a small group of them settled there.508

Euboeans participated in the foundation of

Pithekoussai ca. 770-750 B.C.509 The settlement combined

506
For a review of the archaeology and interpretations of Al Mina, see
Graham 1986; Boardman 1990, 1999a, pp. 38-54, 270-272, 1999b; Ridgway
1992, pp. 24-25; Kearsley 1995, 1999; Waldbaum 1997; Tandy 1997, pp.
62-66.
507
Graham 1986; Boardman 1990, 1999a, pp. 39-46, 1999b; Hall 2002, pp.
93-94.
508
See Kearsley 1999 for a discussion of the pottery. Her thorough
review of the archaeological evidence supports a Euboean presence at Al
Mina from very early in the history of that settlement. She suggests
that the site originated as a mercenary settlement, which later evolved
into a multi-ethnic emporion.
Recently some scholars have argued that Al Mina, because of the
strong Phoenician presence, should not be considered a Greek (or
Euboean) emporion and that it is doubtful that Euboeans even lived
there. Cf. Perreault 1993; Snodgrass 1994a, pp. 3-5; Osborne 1996a,
pp. 112-113; Papadopoulos 1997a, pp. 195-198; Whitley 2001, p. 118.
Although it is possible that Euboeans did not reside at Al Mina, it is
unlikely given the quantity of Greek pottery that has been found in the
earliest levels at the site, as noted above.
509
Livy 8.22.5-6; Strabo 5.4.9 [C 249]. Strabo said Pithekoussai was a
joint Chalcidian-Eretrian colony. See Bérard 1960, pp. 70-72; Buchner

150
elements of both an emporion and an industrial center for

processing ore.510 The inhabitants there, too, were

ethnically mixed and probably included Phoenicians,

Euboeans, and other Greeks who came to the western

Mediterranean in search of metals.511 The settlement also

incorporated members of the indigenous population.512 The

colony was established as a trading post and as a way

station for the smelting of iron ore imported from Elba and

the Etruscan mainland; its primary function was the export

of processed metals. Scholars originally identified

Pithekoussai as a Euboean emporion, even though it does not

adhere to the characteristics of Al Mina.513 Pithekoussai is

distinguished from other Greek emporia by the large size of

the community, the semi-permanence of the residences, and

the agrarian practices of the settlement, which afforded

the inhabitants a measure of self-sufficiency.514 It is

1975, 1979; Buchner and Ridgway 1983; Ridgway 1981, 1990, 1992, 1994,
2004, pp. 17-22; Greco 1994; d'Agostino 1994, 1996, 1999, pp. 211-217;
Cornell 1995, pp. 86-87; Osborne 1996a, pp. 114-118; Tandy 1997, pp,
66-72; Boardman 1994, 1999a, pp. 165-168; d'Agostino 1999, pp. 211-217;
Whitley 2001, pp. 126-127; Malkin 2002b; Coldstream 2003, pp. 225-230;
Hodos 2006, pp. 89-91; Hall 2007a, pp. 89-89; and, in general, the
works of Giorgio Buchner.
510
Ridgway 1990, pp. 107-109. Cf. Wilson 1997.
511
Cook 1962; Ridgway 1990, pp. 111-118; Kopcke 1992, pp. 109-110;
Boardman 1994, 1999a, pp. 38-54, 270-272; Osborne 1996a, pp. 114-118;
Malkin 2002b, p. 159; Coldstream 2003, pp. 395.
512
See Coldstream 1993 and Shepherd 1999, pp. 274-277 for evidence of
intermarriage between foreigners and natives from the cemetery.
513
See Greco 1994.
514
Recent estimates for the size of the community at Pithekoussai based
on evidence from the cemeteries suggest that the population reached
between 5,000 and 10,000 within a generation of its foundation. See
Ridgway 1992, pp. 101-103; Osborne 1996a, p. 114.

151
distinguished from an apoikia proper by its emphasis on

trade and the procurement of raw materials, and the

ethnically mixed composition of its inhabitants.

The earliest burials in the well-excavated cemeteries

at Pithekoussai are Middle Geometric (ca. 750 B.C.).515

Although there is a large quantity of Euboean pottery from

the cemetery, the bulk of the material is Corinthian.516 The

settlement at Pithekoussai was short lived; it prospered

until the end of the 8th century B.C., but then the

population began to decline. Archaeological evidence

suggests that the settlement was abandoned by the end of

the century.517 It appears that at least some of the

inhabitants transferred their residences to Cumae, one of

the earliest apoikiai in Magna Graecia (see below).

The Greeks residing in emporia are thought to have had

a symbiotic relationship with the indigenous populations

and other foreigners. The settlements at Al Mina in the

east and Pithekoussai in the west had ethnically mixed

populations and were based on accommodation with the

natives; territorial expansion does not appear to have been

515
Ridgway 1992, pp. 45-82; Hall 2002, pp. 93-94; d'Agostino 1999, pp.
212-217; Shepherd 1999, pp. 274-277.
516
Ridgway 1992. Late Geometric and Protocorinthian ceramics are
prevalent in slightly later strata. The earliest Corinthian pieces are
Late Geometric, dated ca. 750 B.C. by Buchner 1975, pp. 66-67; Ridgway
1981, pp. 45-50, 1992, pp. 68-87; Buchner and Ridgway 1983, p. 3, 1993,
p. 730; Coldstream 1983, 1995. De Vries 2003, pp. 141-154, however,
would down date the LG pieces to ca. 730 B.C.
517
Strabo (5.4.9 [C 247]) said that the inhabitants left Pithekoussai
because of a quarrel between the Eretrians and Chalcidians.

152
an objective of their mission. "Mid-eighth-century

colonization in the West was more a legacy of proto-

colonial trade contacts than a precursor of strategic

territorial expansion."518 The frequency and intensity of

interaction between the indigenous population, Euboeans,

and other foreigners is archaeologically attested both in

the cemeteries at Pithekoussai and in the settlement at Al

Mina. Subsequent Greek settlements, apoikiai, to which we

will now turn, appear to have been more formally structured

than emporia and were generally not based on co-habitation

with the natives.

Apoikiai

The endeavors of the first Euboean traders are likely

to have stimulated other ventures abroad by demonstrating

that overseas prospecting was viable, safe, and

economically lucrative.519 Regardless of the motives that

prompted the Greeks of the 8th century B.C. to found

settlements abroad, the movement to colonize the west in

the Archaic period was, as Snodgrass noted, of an

"unprecedentedly planned, deliberate and calculated

518
Malkin 2002b, p. 154.
519
Strabo (6.2.2 [C 267]) noted that the Greeks were afraid to travel by
sea before the middle of the 8th century B.C. because of piracy and the
hostility of the natives. See also Thuc. 1.5 on piracy in the Archaic
period and Ephorus, FGrH 70 F137 on Greek fears of native populations.

153
nature."520 The apoikia is the typical colonial foundation

established by the Greeks from the mid-8th to the late 6th

century B.C.,521 in contrast to the emporion. The term

apoikia, which means a "settlement away from home," is

usually translated into English as "colony" (see above).

The foundation of an apoikia appears to have been a

purposeful shift of population from mainland Greece to a

foreign locale.

John Myres proposes that many colonies were settled

because of their advantageous location. According to him,

favorable winds and currents sent the earliest Greek

explorers in the direction of Italy.522 The placement of

apoikiai in the west is generally less dense than patterns

of settlement in mainland Greece itself; the gaps that

existed in certain areas in the west were perhaps a result

of the presence of powerful native populations or the lack

of sufficient fertile land.523 Oswyn Murray suggests that

the colonists sought uninhabited areas or areas that were

occupied by "primitive natives," and in some cases,

indigenous settlements at the sites of colonies were small

or non-existent.524

520
Snodgrass 1994a, p. 1.
521
See Wilson 1997, pp. 205-206 for the range of meanings associated
with the Greek word "apoikia."
522
Myres 1911.
523
Morel 1984, pp. 127-129; Snodgrass 1994a, 1994b, pp. 92-97.
524
Murray 1980. Cf. Hall 2000, p. 97; Malkin 2003, p. 5.

154
 Apoikiai were founded as independent poleis.525 The

formalities surrounding their foundations, discussed below,

set them apart from emporia. Unlike most poleis on the

Greek mainland, colonies did not originally have well

defined borders; most faced the sea and had an open-ended

hinterland.526 Since apoikiai, regardless of why they were

founded, relied on agriculture for survival,527 as noted

above, the accessibility of arable land was a principal

consideration in the selection of a suitable habitation

site in order to fulfill the ideal of autarkeia (self-

sufficiency).528 The need for cultivatable land fuelled a

degree of territorial expansionism that could ultimately

only be satisfied by encroachment into the hinterland,

usually at the expense of native populations.529 Aggressive

expansion, often immediate and sometimes militaristic in

nature, was frequently undertaken by colonies.530

The Greeks who participated in the foundation of an

apoikia went there as permanent residents; they intended to

stay. Certain formal procedures were prescribed for

525
Owen 2005, p. 17. Cf. Malkin 2004, p. 347.
526
Malkin 2002a, p. 199.
527
Cf. Purcell 2005, p. 131.
528
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, pp. 61-63. Cf. Graham 1982, 1983.
529
Colonists frequently attempted to link their heritage to nostoi of
Trojan war heroes in order to claim that the land they were taking from
the indigenous population was really Greek "ancestral" land. See below
and Dougherty 1993a, p. 28, n. 8.
530
E.g., Gela (Paus. 8-46-2; 9.40.4); Apollonia (Paus. 5.22.4); Corcyra
(Plut. Mor. 293a-b; Strabo 10.1.15 [C 449]). See below and Dougherty
1993a, 1993b; Malkin 2002a, pp. 199-201; Morris 2003, pp. 46-50.

155
founding an apoikia, some details of which are preserved in

ancient texts. Naxos and Cumae are among the earliest

apoikiai founded by the Greeks, and the Euboeans were

instrumental in establishing both (Fig. 4.1). Those

colonies embody some of the features that are common to

many apoikiai, including those in southern Illyria, and

will be discussed briefly below. Syracuse and Corcyra, the

first non-Euboean apoikiai, were founded by Corinthians in

734/3 B.C., the year after Naxos was colonized. The latter

two apoikiai will be examined in greater detail in Chapter

5.

Naxos, which Thucydides recorded was the first Greek

colony established in Sicily, was founded by Euboeans from

Chalcis ca. 734 B.C.531 It was different in character from

the emporia discussed above because it appears to have been

founded not only for the exploitation of natural resources,

but also because of its strategic location and an abundance

of arable land.532 The position of Naxos as the first port

of call in Sicily for ships rounding the boot of Italy

suggests that trade played an important role in its

foundation. Agricultural self-sufficiency, however, was

also critical for the survival of the colony, and the

colonists were clearly attracted by the fertility of the

531
Thuc. 6.3.1. See Coldstream 1983, 2003, pp. 233-234; Malkin 1987,
pp. 175-176; Boardman 1999a, p. 169.
532
Cf. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F137a, b.

156
soil.533 Naxos was founded by an oikist, Theocles, who

discovered the site when he was blown off course to

Sicily.534 In contrast to Pithekoussai archaeological

evidence suggests that the Greeks who settled Naxos

displaced a native settlement, rather than cohabitating

with them.535 The altar of Apollo Archegetes, the patron of

colonial ventures and sacred to all Sicilian Greeks, was

located in Naxos, which made it an important gathering

place for other Greeks living in Sicily.536

Cumae was also a Euboean foundation.537 It was founded

ca. 725 B.C. on the shore of Campania opposite Ischia about

a generation later than Pithekoussai.538 Cumae was an

apoikia rather than an emporion, although the distinction

is not very clear-cut.539 Unlike its island neighbor,

533
The settlement itself is located on a headland, but there is a
fertile valley inland from the site.
534
Thuc. 6.3.2; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F137a, b = Strabo 6.2.2 [C 267];
Pseudo-Scymnus 270-277. According to Strabo (6.2.2 [C 267]), Theocles
was not a Euboean, but an Athenian, but because was unable to persuade
his compatriots to join him in an overseas venture, he recruited a
group of Chalcidian settlers. See Sainte-Croix 1779, pp. 284-285; Hall
2007a, pp. 102-103 for problems associated with Theocles and Naxos.
535
Boardman 1999a, p. 169, n. 29.
536
Thuc. 6.3.1; Graham 1983, p. 26; Malkin 1987, p. 19, 2003, pp. 62-63.
The altar of Apollo Archegetes served as a religious focal point for
Sicilian Greek identity.
537
According to Strabo (5.4.3 [C 243]), Cumae was a joint foundation by
Cyme and Chalcis with an oikist from each: Hippocles from Cyme and
Megasthenes from Chalcis. By mutual agreement, the colony was named
after Cyme and considered Chalcis as its metropolis. A similar
compromise was reached in the case of Thronium, a neighbor of
Apollonia's, which will be discussed in Chapter 5.
538
Livy 8.22.5-6. See Blakeway 1932-1933, pp. 200-202; Cook 1962;
Ridgway 1992, pp. 32-36; Coldstream 1994; Osborne 1996a, pp. 127-129;
Tandy 1997, pp. 66-78; Boardman 1999a, pp. 168-169; D'Agostino 1999,
pp. 207-211.
539
Cf. d'Agostino 1999, pp. 219-220.

157
foundation legends exist for the colony, which became an

important polis (unlike Pithekoussai) and flourished as a

trading post throughout and beyond the Archaic period.540

Cumae, unlike Pithekoussai, had an abundance of arable

land. The original population of the colony was augmented

when Pithekoussai began to lose residents towards the end

of the 8th century B.C.541 Cumae played an important role in

bringing together Greeks, Etruscans, and local Campanian

merchants and elites.542 Although a variety of ethnic groups

interacted in Cumae, the earliest burials (ca. 720 B.C.)

find their closest parallels in Euboea, indicating that the

residents were primarily Greek.543 The polis was violently

sacked by the native Oscans in the 5th century B.C.544

Characteristics of Apoikiai

It is generally believed that a colony was, in

essence, a new polis that was established with all the

accoutrements and characteristics of the city-state; it

was, in effect, a "polis in motion."545 Thucydides indicated

that apoikiai were founded by specific mother cities in

540
Livy 8.22.5-6; Strabo 5.4.4 [C 243].
541
Livy 8.22.5-6; Osborne 1996a, p. 116; Whitley 2001, p. 127.
542
See Malkin 2002b for a discussion of the mythic framework that
developed and helped to forge a new cultural identity for the multi-
ethnic inhabitants of the area around Cumae.
543
Cornell 1995, p. 92.
544
Diod. Sic. 12.76.4; Livy 4.44.1-2; Strabo 5.4.4 [C 243]. See Graham
1983, p. 16; Lomas 1995, p. 351.
545
Graham 1982, 1983. Cf. Malkin 2003, pp. 58-59.

158
Greece.546 If colonies were poleis from the beginning, then

metropoleis must have been fully formed poleis that already

possessed all of the elements and institutions found in

early city-states, which they then transferred to their

apoikiai. Each metropolis, therefore, must have had some

type of central government, a sense of self-identity, and a

large enough population to be able to organize and send

forth a portion of its citizen body to settle abroad.

Much of the debate about whether or not apoikiai were

founded by mother cities is connected to questions about

the origin of the polis.547 An assertion that colonies

possessed the characteristics of poleis from their

inception raises the question of whether the "polis"

existed when the first colonies were founded.548

Colonization is often interpreted as evidence for the

existence of the polis, since a colony, given the

546
Cf. Thuc. 6.3-6. Information about the existence of metropoleis is
found in Thucydides' (1.34.1-2) presentation of the debate between
Corcyra and Corinth. It is, however, likely that Thucydides' goals and
perspectives molded his views and induced him to retroject into the
past that with which he was familiar, since he himself was the product
of a polis. Cf. Whitley 2001, p. 124.
547
The question about the origin of the polis was first taken up by
Ehrenberg in the late 1930s. Cf. Ehrenberg 1937, 1969. See Aristotle
Politics 1252b for the definition of a polis; Morgan and Coulton 1997
for a physical description of a polis; and Hansen 1996, 1997 for a
literary description. Osborne notes that discussions about the origin
of the polis that were so prevalent in scholarship of the 1980s are now
gone. "Hypotheses about state formation are regarded as inadequate to
explain the nature and variety of the changes to be seen in the
material culture (Osborne 2004, p. 91)."
548
Cf. Roebuck (1972, p. 97), who questions the degree of development
that had taken place in Corinth when its first colonies, Syracuse and
Corcyra, were founded. See below and Chapter 5.

159
formalities associated with its foundation, appears to have

been a fully developed polis in both organization and

conception.549 This argument, however, is rather circular,

and recent scholarship has sought to prove that certain

innovations essential to the rise of the polis first

appeared in the colonies of Magna Graecia and were

transferred from there back to mainland Greece.550

Since the founding of colonies is directly linked to

the rise of the polis, it is necessary to consider briefly

how a polis is defined. The polis was a system of social

organization that emerged in certain, but not all, parts of

the Greek mainland. It was one of the principal forms of

social organization in ancient Greece.551 The polis or

"citizen-estate" was an independent, self-contained,

"autonomous political unit, incorporating a town and its

territory as the inseparable parts of that unit."552

549
An apoikia was an independent community and its foundation observed
certain proscribed formalities. The need for communal organization was
immediate. Cf. Malkin 2003, pp. 59, 67, 71; Hansen 2003, pp. 281-282.
Snodgrass (1994b) argues that colonization preceded polis organization
in the Chalkidike and at Pithekoussai, but these were emporia with
strong Euboean and other ethnic components, rather than fully developed
apoikiai. In fact, Pithekoussai never developed into a polis.
550
See Malkin 1987, 1994a; de Polignac 1995; Papadopoulos 2001, p. 376.
551
The other form of social organization was the ethnos. For ethne, see
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 42-47; Morgan 2003; Hall 2007a, pp. 67-83. For the
role of ethne in colonization, see Morgan and Hall 1996; Hansen 2003,
pp. 280-281; Hall 2007a, pp. 88-91.
552
Snodgrass 1980, p. 7. See also Ehrenberg 1937, p. 150; van
Compernolle 1983, p. 1038; Snodgrass 1993; Wilson 2000, pp. 34-35;
Morgan 2003, pp. 5-7; Purcell 2005, p. 131; Hall 2007a, pp. 68-70.

160
 When the polis "appeared" is a matter of great

debate.553 It likely emerged as a result of historical

dynamics and changes in social and economic organization

that took place throughout the Early Iron Age following the

collapse of the Mycenaean palaces.554 The polis coalesced

during the 8th century B.C. and was firmly established by

the beginning of the Archaic period.555 Components of the

polis that were present by the 8th century B.C. and are

cited as evidence of its existence by this date include: a

concept of state identity that was embodied in a state

religion and was articulated through the construction of

sanctuaries and temples; the establishment of communal hero

cults; the foundation of colonies with state organization;

the break-down of military exclusivity and the rise of the

hoplite army; artistic diversity; and community and

individual dedications at Panhellenic sanctuaries.556

553
Scholars disagree about how, where, and when the polis "emerged."
Ehrenberg (1937, p. 156) concludes that the polis existed by the time
Homer's Odyssey was written. Morris (1986) places the beginning of the
process at the end of the Bronze Age, as does Nagy (1997), who sees
evidence for the foundation of the polis in Homer's description of the
judgment scene on the shield of Achilles in the Iliad, which is itself
impossible to date. Snodgrass (1980, p. 7) places the birth of the
polis between the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., and Donlan (1985)
contends that the origins are firmly rooted in the social structure
that evolved during the early Iron Age. It used to be universally
agreed, however, that the formation process was well under way by the
time Greece emerged from the Dark Age. For discussions of the
development of the polis, see Ehrenberg 1969; Snodgrass 1980, 1993;
Morgan 1990, p. 4; Mitchell and Rhodes 1997; Greco 2000; Hansen 2003,
pp. 279-282.
554
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 27-32.
555
Morris 1999a, p. 66.
556
Hurwit 1993. Cf. Hom. Ody. 6.262-72.

161
Physical characteristics of the polis included

fortification walls, a centralized agora, an acropolis that

served religious and defensive purposes, an extramural

necropolis, an attached agricultural hinterland, communal

religious associations, and a defined citizen body.557 Some

scholars would argue that these characteristics of the

polis were also present in the first Greek apoikiai.558

The polis was based on the concept of politeia

(citizenship).559 A city-state was composed of a defined and

restricted citizen body that had certain rights and

privileges from which non-citizens were excluded.560 Civic

life was "organized by customs, laws, or institutions that

cut across ties of kinship or private privilege" and were

established for the common good. The sense of community

and the common interests and values of members of the polis

557
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 24-48; Coldstream 2003, p. 414. For example,
Megara Hyblaea appears to have been laid out on a grid plan that
demarcated public and private spaces from the time of its foundation in
ca. 728 B.C., although the evidence is not unambiguous. See
discussions in Osborne 1998, pp. 260-262; Morgan 1999, p. 128; De
Angelis 2003, pp. 17-32; Hall 2007a, pp. 107-110. The original
colonists formed the citizen body of a new apoikia. Cf. Thuc. 7.77.7
(ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλις).
558
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 27-34; Coldstream 2003, pp. 406-408, 414-415.
See discussions in Whitley 1991, pp. 39-45, 2001, pp. 166-167; Hall,
2007a, pp. 79-83. Not all apoikiai were founded by poleis. For
example, Epizephyrian Locris, Croton, and Sybaris were founded by
ethne. Epizephyrian Locris was founded by Locris (Strabo 6.1.7 [C
259]) and Croton and Sybaris were founded by Achaea. In such cases,
the polis formed first abroad and was then transferred back to the
mother region. Cf. Graham 1983, pp. 115-116; Malkin 1994a, p. 1, 2003,
pp. 66-67; Morgan and Hall 1996; Morgan 1999, pp. 137-141, 2003, pp.
28-38; Wilson 2000, p. 37.
559
See Lintott 2000, pp. 158-159.
560
The definition of the citizen body was the crux of a state's
identity. Cf. Thuc. 7.77.7.

162
were stronger than their loyalty to kinship ties.561 The

centralized authority was composed of specialized

governmental positions that were filled by citizens. It is

these conceptual features, as well as the physical ones

described above, that are found in the earliest poleis as

well as the first Archaic apoikiai.

Some scholars, on the other hand, contend that the

development of the polis occurred after colonization had

begun. Osborne, for example, is one of these.562 So, too,

is Malkin, who posits that colonization helped to solidify

the development of the polis on the mainland.563 Along

similar lines, Wilson thinks that the coalescence of the

polis was a result of colonization.564 He suggests that the

concern with communal organization displayed in apoikiai

reflected a concern with ethnic identity, which led, in

turn, to the emergence of state identity, which was

transferred back to the mainland.

Although the apoikiai in southern Illyria were

certainly founded after the institution of the polis was

firmly established in Greece, the question about when the

polis "emerged" is intimately tied in with the nature of

561
Snodgrass 1980, pp. 32-42; Hurwit 1993, p. 46.
562
Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-127, 1998, p. 268.
563
Malkin 1994a, pp. 1-2.
564
Wilson 2000, pp. 31-35.

163
the relationship that Corinth had with one of its first

colonies, Corcyra, as we will see in Chapter 5.565

Metropoleis

The hypothesis that colonial ventures were organized

or at least supported by a metropolis is an old one, based

ultimately on the ancient literary sources that recorded a

mother city for most colonies.566 The study of the

relationship between colony and mother city in modern

scholarship can be traced to at least the mid-17th

century.567 In recent decades, however, discussions about

the nature of interactions between colonies and metropoleis

have become polarized into two camps; one argues that

mother cities were responsible for organizing and

sponsoring colonial ventures, while the other challenges

the very validity of the concept of "mother city" and

contends that foundations abroad lacked any type of state

supervision because they resulted solely from private

565
Malkin (1994a, p. 1) suggests that Corinth as not urbanized before
the 7th century B.C. and hence not a polis when Syracuse and Corcyra
were founded. The discussion in Chapter 5 suggests otherwise.
566
Austin and Vidal-Naquet 1977, p. 50. As noted above, Morel (1984)
downplays the merit of studies about the nature of the relationships
between colonies and mother cities.
567
See Graham 1983, pp. xvii-xviii for a brief history of scholarship.
Shepherd (1995, pp. 70-71, 2005, pp. 25-29) suggests that the notion of
a close relationship between mother cities and colonies in Greek
scholarship is based on analogies with British imperialism. It derives
from the British Empire's notion of superiority over their colonies and
the expectation of loyalty from them.

164
enterprise.568 If the latter were the case, then the debate

about whether or not the polis existed when the first

colonies were established would be irrelevant.

Ancient literary testimonia assert that individual

Greek poleis were responsible for the foundation of

specific colonies and that their colonies, in turn,

maintained connections with their mother city.569 For

example, Herodotus explicitly stated that Thera organized

the foundation of Cyrene570 and Thucydides, in his digression

in Book 6 about Greeks living in Sicily, listed specific

metropoleis for most colonies.571 Numerous later writers,

including Strabo,572 Diodorus Siculus,573 and Pausanias,574

also linked apoikiai with particular metropoleis. Given

the number of textual references to the founding of

colonies by mother cities, it seems sophistic to question

the validity of the notion.575 Indeed, the majority of

modern scholars accept that many poleis on the Greek

mainland organized and sent out groups of their citizens to

568
Graham (1983, p. 8) cautions, however, against the bipolar
juxtaposition of state versus private initiative and notes that "both
state and private enterprises existed throughout the historical
colonizing period." See also Purcell 2005, p. 123.
569
See Bérard 1960, pp. 63-65, 89-91; Graham 1982, 1983; Malkin 1994a.
See Osborne 1996a, pp. 121-125 for a list of colonies and mother
cities.
570
Hdt. 4.155-159; ML 5.
571
Thuc. 6.1-5.
572
Strabo 6.1.6 [C 258], 9.4.1 [C 425], 10.5.1 [C 484].
573
Diod. Sic. 12.30.3, 14.69.4.
574
Paus. 2.32.6, 5.22.4, 8.27.6.
575
See, however, Osborne 1998, pp. 255-256 and Morgan 1999, pp. 128-129
for problems associated with retrojecting 5th century B.C. concepts
onto earlier periods.

165
found new settlements abroad and, conversely, that most

apoikiai outside Greece acknowledged foundation from a

specific, older metropolis within the Greek homeland.

Robin Osborne is one of the dissidents and has

recently argued against the idea that colonies were polis-

sponsored ventures.576 He appears to view the movement

overseas as a rather random affair.577 He contends that

apoikiai were, in essence, new poleis that were established

as independent and self-sufficient communities, without the

least attachment to, or dependency on, any particular

metropolis.578 As noted above, he maintains that no single

mother city could be responsible for any of the 8th-7th

century B.C. colonies because no state mechanisms existed

at that time that would have or could have coordinated

foundations abroad.579 He suggests instead that most early

colonies were individually organized enterprises that were

initiated solely for private economic gain, rather than

state sponsored undertakings.580 Therefore, according to

this view, there were no "home communities" that were

concerned with the welfare of a settlement. Osborne

suggests that the references in the texts to relationships

576
Osborne 1996a, p. 119. See also Tandy 1997 and Malkin 2001a for
similar views.
577
See also Morgan 1999, p. 86.
578
See also Whitley 2001, p. 124. See Graham (1983) for a different
interpretation.
579
Osborne 1996a, pp. 119-127, 1998, p. 268.
580
Cf. Tandy 1997, who also emphasizes that colonies were the result of
private enterprise.

166
between apoikia and metropolis were later historical

constructions formulated in the Classical period for

political expediency in order to create ties between

colonies and various mainland Greek poleis.581

Osborne also notes that some apoikiai were founded by

individuals from several different Greek cities, rather

than only one metropolis, citing the mixed nature of the

ceramic assemblages preserved in the archaeological record,

which do not reproduce the material culture of any single

Greek city.582 He, therefore, suggests that colonies were

informal organizations based on cooperation among like-

minded adventurers. Colonists were thus not dependent on,

or loyal to, any single, particular Greek polis.

Thucydides, on the other hand, affirmed that colonies

owed certain rights and privileges to mother cities and

that those rights were usually observed or at least

acknowledged.583 Apoikiai were expected to maintain a

581
See also Owen 2005, p. 8.
582
Osborne 1996a, ch. 4; 1998, p. 264. The hybrid nature of colonial
populations is discussed by Malkin (2001a, 2003, pp. 66-74), who notes
that many colonial foundations were established by a mixture of intra-
Hellenic ethnicities, and by Snodgrass (1994a, p. 2), who stresses the
ethnically mixed nature of most colonial ventures. Literary sources
also attest to a lack of homogeneity among some colonial populations.
See, for example, Thucydides (6.4.3), who wrote that Gela was founded
by Rhodes and Crete and Strabo (8.6.22 [C 380]), who noted that the
colonizing body for Syracuse included Teneans as well as Corinthians.
See also Morgan 1991, 1999, p. 127; Wilson 2000, p. 32; Owen 2005, p.
7.
583
The context in which Thucydides discussed the apoikia-metropolis
relationship was his explanation of the role of Epidamnian stasis in
the beginning of the Peloponnesian War and Corinth's complaints about
Corcyra for ignoring the rights due to a mother city (1.24-44).

167
certain degree of allegiance to their metropoleis,

especially in religious matters.584 Mother cities were

accorded certain religious distinctions at Panhellenic

festivals by their colonies, such as precedence at

sacrifices.585 They were entitled to expect the loyalty of

their colonies,586 especially in matters of war.587 A

metropolis also had the right to send out new settlers to

mix with the original colonists.588 In most cases, a

metropolis was asked to provided the oikist if a new colony

was founded by its colony.589 It is even possible that a

metropolis was entitled to receive a share of its colony's

war spoils.590 Conversely, colonies might expect to be well

Corinth's grievances are contemporary with Thucydides' narrative, i.e.,

mid-5th century B.C. Two 5th century B.C. inscriptions, one from
Naupactus (ML 20), the other from Brea (ML 49), also provide
information about relationships between colony and mother city. As
noted above, it is problematic to retroject information from the 5th
century B.C. back to the 8th century B.C.
584
ML 49, lines 11-13; Graham 1982, p. 153, 1983, p. 216. Cf. Salmon
1984, p. 387; Malkin 1987, p. 203, 2004, p. 347. See Shepherd 2000,
pp. 57-68 for the view that there were no religious ties between
apoikiai and metropoleis in Magna Graecia in the Archaic period. She
notes, however, that the situation might have been different for the
Corinthian colonies founded under the Cypselids. See Chapter 5.
585
ML 5; Thuc. 1.25.4; Diod. Sic. 12.30.4. Cf. Graham 1983, pp. 99-102.
586
Cf. ML 20, lines 11-12; ML 49, lines 20-25.
587
Thuc. 1.38.1-4. For example, Corinth's colonies, Ambracia, Leucas,
and Anactorium supported their metropolis against Athens in the
Peloponnesian war.
588
Thuc. 1.27.1; Diod. Sic. 12.30.3. See Graham 1983, pp. 110-111.
589
See Malkin 2002b, p. 156. Selinus and Zancle are examples of
colonies that were founded by colonies; in each case an oikist came
from the original metropolis. When Sicilian Megara founded Selinus,
they sent to Megara for an oikist (Thuc. 6.4.2). Zancle, although it
was first settled by pirates from Cumae, was later formally founded by
the Chalcidians with two oikists, one from Chalcis and the other from
Cumae (Thuc. 6.4.5).
590
Cf. Paus. 5.22.4. See Chapter 5.

168
treated by their mother city,591 although the colonists

retained very few rights there, since apoikiai were

established as new and independent settlements; in some

cases they were not even allowed the right to return home.592

Apoikiai were, on the other hand, quick to assert

their independence, without, however, denying the

historicity of the relationship to their metropolis.593 As

noted above, they were independent poleis from the

beginning and sought to forge their own identity, separate

from their mother city.594 Although many of the artifacts

recovered from the foundation period (i.e., the first

generation) from colonies in the west were imports from the

mother city attested in historical sources, the composition

of material assemblages quickly changed to include imports

from other parts of Greece.595 Burial customs in apoikiai,

too, often differed from those in the metropolis (see

below). Colonial independence was publicly proclaimed

591
Thuc. 1.34.1-2. For example, Corinth arranged for aid to be sent to
Syracuse when it was attacked by the Athenians during the Peloponnesian
War. Cf. Whitley 2001, p. 124.
592
Cf. Plut. Mor. 293a-b. Herodotus (4.156.3) presented the case of the
Therans who founded Cyrene and were refused permission to land when
they tried to return home. Graham 1983, pp. 110-117; Malkin 1994a, pp.
3-7, 1998b.
593
Antonaccio 2003, pp. 65-66; Hodos 2006, p. 13.
594
Antonaccio 2003, pp. 66-67 suggests that colonists needed to "invent"
a cultural pedigree and often did so by combining customs and cultural
elements from the mother city with those adopted from the natives, thus
producing hybrid practices or objects. For example, hybridity is
expressed in mixed Greek-indigenous burials practices in Sicily
(Antonaccio 2003, p. 67) and in the production of ceramics (Antonaccio
2005, p. 101). See also Morgan 1999, pp. 86-87.
595
Cf. Malkin 2002a, p. 200; Antonaccio 2003, pp. 66-67.

169
through dedications at Panhellenic sanctuaries, which

sometimes rivaled those of their mother city.596 The

treasury of the Epidamnians and the victory monument of the

Apollonians at Olympia are two examples of colonial

dedications that make strong statements about the

independence and wealth of a colony. Snodgrass interprets

public displays of this type as a powerful means to "assert

colonial prowess and prosperity."597

The preceding discussion suggests that many apoikiai

were founded by metropoleis. It is true, as Osborne notes,

that some colonies were composed of settlers of mixed

ethnic origins and thus did not feel an allegiance to any

particular polis in Greece. Other colonies were founded by

ethne, which themselves lacked the structural organization

of poleis. Nevertheless, some apoikiai had and maintained

a relationship with a metropolis. This is the case for the

Albanian colonies founded by Corinth, notably Apollonia.

Common Characteristics of Colonies

596
Morgan (1990, p. 17) notes that the amount of wealth invested by
colonies at Panhellenic sanctuaries was probably spurred by their
desire to establish identities that were independent from their mother
cities. For the importance of Panhellenism in Greek identity, see
Cartledge 2002, pp. 42-45; Shepherd 1995, pp. 73-76, 2000, pp. 68-69,
2005, pp. 36-37; Malkin 2003, pp. 65-66.
597
Snodgrass 1994a, p. 9. Olympia was also used as a forum for colonial
competition and emulation. Shepherd 1995, pp. 73-76; Morgan 1999, pp.
141-142.

170
 All apoikiai share certain general attributes. As

already noted, they were planned communities with a civic

center, an adjacent hinterland, an autonomous government,

and a defined citizen body.598 Since they were established

as independent poleis, it is likely that apoikiai were

self-sustaining communities.599 The original members of the

colony, who comprised the citizen body, forged a communal

identity based on shared religious beliefs and traditions,

regardless of whether they hailed from different parts of

Greece.600

There were standard procedures and rituals that were

prescribed for founding an apoikia. These usually included

an oracular consultation that advised and sanctioned the

foundation of a colony; the selection and appointment of an

oikist; the transfer of fire from the sacred hearth of the

metropolis to the new colony; the distribution of kleroi;

the formal establishment of the borders of the new

settlement; and the demarcation of sacred and secular

boundaries.601 Colonists brought material culture, customs,

and institutions from their places of origin to their new

598
See Blakeway 1932-1933, pp. 205-206.
599
Hdt. 4.150-155 and ML 5 suggest that apoikiai were expected to be
self-sustaining. Colonies did, however, import commodities such as
wine and oil from their metropoleis, as well as manufactured goods like
ceramics.
600
Kopcke (1992) and de Polignac (1995, ch. 3) emphasize the importance
of shared religious practices in new colonies and the role that newly
erected Greek temples played in cementing civic unity.
601
Graham 1982, pp. 144-150; Dougherty 1993a, p. 15; Malkin 1994a, p. 2.

171
home. The nomima (customs) and religious practices of

their mother city were normally incorporated into the civic

life of the new community; these nomima included the

dialect, calendar, script, social divisions, cults, and

governmental offices.602 A shared identity coalesced around

the customs established by the oikist at the time of

foundation.603

A colony was not, however, a wholesale reproduction of

a mother city; it was a new polis in a foreign location.604

Despite their ties with a metropolis, colonial settlements

abroad exercised considerable independence.605 As noted

above, a colony sought to create its own identity from the

beginning of its existence. Excavations at a number of

apoikiai have shown that the colonists did not transport in

their entirety the practices and the material culture of

their mother cities.606 Rather than copying all the customs

of their mother cities, colonies invented some of their own

by combining various old and new practices, as exemplified

by the variety of burial customs that are found in colonial

602
Graham 1982, pp. 153-154; Malkin 1994a, p. 2, 2003, pp. 67-71.
603
Graham 1983, p. 14; Malkin 1987, pp. 114-134; Dougherty 1993a, p. 20.
Nomima established by the oikist were also the basis for the identity
of colonies founded by settlers from different parts of Greece. See
Malkin 2003, pp. 67-71.
604
De Polignac (1995) views a new colony as a copy of the mother city,
in that the colonists reproduced that with which they were familiar.
For a different view, see Malkin 2002a, pp. 204-207.
605
Snodgrass 1994a, p. 8; Malkin 1994a, 2002b, p. 155.
606
See Osborne 1998, pp. 259, 264. For example, the ceramic assemblages
from Megara Hyblaea and Cumae include a large percentage of Corinthian
LG pottery, as well as imports from other parts of Greece, but neither
apoikia was a Corinthian foundation.

172
cemeteries.607 This process of self-definition allowed

colonists to forge a new and unique group identity.608

Additionally, the mainland Greek poleis were influenced by

developments in the colonies; the exchange of ideas was

fluid and moved both ways.609

Ktiseis

The inauguration of a colony was an historical event,

undertaken by living people at a particular moment in

607
Burial practices adopted at colonies often combined customs from the
metropolis with other, perhaps native, elements, thereby diverging from
anything found on the Greek mainland. For example, when Syracuse was
founded in the mid-8th century B.C., the burial preference at Corinth
was in stone sarcophagi (see Pfaff 2007). Earth cists covered with a
monolithic stone slab were also used for some burials, but these were
in the minority and decreased in frequency over time. Most interments
were inhumations with the body placed in a contracted position. At
Syracuse, on the other hand, sarcophagi were only used for half the
burials in the first century after colonization, and the number
decreased over time. This was not due to a lack of adequate stone,
since there is an excellent source nearby. Also we know that at
Apollonia, sarcophagi found in the necropolis were transported from
Corinth (see below). The majority of the Syracusean graves were rock
cut trench graves covered with multiple stone slabs. Bodies were
placed in the extended position, and there were some cremations and
multiple burials. As Shepherd (1995, pp. 52-56) notes, there was a
distinct and deliberate divergence from Corinthian burial customs in
Syracuse from the beginning. It is unlikely that any of the graves
belonged to members of the indigenous population since, as we have
seen, the colonists were said to have expelled them when the colony was
founded. See also Snodgrass 1994a, p. 9. Coldstream (2003, p. 23, on
the other hand, contends that the burials from Syracuse conform
remarkably well to Corinthian traditions in many details. He proposes
that the anomalies represent the presence of non-Corinthian settlers.
608
Osborne 2004, p. 92.
609
Snodgrass 1994a, p. 8. Two examples of ideas that flowed from the
colonies to the mainland are the Corinthian Type B amphora which might
have originated on Corcyra and the "Ionian Sea" style of Doric
architecture which first appeared in Sicily. For amphorae, see Grace
1953, pp. 108-109; Koehler 1992, pp. 4-5; for architecture, see
Barletta 1990, p. 45; Papadopoulos 2001, p. 376; Shepherd 2005, pp. 37-
39. See, however, Dunbabin 1948a, pp. 188-192, who emphasizes Magna
Graecia's "cultural dependence" on mainland Greece and is a proponent
for the one-way flow of ideas.

173
time.610 This event was often commemorated in a foundation

story, or ktisis.611 A ktisis functioned to articulate a

community's collective identity and shared history. It

also was a means to establish territorial rights in a

foreign land.612 Various elements of ktiseis for many

colonies, particularly those that flourished for many

generations, were recorded in antiquity.

The earliest recorded ktisis is in Homer; by the time

of Herodotus ktiseis were a well-established literary

genre.613 Ktiseis differ from mythological or legendary

foundation tales, such as the nostoi (stories about the

return of heroes from Troy), in that they were centered on

historical events that took place within human history.614

Foundation legends contained details about long dead heroes

and the circumstances that forced them to settle in foreign

lands. Such tales often contained ethnic genealogies that

produced an indisputable Greek pedigree for communities on

610
This might appear to be a self-evident statement but, in light of
postmodern views that question the cohesiveness of the colonizing act,
it seems necessary to emphasize this point.
611
Ktiseis were primarily preserved for the longer lived apoikiai since
the differential length of time that colonies survived had an impact on
their literary fate. Almost all foundation stories are from
flourishing colonies that survived for many generations, while none
exist for unsuccessful or short-lived colonies. For example, many
texts contain references to the foundation of Syracuse, Corcyra,
Metapontum, and Cyrene, but no coherent legends exist for the failed
colony at Incoronata in Magna Graecia. Cf. Malkin 1987, p. 115;
Osborne 1998, pp. 262-264; Hall 2007a, pp. 100-106.
612
Hodos 2006, p. 10.
613
Graham 1982, p. 87. See Homer (Il. 2.653-670) on the settlement of
Rhodes; Herodotus (4.155-6) on Cyrene.
614
Malkin 1987. See Bérard 1957, pp. 345-420 for nostoi.

174
the fringes of the Greek world.615 Although many ktiseis had

mythological overtones, unlike nostoi, they generally

contained a kernel of historical truth. A ktisis was not,

however, a primary account of a colony's history and should

not be read or interpreted as such; all were recorded long

after the actual foundation and undoubtedly contained an

element of propaganda.616

It has been suggested that many Greek colonies also

created or modified "foundation" stories for political

purposes decades, or even centuries, after they were

founded; the Greeks of the Classical and Hellenistic

periods often manipulated the past to suit their present.617

Proponents of this negative view therefore suggest that

ktiseis should not be relied on to preserve historical

truths. This interpretation of ktiseis as culturally

constructed and purely propagandistic tales, however,

denies the possibility that they preserve any historical

information. I believe, on the contrary, that although

such foundation stories included "manufactured memories,"

615
Dougherty 1993a, p. 5; Malkin 2001a, pp. 9-10; Hall 1997, pp. 40-51.
For the grafting of nostoi genealogies onto non-Greeks by Greek
mariners, see Malkin 2002b. For the importance of this process in
Illyria, see Chapter 5.
616
Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, p. 11; Hall 2007a, pp. 100-106.
617
Osborne 1996a, pp. 4-17, 1998; Malkin 1987, p. 115; Owen 2005, p. 8.
Scholarly opinion here differs about the historical value of ktiseis.
Whitley (2001, p. 104) doubts that these stories can be taken as
historical truths. Osborne (1996a, pp. 8-15) uses the foundation
stories for Cyrene to argue that ktiseis were created for political
propaganda long after the colony was founded. Malkin (2002b, p. 157),
on the other hand, contends that such stories "did contain significant
kernels of truth."

175
as will be seen in the case of Apollonia, it is likely that

they also, in part, preserved historical knowledge that was

retained in the collective memory of a colony; ktiseis were

not entirely fabricated at a later date, and do, in fact,

contain some potentially useful information about the

history of Archaic colonization. For example, most ktiseis

preserved the name of the mother city and the name of the

oikist.

A ktisis is a literary topos with specific narrative

elements and conventions that are common to stories about

later historical colonization movements, such as the

colonization of America or Australia.618 Some of the common

motifs in Greek ktiseis are: 1) crisis and departure; 2)

Delphic consultation; 3) foundation; and 4) resolution.619

In this respect, all ktiseis are structurally similar and

vary only in details; any historical information they

contain has been structured to fit the narrative

conventions of their genre.

The nature of the crisis in the metropolis that

precipitated the founding of a colony, whether it was

618
Dougherty 1993a pp. 6-8. Owen (2005, p. 11-12) is critical of
Dougherty's analogy of "reading" ancient ktiseis like modern stories
about the colonization of America and/or Australia. Owen suggests this
imposes modern paradigms of dominance and violence onto the past. For
example, Owen points out that Dougherty's interpretation (1993a, p. 67)
of intermarriage between native women and colonists as an act of
violence rather than integration is a reflection of an imperialist
reading of the texts based on examples of modern colonization.
619
Dougherty 1993a pp. 6, 8, 15; Malkin 2002b, p. 157.

176
political stasis, famine, overpopulation, drought, or land

shortage, was frequently encapsulated in the ktisis.620 The

colonial undertaking was, in many instances, encouraged and

legitimized by an oracle from Apollo at Delphi that

required this course of action to alleviate a crisis in the

mother city.621

One important group of ktiseis belongs to colonies

that were founded by political dissidents or people who had

committed murder.622 The ktiseis for several Corinthian

colonies discussed in Chapter 5 fall into this category.

Civic stasis in the metropolis was often cited as a primary

reason for colonization.623 As a result, colonists were

often ritually defiled by violence and/or bloodshed when

they left.624 Since Apollo was the god usually invoked to

protect cities from pollution, the oikist or metropolis

needed to consult the Delphic oracle to learn how to be

cleansed after being tainted by murder.625 The oracular

response always required the expulsion of the guilty

620
Dougherty and Kurke, 1993, p. 9; Dougherty 1993a, p. 52; Malkin
1994a.
621
Cf. ML 5 and Hdt. 4.150-155. For the role of Delphi in colonization,
see Parke and Wormell 1956; Bérard 1960, p. 62; Fontenrose 1978; Graham
1983; Malkin 1987, 2003, pp. 61-64; Morgan 1990.
622
The ktisis for Taras, founded by the Spartan Partheniae, as noted
above, falls into this category. Dougherty (1993b, p. 182) equates
this type of aetiological myth about political exile with murder.
Malkin (1998a, pp. 23-24), on the other hand, notes that only a small
group of ktiseis have oikists who were murders.
623
Cf. Plato Laws 708b.
624
See Dougherty 1993b; McGlew 1993, pp. 168-173; Malkin 1994a, p. 2.
625
For the connection between homicide, purification, Apollo, and
colonization, see Dougherty 1993a, 1993b; McGlew 1993, pp. 161-163.

177
portion of the citizen body; thus, the foundation of a

colony was the only viable way to end the crisis.626 If the

act of colonization involved murder, the Delphic oracle

provided a moral sanction for the violence.627

An apoikia was officially founded by an oikist

selected by the metropolis.628 A ktisis usually preserved

the name and genealogy of the oikist; he was almost always

a member of the aristocracy629 and probably operated with

absolute imperium.630 The oikist was responsible for

organizing the colonists and performing the proper

foundation rituals. He picked the physical site of the

settlement, often in conjunction with an oracle received in

advance from Delphi; some ktiseis preserve the oracular

response.631 During the journey, the oikist transported the

sacred fire from the hearth of the metropolis to that of

the new colony. At the site of the new colony, he oversaw

626
Dougherty 1993a p. 20.
627
Malkin 1987, p. 90; Dougherty 1993b; Snodgrass 1994a, p. 9; Osborne
1998, p. 266.
628
Homer (Od. 6.7-11) was the first to describe the role of the oikist
in the foundation of a new settlement. Battus, the founder of Cyrene,
is probably the best known oikist, although he was hardly typical (Hdt.
4.155-156). For a discussion of the role of the oikist, see Graham
1983, pp. 29-39; Malkin 1987, pp. 261-266; Osborne 1996a, pp. 8-15.
629
An aristocratic pedigree was especially prevalent in colonies founded
by Corinth, where most of the oikists were Bacchiads or sons of the
tyrants; see Snodgrass 1980, pp. 121-122; Graham 1983, pp. 29-34;
McGlew 1993, pp. 161-182; and Chapter 5.
630
Cf. ML 5, line 27 where Battus went to Cyrene as βασιλῆα and ML 49,
lines 8-9. See also Hdt. 4.147, 4.153 and Chapter 5.
631
See, for example, Hdt. 4.150-155; Plut. Mor. 772b-773e. See Malkin
1987, p. 183.

178
the demarcation of public, private, and sacred spaces.632 He

was responsible for the division and distribution of kleroi

to the colonists; this was an essential element in the

foundation act.633 The founder was also in charge of

regulating the colony's nomima and establishing communal

cults. Upon his death, the oikist was usually buried in

the agora and worshipped as a hero; the satisfactory

resolution of the crisis in the metropolis was often

memorialized in his cult.634 The cult of the oikist thus

became an important means of defining a community's

independence and collective identity.635

Since ktiseis were composed by the colonizers, rather

than the colonized, information about native inhabitants

was seldom included in these accounts636 and very little was

recorded about what happened to them when Greeks arrived at

the place where they wished to establish a colony.637 In

some cases, however, foundation stories preserve memories

632
See Dougherty 1993a, pp. 18-21; Graham 1983, pp. 25-26. See above
for the urban layout of Megara Hyblaea.
633
See Malkin 1987, p. 183, 1994a.
634
Dougherty 1993a, p. 15. See Malkin 2003, pp. 64-66 for the
replacement of human oikists with heroic or divine ones. For example,
Heracles came to be honored as the founder of Croton instead of the
historical oikist, Myscellus. This type of substitution also occurred
at Apollonia. See Chapter 5.
635
See Malkin 2002a, p. 200. Dougherty (1993a, pp. 24-27) suggests that
the identity of the apoikia was solidified when the oikist died.
Malkin (1987, p. 189) contends that the "memory" of the foundation was
transmitted through the cult of the oikist. In contrast, Dunbabin
(1948a, p. 11) suggests that the oikist cult was derived from the
metropolis and strengthened the ties between mother city and colony.
636
See Herring 2000, pp. 48-49, 54.
637
Gaffney et al. 2002.

179
of violent struggles that accompanied the forcible

expropriation of land from indigenous populations.638 Many

Greek colonies were established on sites that had

previously been occupied by native towns.639 Ancient sources

suggest that sometimes colonists subdued a hostile

population640 and that, occasionally, they reduced it to a

servile status.641 As Ian Morris points out, there were

winners and there were losers,642 and in many cases the

Greeks simply took what they wanted from the native

inhabitants.643 In other cases, though, evidence suggests

that the colonists "coexisted" with the indigenous

population.644

The current generation of scholars is sensitive to the

ways in which colonialist perspectives have manipulated the

archaeological record and have colored studies of

interactions between Greek colonists and indigenous

638
Cf. Thuc. 6.3.2. Dougherty 1993a, p. 27, n. 7.
639
Dunbabin 1948a, p. 43; Dougherty 1993b, p. 188; Hall 2002, pp. 97-
100; Hodos 2006, pp. 92-93.
640
Cf. Thuc. 6.23 for a colonial encounter with a hostile Sicel
population. As with civic stasis, the Delphic oracle could grant
purification from the violence and death that accompanied territorial
conquest and free a colony from miasma. See Austin and Vidal-Naquet
1977, pp. 63-65.
641
On slavery, see Finley 1982a, 1999; Purcell 1990, pp. 47-49.
642
Morris 2003, pp. 46-50.
643
Much postcolonial theory, which emphasizes reciprocity,
accommodation, and interaction between natives and Greeks, ignores, or
even denies, that power relationships existed and that in some cases,
there was no accommodation. Cf. Purcell 2005, pp. 126, 132-133.
644
Greeks and natives probably intermixed at Metapontum and Morgantia.
Morgan 1999, pp. 105-120; Lomas 2000, pp. 87-88; Antonaccio 2005, pp.
111-112. See Morel 1984, pp. 125-126 for a discussion of "co-
existence."

180
populations.645 Colonialist views stress the domination of a

culturally superior colonizing group over an inferior

indigenous population and project power relationships into

the past.646

Postcolonial theory, on the other hand, stresses

hybridity647 and offers an approach that replaces the binary

model of Greek versus the non-Greek "other" by stressing

the dynamic processes that occurred when the two cultures

encountered one another; neither remained static, but both

were modified and changed through contact.648 Through the

processes of mediation and acculturation, new, hybrid

cultures were created from the interactions between Greeks

and indigenous peoples that were a blending of two

originally distinct cultures.649 Postcolonial theory,

therefore, rejects the old model of transformation whereby

a passive indigenous population lost its own mores and

645
For example, Dunbabin (1948a, pp. 192-193, 439) maintains that the
colonists expelled natives from their settlements until the natives had
acquired Greek culture. See Morel 1984, pp. 124-135; Jones 1996, pp.
34-36; van Dommelen 2002, pp. 126-129; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, p.
5; Antonaccio 2003, pp. 59-61, 2005, pp. 108-109; Shepherd 2005, pp.
29-31; Hodos 2006, pp. 13-28.
646
Cf. Domínguez 2003, pp. 65-67; Van Dommelen 2003, pp. 126-129; Owen
2005, pp. 10-16.
647
Cf. Antonaccio 2005, pp. 102-105.
648
White 1991; Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002; Malkin 2002b, 2004, pp. 343-
350; van Dommelen 2002, p. 309. White's postcolonial interpretation of
the changes wrought through interactions between French settlers who
colonized the Great Lakes Region and native Algonquians provides an
example of the application of postcolonial theory to explain cultural
melding. See also van Dommelen 1997, 2002; Gosden 2001; Shanks 2001;
Antonaccio 2003.
649
Cf. Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002; van Dommelen 2002, pp. 126-129;
Antonaccio 2003, pp. 59-61; Hodos 2006, pp. 13-16; Hall 2007b, pp. 350-
353.

181
identity by adopting the traits and culture of the superior

Greeks.650 "Hellenization" is no longer viewed as a natural

and obvious process resulting from the cultural superiority

of the Greeks and the assumption that the natives wanted to

adopt Greek culture.651 Instead, the process of

transformation is viewed as a bilateral interaction in

which both cultures were metamorphosed into a new entity as

a result of contact and cultural exchanges.652

Intermarriage between colonists and natives is assumed

to be one of the principle vehicles of cultural

integration. Such unions would have produced an inevitable

blending of native and Greek practices.653 One context in

which intermarriage is said to be visible in the

archaeological record is in cemeteries. Lyons suggests

that it is possible to identify the burials of native women

at Megara Hyblaea based on grave goods.654 Buchner claims

the association between native bronze fibulae and female

650
Cf. Dunbabin 1948a and Boardman 1999a, p. 190 for a colonialist
perspective and Hodos 2006, pp. 11-12 for an analysis of this view.
651
Dietler 1999, pp. 476-478; Owen 2005, p. 13; Antonaccio 2005, p. 109.
Jones (1997, p. 33) notes that Hellenization is based on the concept of
"civilizing the natives," rather than interaction and accommodation.
652
Antonaccio (2005, pp. 102-105) uses the Attic red-figure nestorides
in the J. Paul Getty Museum as an example of a hybrid object: its shape
and decoration combine local south Italian and Attic elements. See
Morel 1984, pp. 133-134; Malkin 2002b, pp. 151-156. See Hammond 1982b
for an extreme example of this approach. Hammond there adopts the
Albanian communist party line that minimizes the role of the Greeks in
the transformation of Illyrian society. See discussions in Chapters 3
and 5.
653
Morel 1984, p. 134; Lyons 2000, pp. 88-89; Hall 2002, pp. 100-103.
The concept of mixed marriages is in vogue because it is politically
correct and part of the postcolonial agenda (see above).
654
Lyons 2000, p. 89.

182
burials in the cemeteries at Pithekoussai is evidence for

the presence of indigenous women.655

As Shepherd points out, however, artifacts are not

ethnically or gender specific and cannot be used to

substantiate claims of ethnicity without other supporting

evidence.656 In both Megara Hyblaea and Pithekoussai the

osteological remains are poorly preserved and often gender

cannot be determined with certainty. The material record

from Syracuse and Gela is also ambiguous. Shepherd

concludes that there is no irrefutable evidence from

Pithekoussai or the other Sicilian sites for intermarriage

and/or indigenous female burials in those cemeteries.657

Although it is perhaps common sense to assume that Greek

settlers took native wives, this cannot yet be adequately

documented.658

At the moment of colonization, however, the boundaries

between "Greek" and "barbarian" were most clearly defined.

Osborne writes, "Greekness was largely a matter of self-

identification."659 Still, although ethnicity is fluid and

655
Buchner 1975, p. 79, 1979. Cf. Coldstream 1993, 1994, p. 53, who has
also adopted this argument. Shepherd (1999, p. 275), however, notes
that there is no conclusive evidence that the majority of the burials
with fibulae are actually female.
656
Shepherd 1999, p. 275. See also Graham 1982, pp. 147-148; Morgan
1999; Owen 2005, p. 8. Equating artifacts with gender or ethnicity is
similar to the "pots equal people" argument discussed above.
657
Shepherd 1999, pp. 293-297.
658
Gwynn (1918, p. 109) suggested that the colonists took native wives
out of necessity.
659
Osborne 1996a, p. 8.

183
ethnic "boundaries" are often hard to define, in the early

stages of an apoikia, colonial identity was based on race,

shared language, religious practices, and cultural traits.660

These characteristics are exactly the same as those

employed to cement a colony's self-identity and to maintain

the separation between Greeks and natives. It is only

later in the history of a settlement that ethnicity became

a social phenomenon that could be easily manipulated.661

Although indigenous populations might adopt Greek material

culture, religion, and language, and, in essence, "act"

Greek, this did not automatically make them Greek; the

process of "becoming" was a long one.662 Acculturation and

assimilation often took generations, rather than years or

decades, and should to be measured over the moyenne durée.663

Because the number of participants in an initial

colonial expeditions is almost never noted in a ktisis, the

average size of a colonial venture in the Archaic period is

uncertain. There are, in fact, only two apoikiai for which

660
Morgan 1999, pp. 99-120.
661
Morgan 1991, pp. 133-134; Jones 1997; Hall 1997; Lyons and
Papadopoulos 2002, p. 17.
662
See Morel 1984, pp. 129-135. Greek objects did not necessarily have
the same meaning for others who used them. Cf. Dietler 1999, p. 485.
663
See Braudel 1972, p. 353. It was really only in the Hellenistic
period, after Alexander the Great opened up the world and spread Greek
culture far and wide, that ethnic boundaries became permeable. Prior
to this, city-states jealously guarded their citizenship and reinforced
their ethnic separation.

184
specific numbers were recorded: Apollonia and Leucas.664

Stephanos of Byzantium noted that the founding group for

Apollonia was made up of 200 colonists from Corinth.665

Pseudo-Scylax said that 1,000 colonists went to Leucas.666

In other instances, approximate numbers can be deduced.

According to Herodotus, Battus went to Cyrene with two

pentekonters (50 oared ships);667 the settlers were raised

from each family on the home island of Thera. Diodorus

Siculus recorded that a later colony, Aetna, was founded in

479 B.C. with 10,000 colonists: 5,000 from the Peloponnese

and 5,000 from Syracuse; however, the number of people who

took part in that venture was probably much larger than any

initial colonizing group in the Archaic period.668

It is unclear whether or not women and children were

included in the recorded number of colonists, or even

participated in colonial ventures.669 Women are largely

absent from ktiseis in the same way that indigenous

populations are, either because they were not present or

because they were not important. Some women probably

accompanied the colonists to fulfill the role of

664
See Morgan 1998, p. 287, who suggests that 100 households might be
reasonable for a successful colonizing venture.
665
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία. It is interesting to note that the
number 200 was also said to be the size of the Bacchiad oligarchy.
666
Pseudo-Scylax 34.
667
Hdt. 4.156.2.
668
Diod. Sic. 11.49.
669
Van Compernolle (1983, pp. 1038-1041) believes that women were rarely
included in the colonizing body.

185
priestesses.670 There is, however, no unambiguous textual or

archaeological evidence for or against the presence of

women amongst the colonists.671

From the preceding summary, it should be obvious that

ktiseis exist for many apoikiai, but also that these often

preserve fragmentary and contradictory information. There

are certain formulaic elements that are common to the genre

including: 1) the reason to leave home; 2) sanction from

the Delphic oracle; 3) oikists who were aristocrats; 4)

violent territorial conquest. Information is rarely

preserved about indigenous populations or women.

Therefore, ktiseis are not useful for addressing issues of

ethnicity or interactions between native inhabitants and

colonists. Although they should not be taken as historical

fact, ktiseis do, however, preserve useful information

about a colony's history. Chapter 5 will examine the

utility of Apollonia's ktisis in deciphering the history of

the colony.

Foundation Dates

Establishing specific foundation dates for individual

colonies was long considered a critical issue in the study

670
Cf. Graham 1982, pp. 147-148; Lyons 2000, p. 88-89.
671
Cf. ML 5; Hdt. 4.150-155; Cic. Rep. 2.19-20; Strabo 5.2.2 [C 219].
For a discussion of the relevant texts for or against intermarriage,
see Shepherd 1999, pp. 267-270.

186
of Archaic colonization. Foundation dates are regarded by

many scholars as "equivalent to ceremonial cornerstones."672

Such dates, however, were rarely preserved in ktiseis. In

addition, reconstruction of the foundation dates for many

colonies is complicated by disagreements among the ancient

sources.673

The chronological framework for the ancient world has

been established primarily from textual evidence.674

Foundation dates are usually constructed from two primary

sources: Thucydides' description of the colonization of

Sicily (6.3-5) and the Chronicles of Eusebius. Because of

this reliance on texts, the dates supplied by "modern

historians' understanding of ancient historians" provide a

structure into which archaeologists have been expected to

try to fit their discoveries.675 From the start, therefore,

archaeologists have become dependent on, or have been

hindered by, the work of ancient and modern historians and

the artificial timetables constructed by them.

Thucydides' dates were once considered the most

reliable foundation for the chronological framework of

ancient Greece. Scholars have trusted Thucydides more

672
Malkin 2002a, p. 200. Owen (2005, p. 7) notes that the obsession
with foundation dates has prevented scholars from looking at pre-
settlement periods and evidence for first contacts.
673
Cf. Hall 2007a, pp. 103-106.
674
Cf. Biers 1992, p. 62; Dunbabin 1948a, p. 452; Whitehouse and Wilkins
1985, pp. 95-99.
675
Biers (1992, p. 62) cautions about the seductive nature of absolute
dates.

187
readily than other ancient historians in part because he

himself boasted that his methods were more careful than

those of his predecessors. He confidently stated that his

conclusions about the early periods of Greek history were

sound: "We can rest satisfied with having proceeded upon

the clearest data, and having arrived at conclusions as

exact as can be expected in matters of such antiquity."676

The incontrovertible accuracy of Thucydides for the early

history of Greece is, however, no longer universally

accepted and scholars have begun to question the validity

of assumptions made about his chronology.677 Different

scholars currently accept Thucydides' dates to different

degrees: some adhere to them without qualification, while

others are more reserved, and still others reject them

entirely.678

One problem with Thucydides' dates is that he probably

calculated them by assuming generations of 40 years.679

Thomas Dunbabin, in spite of problems in the literary

traditions, believes that Thucydides' foundation dates are

676
Thuc. 1.21.1. See Gomme, Andrews, and Dover 1970, p. 210 on the
reliability of early Thucydidean chronology.
677
Sjöqvist 1973, p. 17; Morris 1987, p. 14.
678
Coldstream (1968, p. 322, 1977, p. 233) accepts Thucydides' dates as
facts and constructs his sequence for Geometric pottery on the
assumption that they are accurate. Amyx (1988, p. 408 n. 29) also
accepts them. Whitley (1991, p. 81) and Morris (1987, p. 14) accept
them with some reservations. James (1991, p. 103), on the other hand,
thinks that the Thucydidean dates are too high, and Ducat (1962, p.
169) attacks the validity of the entire Thucydidean chronology.
679
Dunbabin 1948a, pp. 448-450; van Compernolle 1960; Ducat 1962; Gomme,
Andrews, and Dover 1970, pp. 203-205; Graham 1982, p. 89. Hall (2007a,
pp. 105-106) suggests 35 years per generation.

188
"the best that are available;" even he, nonetheless, allows

for a margin of error of fifty years, plus or minus, in

compensation for faulty genealogical calculations.680 It is

probable, on the other hand, that Thucydides derived some

of his dates from the Syracusean historian, Antiochus (see

Chapter 2), who may have been prompted by political motives

to enhance his city's antiquity and may thus have provided

a faulty foundation sequence.681 At any rate, the earliest

dates were recorded long after the events took place,

rather than within living memory; they were approximations

of years that the ancients no longer knew definitely, and,

certainly, the further back in time an estimation, the less

reliable it is likely to be.682

There were rival chronological traditions in

antiquity, which further negate the possibility of arriving

at an unequivocal chronology. Eusebius and Jerome often

recorded events that Thucydides did not.683 When Thucydides

and Eusebius and/or Jerome list the same event, however,

they do not always agree.684 Moreover, additional sources,

680
Dunbabin 1948a, p. 447.
681
Dunbabin 1948a, p. 438; Miller 1970; Sjöqvist 1973, 17-18; Holloway
1981, p. 133; Morris 1987, p. 14. See Gomme, Andrews, and Dover 1970,
pp. 199-202 for a discussion of Thucydides' sources.
682
As noted above, Malkin (1987, pp. 189), suggests that the history of
a colony, including its foundation date, was preserved in the cult of
the oikist.
683
For Eusebius and Jerome, see discussion in Chapter 2.
684
In most cases, Eusebius' dates do agree with Thucydides'; it is
likely that he took many of his dates directly from Thucydides or his
source. This makes Eusebius' alternative dates all the more

189
such as Ephorus and Diodorus Siculus, differ from

Thucydides and/or Eusebius.685 Because the literary sources

contradict each other, foundation dates can vary up or down

by as much as fifty years, depending on how one manipulates

them.686 If, as some suggest, foundation dates were

preserved by colonists or metropoleis through oral

tradition or lists of annual magistrates, there should be

little room for the discrepancies that appear in the

texts.687 This is not, however, the case, and foundation

dates are notoriously misleading.

Finally, scholars use the development of Corinthian

ceramics to confirm 8th-7th century B.C. foundation dates;

however, this approach introduces circular arguments and

highlights the problems in associating pots with people.688

The traditional approach to establishing an absolute

problematic. See Dunbabin 1948a, pp. 436, 439; Gomme, Andrews, and
Dover 1970, p. 203. See, however, Coldstream (1968, p. 322), who
perceives no serious discrepancies between the Thucydidean and Eusebian
chronologies.
685
Selinus, which was long considered to be a "fixed point" in colonial
chronology, provides an example of rival traditions. According to
Thucydides, the colony was founded in 628 B.C. On the other hand,
Diodorus Siculus (13.62) and Jerome (Helm) date its foundation to 650
B.C. Dunbabin 1948a, pp. 437-438; Gomme, Andrews, and Dover 1970, p.
209; Miller 1970, p. 32; Holloway 1981, p. 135; Wilson 1982, p. 101; de
Angelis 1994, p. 90. This controversy over the foundation date of
Selinus has led some scholars to reject all of Thucydides' earlier
dates. Cf. Benson 1964, p. 402; Cook 1960, 1969, 1972.
686
Ducat (1962, p. 170) notes, "l'histoire ne nous les redonnera
jamais." Cf. Gomme, Andrews, and Dover 1970, p. 208.
687
Amyx 1988, p. 406. Dunbabin (1948a, p. 447) suggests that
differences in the tradition should be attributed "to slips in
transmission...or to unhistorical synchronizations." Graham (1982, p.
90) hypothesizes that dates might have been recorded in antiquity and
were accessible to Thucydides.
688
Cf. Hall 2007a, pp. 106-110. See Boardman 2004, p. 149 for a
different view. See also above.

190
chronology for the development of Corinthian pottery has

been to correlate the "accepted" Thucydidean foundation

dates with the earliest material recovered from excavations

at the Sicilian colonies.689 The difficulty is, therefore,

that the chronology of the early Corinthian pottery

sequence has itself been built on dates derived from

Thucydides.690 In other words, Thucydides has been used to

establish the foundation dates, and archaeology has

subsequently been used to confirm those dates with ceramic

sequences that were derived from Thucydides' dates.691 In

this way, foundation dates and ceramic sequences become

entangled in circular arguments.

Other problems arise from the traditional approach of

dating the Greek colonies based solely on Thucydides'

chronology and then of using archaeological evidence to

confirm them. The assumptions that the earliest excavated

pottery actually dates to the first years of the colony and

that the earliest part of the site has been found are both

689
For example, Coldstream (1968, 327) acknowledges that his dates for
the Corinthian sequence "have been obtained by whole-heartedly
following Thucydides." See also Vallet and Villard 1952.
690
From the time of Johansen (1923), the foundation-dates of the Greek
colonies became fixed points for the establishment of an absolute
ceramic chronology, and, in turn, the sequence for early Corinthian
pottery has been built on these fixed points. See Amyx 1988, p. 399;
Vallet and Villiard 1961.
691
Cf. Hodos 2006, pp. 94-99.

191
problematic,692 as is the supposition that the earliest

pottery belonged to colonists rather than to pre-colonial

natives who obtained it through trade or gift exchange.

The discovery at some sites of pottery that is

stylistically earlier than the accepted foundation dates

has created problems for the traditionalists and has led

some to re-evaluate the assumption that the earliest

pottery should be equated with earliest settlers;693 under

that assumption, either the dates would have to be tweaked

to fit the archaeological evidence, or the archaeological

evidence would have to be forced to conform to the

Thucydidean foundation dates.694

When texts and archaeology do not agree, other

explanations are sought to bring the absolute chronology

into line with Thucydides. This usually produces

convoluted explanations that invoke pre-colonial contact to

account for material that is earlier than textual

foundation dates, or arguments that the earliest traces of

the colonists have not been yet been found, if the material

culture from the settlement is later than the traditional

692
Cook 1937, pp. 204-205; Coldstream 1968, p. 322; Morris 1987, p. 14;
James 1991, p. 99; Biers 1992, p. 64. See discussion in Dunbabin
1948a, pp. 453-456 and Hall 2007a, pp. 106-107.
693
Graham 1990; Biers 1992, p. 65; Hall 2007a, p. 106. E.g., early
pottery from Selinus, Megara Hyblaea, Gela, and Apollonia. See
Snodgrass 1987, pp. 54-56; De Angeles 2003, pp. 17-39 and Chapter 5.
694
See Dunbabin’s (1948a, pp. 435-447) discussion of the literary
evidence and his attempt to rationalize and reconcile the discrepancies
after demonstrating the instability and confusion of the resulting
foundation dates. See discussion in Hall 2007a, pp. 106-108.

192
date. At Gela, where the earliest ceramics found in a

cemetery are later than the pottery found in the

settlement, it has even been argued that burials must have

been infrequent for a few decades because the colonists

were robust and healthy.695

Conclusion

The Greek movement overseas in the Archaic period was

not a uniform phenomenon. Specific details about the act

of foundation varied from colony to colony. For example,

some apoikiai had metropoleis, others did not. Similarly

diverse are the motives for the foundation, the composition

of the colonizing body, and the nature of the relationship

between colonists and indigenous populations. Fragmentary

ktiseis preserved in the ancient sources can often provide

useful information about apoikiai, however these should not

be treated as historical fact.

This chapter has provided a brief overview of various

topics in the study of Archaic Greek colonization and an

introduction to current methodologies. Some of these

subjects are more controversial than others. All of the

695
For example, when ceramics of the Early Protocorinthian phase were
found at Gela, which was supposedly founded in 688 B.C., the excavators
sought to interpret them as evidence for pre-colonial contact because
they wished to maintain Payne’s (1933) date of 700 B.C. for the end of
Early Protocorinthian. Coldstream (1968, p. 326), however, lowered the
end date of Early Protocorinthian because of the evidence from Gela.

193
themes discussed, however, are relevant to any

reconsideration of the circumstances surrounding the

foundation of Apollonia and Epidamnus in southern Illyria

in the 7th-6th century B.C. The part played by Euboean

seafarers is particularly significant in the colonization

of the eastern Adriatic. The nature of the relationship

between a metropolis and its colony is important for

determining the role of Corinth and Corcyra in founding

colonies in modern day Albania; Epidamnus and Apollonia had

ties to both poleis. In Chapter 5, the broad topics

discussed in this chapter are related to specific data.

194
 Chapter 5.

Apollonia and Albania in the Wider Context of Greek

Colonization

Periander inherited a string of

colonies along the Adriatic coast. The
opportunity they presented and his own
energy may well have suggested to him a
plan for domination of the waters of the
western mainland. The subjugation of
Corcyra and the foundation of Apollonia
and Epidamnus may represent, at least in
part, an extension to the north of his
ambitions.696

[2] By the side of what is called

the Hippodamium is a semicircular stone
pedestal, and on it are Zeus, Thetis, and
Day entreating Zeus on behalf of her
children.697 These are on the middle of
the pedestal. There are Achilles and
Memnon, one at either edge of the
pedestal, representing a pair of
combatants in position. There are other
pairs similarly opposed, foreigner
against Greek: Odysseus opposed to
Helenus, reputed to be the cleverest men
in the respective armies; Alexander and
Menelaüs, in virtue of their ancient
feud; Aeneas and Diomedes, and Deïphobus
and Ajax son of Telamon. [3] These are
the work of Lycius, the son of Myron, and
were dedicated by the people of Apollonia
on the Ionian sea. There are also
elegiac verses written in ancient
characters under the feet of Zeus.

As memorials of Apollonia have

we been dedicated, which on
the Ionian sea

696
Salmon 1984, p. 224.
697
Pausanias wrote "Day," but it is likely that the figure was "Dawn."

195
 Phoebus founded, he of the
unshorn locks.
The Apollonians, after taking
the land of Abantis, set up
here
These images with heaven's help,
tithe from Thronium.698

Introduction

In Chapter 4 some general themes in the study of Greek

colonization in the Archaic period were considered. This

chapter will examine the relevance of those topics to the

study of the apoikiai that were founded in the late 7th

century B.C. along the coast of modern Albania and their

value for structuring a narrative about the colony at

Apollonia in historical times. In sum, Chapter 5 discusses

how the colonization of the Adriatic and the establishment

of Greek settlements in southern Illyria fit into the

larger picture of Archaic colonization.

Chapter 5 will also summarize and interpret

information recorded in antiquity about Apollonia. Various

texts mentioned the colony, but for the most part, the

principal interest for ancient writers was the nearby

thauma of the bitumen mines and oracle at the Nymphaeum; no

single author discussed in detail the foundation, history,

or physical characteristics of Apollonia itself. In fact,

698
Paus. 5.22.2-4. Translation from the Loeb edition (Jones and Ormerod
1977).

196
very little synthetic information can be gleaned from the

literary testimonia, which, in many cases, contradict each

other.

Several questions concerning the history of Apollonia

are of particular importance to this study and will

therefore receive detailed attention in this chapter. The

geographic setting of the colony is discussed from the

perspectives of both ancient descriptions and modern

scholarship. Evidence, both literary and archaeological,

for pre-colonial Greek activity in the eastern Adriatic is

presented. Since Corinth was certainly involved in the

foundation of Apollonia, some consideration of Corinthian

history during the period of colonization in the West is

also necessary. Preeminent among the topics for detailed

investigation are the date of the foundation of the

apoikia, the ancient sources relevant to that date, and the

history of scholarship that has produced a consensus

(unwarranted according to my analysis) about the date of

the foundation. Other subjects of discussion are the

contradictory ancient testimonia about Apollonia’s

metropolis – Corinth or Corcyra alone or Corinth and

Corcyra jointly – and how such inconsistent traditions

might have arisen; these topics in turn necessitate a

detailed consideration of the history of relations between

197
Corinth and Corcyra and their relative influence in the

eastern Adriatic. Finally the expansion of the colonists

into the hinterland, the form of government of Apollonia,

and the construction of a unique colonial identity are each

addressed.

The Geographical Setting of Apollonia

The authors of antiquity and modern scholars bring

rather different interests to their treatments of

Apollonia’s location and geographic setting. Most of the

surviving ancient descriptions of the city and its

territory concerned themselves primarily with it as the

contemporary controlling polis of the bitumen deposits and

the nearby oracle of Nymphs; they vary greatly in the

accuracy of their representations of the physical details

of the area.699 Modern geographical investigations, in

contrast, have focused on the resources of the colony, the

reasons for its placement, and its relationship to other

apoikiai founded during the Archaic “wave of colonization,”

particularly as realized by Corinth and Corinth’s fractious

early western colony, Corcyra.

The location of Apollonia is discussed below from the

perspective of four geographic scales. The first and

699
[Aristotle] Mir. ausc. 127 [842b11]; Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]; Plin. HN
2.100.237, 16.23.59; Plut. Sull. 27; Cass. Dio 41.45; Ael. VH 13.16;
Ampelius 8.1.

198
broadest geographic scale is Apollonia's position in terms

of Greek colonies in the "west," i.e., Magna Graecia.700

Second is Apollonia's location in relationship to other

apoikiai in the region, around the gulf of Ambracia and in

the eastern Adriatic. Third, I discuss Apollonia's

position within southern Illyria, noting the advantages of

its placement at the juncture between sea traffic and an

overland trading route into the interior of the Balkan

peninsula and the potential pastoral wealth of the

surrounding countryside. Finally, in the narrowest view,

Apollonia’s situation within its own territory is examined;

this latter perspective was the principle interest of the

ancient sources that describe the thauma of the flaming

bitumen fields and the oracle of the Nymphs.701

700
I will not discuss the larger scale of Apollonia's position within
the Mediterranean as a whole. This relatively new, trendy way of
contextualizing the ancient Mediterranean as a single unit of study is
largely a result of the publication of the English translation (1972)
of Braudel's book about the Mediterranean and globilization in the age
of Philip II of Spain. See Chapter 4; Braudel 1972, pp. 17-18; Horden
and Purcell 2000; Morris 2003, pp. 40-45.
701
The exact location of the Nymphaeum and the "flaming gas" that was
the focus of paradoxographers in antiquity is unknown. Early Modern
travelers proposed a variety of possible locations, all in the vicinity
of the bitumen mines still being worked at Selenica. Holland (1815,
pp. 518-524) offers the most detailed picture of the bitumen works at
Selenica. He is the first traveler to describe his descent into one of
the modern mine shafts. Holland concludes, based on antiquities he saw
in the vicinity of modern Romës, that it was the location of the
Nymphaeum and oracle. Pouqueville (1820, pp. 16-17) also describes his
visit to the pitch mines near the confluence of the Vjosa and Shushica
and remarks on how flames spread across the surface of the ground when
it is lit. Hughes (1820, p. 262) did not visit Apollonia or the
bitumen mines, but quotes from the diary of a Mr. Jones, who descended
into one of the shafts in 1815. Jones said that he found remains of
ancient buildings about two miles upstream, and he took these to be the
remains of the Nymphaeum. Leake (1835, vol. 1, pp. 377-379), too,

199
 The early Greek colonists had a maritime perspective

of the world, and sea communication was of vital importance

in choosing the location for a colonial site.702 This was

especially true along the south coast of Illyria, where

overland travel was exceptionally difficult. The northern

Ionian islands and the southeast coast of the Adriatic

comprise a geographical unit that is bounded by the

southern branch of the Dinaric Alps and separated from the

coastal plain that opens to the north at the Bay of Vlora

(Fig. 5.1). The Acroceraunian mountain range that runs

along the coast from Saranda, opposite Corcyra, to Vlora

rises steeply from the coast, all but cutting off travel by

land from Buthrotum to the site of ancient Aulon at

Triporti.703 The only two archetypal apoikiai founded on the

mainland in the eastern Adriatic, Apollonia and Epidamnus,

visits Selenica and discusses the bitumen mines; he also notes the fire
on the surface. He describes asphalt at Patos (pp. 364-365), reported
to him by his host (Leake did not actually visit Patos), but he rejects
it as the location of the Nymphaeum because the pitch is different from
that described by Strabo. Patsch (1904, pp. 194-195) and Praschniker
(1922-1924, cols. 57-63) offer an alternative location for the
Nymphaeum, setting it ca. 20 miles from Selenica on the frontier
between Apollonia and the Bylliones, where Pliny placed it. For
general discussion of the asphalt mines, accounts by Early Modern
travelers, and possible locations for the oracle, see Hammond 1967, pp.
231-234 and Morris 2006.
702
Horden and Purcell 2000, p. 396; Malkin 2001b, p. 188; Morris 2003,
pp. 37-40; Purcell 2005, pp. 121-124. For Greek colonies in the
Adriatic, see Casson 1926, pp. 322-324; Beaumont 1936, pp. 163-171;
Gitti 1952; Will 1955, pp. 517-539; Hammond 1967; Franke 1983; Cabanes
2000.
703
Talbert 2000, map 49. See Hammond 1967, p. 689 for the
identification.

200
were (and are) separated from all that lies to the south by

this formidable mountain barrier.704

Archaeological and literary evidence suggests that the

earliest Greek prospectors, the Euboeans, came to the

Adriatic for commercial reasons,705 perhaps in search of

metals.706 Amber and tin moved down the coast of the

Adriatic from the Baltic to Greece in the 8th and 7th

centuries B.C.707 Pottery of Greek manufacture was

transported to both sides of the Adriatic as early as the

beginning of the 8th century B.C., probably by Euboean

704
The nearest "Greek" apoikia to the south of Apollonia, Corcyra, was
reachable only by sea (cf. Pseudo-Scylax 28; Pseudo-Scymnus 445).
Aside from Corcyra, Pseudo-Scylax (32) and Pseudo-Scymnus (444-461) do
not mention another Greek city until Ambracia. Phoenice and Buthrotum
were omitted from both the Periplus and the Periegesis (see Chapter 2).
Phoenice, the capital of Chaonia, was not founded until the 4th century
B.C. See Hammond 1967, pp. 115-116, 473-476; Bogdani and Giorgi 2007,
pp. 13-14. It is likely that Corcyra controlled the site of Buthrotum
on the mainland opposite in the Archaic period (cf. Thuc. 3.85). The
earliest imported Greek material from the site dates to the 8th century
B.C. (Ceka 1999, pp. 12-13; Arafat and Morgan 1995, p. 29), but pure
Archaic levels have not been found (cf. Hammond 1967, pp. 514-515; Ceka
2006, pp. 177-178). Ceka (2005, pp. 60-61) contends that Buthrotum was
an Illyrian "proto-city" that was developed in the 7th century B.C. by
a new class of Illyrian traders and artisans as a center for exchange
and production. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the Albanian
communist view of Illyrian development and see below for the ethnicity
of the Chaonians.
705
Cf. Plut. Quaest. Graec. 29; Nic. Dam., FGrHist 90 F57.7. For the
archaeological evidence, see Beaumont 1936, pp. 181-184; Hammond 1972,
p. 423; Cabanes 2000, pp. 56-59.
706
Cf. Morris 2006, p. 98.
707
The early Corinthian artifacts (i.e., 8th century B.C.) found at
Dodona and Vitsa probably reflect the Archaic amber trade. Herodotus
was familiar with this amber route and described how offerings for
Delos were transported from the land of the Hyperboreans to the priests
at Dodona, the first Greeks to receive them (4.33). See Beaumont 1936,
pp. 198-201; Hammond 1967, p. 436; Coldstream 2003, pp. 184-188. See
Gaffney et al. 2002, pp. 38-39 for amber and Greek finds in early Iron
Age contexts on Hvar. The earliest documented amber from Albania in a
historical context is a bead recently recovered in a 6th century B.C.
stratum at the Bonjakët site (see Chapter 7, Site 043).

201
traders.708 There is, however, no evidence that pottery of

this date transported by seafarers penetrated from coastal

locations into the Illyrian interior, and 8th century B.C.

Greek artifacts are restricted to the coast.709 The earliest

Greek commercial activities therefore appear to have been

limited to the seaboard.710 No evidence for permanent or

temporary Euboean settlements has been found in southern

Illyria and their presence in the eastern Adriatic is only

attested in myths and legends.711

Although the post-Euboean permanent apoikiai at

Apollonia and Epidamnus might appear to be isolated

outposts in a territory remote from the rest of the Greek

world, they should be viewed as part of a greater whole.712

Like the colonies in western Sicily, the spacing of the

Greek settlements in Albania provided inter-visibility

among them; on a clear day it is possible to see from the

territory of Epidamnus to that of Apollonia, from Apollonia

to Oricum on the Karaburun cape, from the territory of

708
D'Andria 1990a, pp. 282-284; 1990b, pp. 8-10. He notes that over 600
fragments of MG II Corinthian pottery have been found at Otranto, only
60 km across the straits from Apollonia.
709
Illyrian Iron Age pottery reached the opposite shores of the
Adriatic, and early 8th century B.C. matt-painted Devollian ware from
the Korça basin and incised pottery from northern Albania have been
found at Otranto. D'Andria (1990a, p. 284) suggests that the presence
of these types in southern Italy is due to the migration of small
groups of Illyrians, rather than commercial exchanges. See also
D'Andria 1986, 1987; Lamboley 1987, 1993; Lomas 2000, pp. 81-84.
710
See below for contemporary inland trade routes.
711
See below.
712
Epidamnus and Apollonia were probably established as competing sister
cities and should be considered together. See below.

202
Oricum to Panormos and thence to the Greek city at

Buthrotum, from Buthrotum to Corcyra, and from Corcyra to

the Corinthian colonies on the gulf of Ambracia. One

result of the establishment of apoikiai and pockets of

Greek settlers in the Adriatic was to convert a barbarian

shoreline into a "Greek" coast that was linked not only

with the motherland, but also with the Greek colonies in

Sicily and Italy.713 Thus, the colonization of the Adriatic

completed the process of creating a "Greek sea," with

"friendly" (i.e., Greek) ports around the perimeter.

The Archaic "wave of colonization" in the west began

to wind down at the end of the 7th century B.C. and had

virtually ceased by the mid-6th century B.C.714 The apoikiai

in Albania were among the last Greek colonies to be

founded. Various reasons have been suggested for their

late appearance. For example, John Myres thinks the

Adriatic was colonized later than Sicily and Italy because

of the adverse effects of winds and current.715 Murray, in a

similar vein, hypothesizes that the Albanian coast was

713
This inter-connectedness of the coastline of southern Illyria with
the rest of the Mediterranean instilled the sense of security of being
a part of the oikumene, of that which was familiar and known. Cf.
Morris 2003, pp. 37-40; Malkin 2004, p. 348; Purcell 2005, pp. 121-124.
See also Chapter 2.
714
See Chapter 4 for the opening up of the Mediterranean to increased
Greek sea traffic beginning in the mid-8th century B.C., which was
probably due, in part, to the explorations of the Euboeans. See also
Osborne 1996a, pp. 121-125 and table 5 and Whitley 2001, pp. 124-127.
715
Myres 1925, pp. 632-634, 669. Cf. Mediterranean Pilot 1955, pp. 15-
19.

203
inhospitable and that “the prevailing north wind made it

climatically unattractive.”716 Robert Beaumont, on the other

hand, suggests that the Adriatic was colonized last because

it had the least desirable land.717 Alternatively, Jean

Bérard says that the danger of Illyrian piracy was a strong

deterrent for mariners and settlers.718 A combination of

these four factors, in addition to the original focus of

Greek ventures abroad towards Magna Graecia, helps explain

the somewhat belated migration of Greeks to the coast of

Albania.

Within southern Illyria, Apollonia occupied a

strategic position because of its location at the

crossroads of an ancient (prehistoric) trade route that

both linked the northern Adriatic with the Aegean and the

Adriatic coast with the interior. This route into the

interior existed before the Greek colonists arrived and

later became the Roman Via Egnatia.719 It was the more

valuable because of the difficulties noted above of

overland travel elsewhere in the region.720 Very few Greek

goods moved inland along this byway, however, before

716
Murray 1980, p. 104.
717
Beaumont 1936, pp. 160-162. See also Casson 1926, p. 322; Gitti
1952; Lepore 1983. I will argue later in this chapter that Beaumont's
suggestion about the undesirability of the land is not applicable to
the hinterland of Apollonia.
718
Bérard 1957, p. 274, 1960, p. 126.
719
Cf. Strabo 7.7.4 [C 322-323]. See below.
720
This byway into the interior probably originated as a transhumance
route. Cf. Morgan 1988, pp. 319-320; Hammond 2000, pp. 346-347; Galaty
2002, pp. 120-121. See also Chapters 8 and 9.

204
Apollonia was founded.721 On the other hand, Corinthian

trade with the interior of Epirus that passed through

Ioannina is well documented from the mid-8th century B.C.

onward.722 The earliest Greek pottery in the hinterland of

Apollonia, in contrast, which dates no earlier than the

mid-7th century B.C., is exclusively Corinthian,723 and its

movement inland likely resulted, in part, from ritualized

gift exchange (xenia).724 Although numismatic evidence

suggests that the Apollonians were not as active in

overseas trade as the Epidamnians, the colony was,

nevertheless, an important staging ground for the movement

of imported Greek goods into the Illyrian interior.725

The apoikia at Apollonia was probably founded for both

commercial and agricultural purposes.726 Cabanes727 and

Morris728 suggest that colony was settled primarily for the

exploitation of natural resources in its hinterland, such

as timber, bitumen, and perhaps silver.729 It is likely that

721
Cf. Thuc. 1.13.5. See Hammond 1967, pp. 411-412 and above.
722
As noted in Chapter 4, inland trade routes began to be replaced by
sea routes beginning later in the 8th century B.C. Cf. Hammond 1967,
pp. 411-412; Parke 1967, pp. 274-275; Salmon 1984, p. 216; D'Andria
1987; Morgan 1988, pp. 316-323, 330-332, 1995, pp. 336-337, 1998, p.
290, 2003, pp. 214-215; Arafat and Morgan 1995, p. 28. See also below.
723
Cf. Ceka 1986, pp. 71-72. See below Section IV.
724
See Chapter 4 and discussions in Malkin 1987, 1994b, 1998a.
Conversely, Ceka (2005, pp. 58-59) suggests that Greek goods that moved
inland were intended for ordinary consumers, not for the elite.
725
Morgan 1988; Lamboley 1993; Malkin 2001b, p. 190. See Chapter 4 for
the debate about motives for colonization.
726
Cf. Will 1955, pp. 521-538; Kahrstedt 1922, pp. 361-369.
727
Cabanes 2000, pp. 56-59, 2002, p. 177.
728
Morris 2006, p. 98.
729
See also Hammond 1967, p. 428.

205
the search for agricultural land was also a driving force

behind the Corinthian presence in the Adriatic.730 The

districts of Myzeqe and Mallakastra, where Apollonia is

located, offered some of the best grazing in the Balkans.

In antiquity Apollonia was famed for the excellence of its

pastures, and the wealth of the city that resulted from its

flocks is attested in several ancient sources,731 as well as

by ancient mythology; the cattle of the Hyperboreans or

Helios were said to have grazed in the vicinity of

Apollonia, and Geryones guarded his cattle near the

Ceraunian mountains.732 Herodotus, too, implies that the

land was superior for grazing; a flock of sheep sacred to

the Sun was kept at Apollonia.733 The existence of such

730
The exploitation of the hinterland around Epidamnus in the Archaic-
Classical period is attested by an abundance of archaeological finds,
which suggests early expansion of the settlement. See Davis et al.
2003, pp. 69-70.
731
Epirus and southern Illyria in general were renowned for the
fertility of their soil and for the quality of their flocks. See
Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F26; Plin. HN 8.70; Livy 24.40; Caes. B Civ 3; Arist.
Hist An. 3.21; Ael. NA 12.11.
732
Pseudo-Scylax 26; Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F26; Phot. Bibl. 186.30.136a;
Eust. 2.18.40. Seafarers and traders would have transmitted
information about the quality of the land and the suitability for
colonization to prospective colonists.
733
Hdt. 9.93-9. During the day, the sheep of the Sun grazed freely
along the Aous river, but at night they were penned in a cave that was
guarded by men selected from Apollonia's wealthiest and most
distinguished families. When it was the turn of a certain Evanius to
watch the flock, he fell asleep on the job and wolves killed 60 sheep.
Evanius offered to replace the lost sheep at his own cost, but,
instead, the people of the polis brought him to trial and sentenced him
to be blinded. As a result of this harsh punishment, animals stopped
procreating, and the earth ceased producing grain. The townspeople
consulted oracles at Delphi and Dodona and were instructed to make
reparations to Evanius in whichever way he chose. Evanius asked for
the two best estates in the community (kleroi/lots) and the best house
in town. When the conditions specified by the oracles had been met,
prosperity returned to the city. Evanius was given the gift of

206
traditions suggests that animal husbandry was an important

raison d'êntre for the apoikia, and that, since each

settler received a kleros, the prospect of owning a plot of

rich land would have been a strong incentive for

individuals to venture into the Adriatic.734

Ancient testimonia describing Apollonia were largely

concerned with its location at the narrowest scale of

consideration, within its own territory. Many of these

descriptions are found in the literary genre of marvel

stories, or paradoxa, as discussed in Chapter 2. Reference

to the apoikia provided a geographical context for

discussions of the nearby bitumen mines and oracle of the

Nymphs. Topographical information about the colony was of

secondary importance, crucial only for fixing the thauma

within the oikumene. Few of the authors who discussed the

wonder are likely to have visited it or Apollonia. Real

physical characteristics of Apollonia were of little

consequence, and "facts" about the polis, therefore, are

often contradictory or misleading in these ancient

descriptions. These details have, however, encouraged

modern scholars to speculate about the physical features of

the colony.

divination by the gods to make up for his lost sight. See discussion
in Cabanes and Drini 1995, pp. 30-31.
734
See Gwynn 1918, pp. 98-110; Salmon 1984, p. 63. See Horden and
Purcell 2000, pp. 286-287; Papadopoulos 2001, p. 382, on the importance
of land. See Hammond 1983, p. 34 for modern land use around Apollonia.

207
 The mid-4th century B.C. geographer, Pseudo-Scylax,

recorded in his Periplus that Apollonia was two days march

from Epidamnus and 320 stades from Amantia.735 He further

noted that the city center was located 50 stades (7.5-10

km) from the sea. Strabo placed the polis 60 stades from

the sea (ca. 9-12 km).736 Pliny, in contrast, wrote

approximately a century later that Apollonia was "4 milia

passuum" from the coast (ca. 6 km); several editors have

emended his text to read "7 milia passuum" (ca. 10.5 km) in

order to reconcile his description with the text of

Strabo.737 It is likely, however, that by early Roman times

the coastline had moved outward. Recent geomorphological

investigations suggest that the coast was approximately 5

km from Apollonia in the 7th century B.C., i.e., half its

current distance; Pliny's figure therefore appears more

plausible for later antiquity than those of Pseduo-Scylax

or Strabo.738

In view of the distance between Apollonia and the

coast, the port of the city must have been on the Aous

river, just below the acropolis. Pseudo-Scylax recorded

that the Aous (Vjosa) flowed beside the town,739 and Strabo

735
Pseudo-Scylax 26.
736
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]. See Bauslaugh (1979) and Pothecary (1995) on
variations in the length of the stade.
737
Plin. HN 3.23.145.
738
Fouache 2002, p. 18, 2007, pp. 3-9. See Runnels et al. 2004.
739
Pseudo-Scylax 26. See Chapter 2 and Hammond 2000, pp. 345-346 on
Pseudo-Scylax's use of the Archaic form, Aias, for the Aous.

208
noted that the city was situated 10 stades from its right

bank.740 Herodotus, too, mentioned a river that flowed

through the territory of Apollonia to the sea, although he

was misinformed about where it emptied.741 Apollonia,

therefore, was a riverine port and, in this respect, it

differed from its neighbor to the north, Epidamnus, which

was situated beside an excellent harbor.

Apollonia was just within the border of Illyria. The

Aous river was considered to be the frontier between

Illyria and Chaonia, between the unknown and the familiar

world.742 Legend had it that the river was named after the

Greek hero Ajax, son of Telamon.743 As discussed in Chapter

740
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316].
741
Hdt. 9.93.1.
742
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]. Pseudo-Scylax (28) noted that Oricum, just
south of the Aous, marked the end of Illyrian territory and the
beginning of Chaonia (Epirus), a fact already known in the 6th century
B.C. (cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F103). See Hammond 1966a, 1989b. See,
however, Korkuti, Baçe, and Ceka 2008, pp. 65-66 who place the border
of Chaonia farther south, below Oricum. Chaonia was the northernmost
district of Epirus and had its administrative center at Phoenice (Plin.
HN 4.1.2-4; see De Maria 2001, 2004, 2007; De Maria and Gjongecaj 2002,
2003, 2005, 2007). The Chaonians were first mentioned by Thucydides
(2.80-81). They traced their ancestry to Helenus, son of Priam (Paus.
1.2.2). There has been much debate about whether the Chaonians were
"Greek" or "Illyrian." In the 5th century B.C. Chaonia was not
considered to be part of "Greece," but by the beginning of the
Hellenistic period, it was. Compare Herodotus 8.47 and Plutarch
Pericles 17 with Plutarch Phocion 29, where the Acroceraunian headland
is considered to be the northwestern boundary of Greece. Thucydides
(2.80-81) considered the Epirotes barbarians, as Pseudo-Scynmus (SEG XV
397) did the Chaonians. Polybius (4.9.4), on the other hand,
considered the Epirotes and specifically the Chaonians to be Greek.
According to Plutarch, the Hellenization of Epirus began when King
Tharypas of the Molossians was sent to Athens in the 5th century B.C.
to be educated (Plut. Pyrrh. 1; Paus. 1.11.1; Justin 17.3.12). On the
ethnicity of the Chaonians, see Ugolini 1932, p. 70; Cross 1932, p. 2,
n. 1, pp. 10-11; Cabanes 1976, pp. 115-116; Malkin 1998a, pp. 142-151;
Winnifrith 2002, pp. 47-49.
743
Hammond 1967, p. 384.

209
2, Strabo noted that Hecataeus used the Archaic name for

the Aous, calling it the Aias. He also repeated Hecataeus'

belief that the Aous originated in the region of Lacmus,

where the river Inachus also had its source.744 The Aous was

navigable in its lower parts, at least to Apollonia, and

thus linked the acropolis with the Adriatic.745 Once it was

established, this riverine port provided the link between

the overland route and coastal traffic. The course of the

river has changed greatly since antiquity: in Graeco-Roman

times the mouth lay far to the north of its present

location.746

Greek settlers generally sought uninhabited or

sparsely populated areas for their colonies.747 Although

Albanian scholars contend that Apollonia was an Illyrian

settlement before the Greeks arrived, there is no

conclusive evidence to confirm this.748 Ancient sources, in

fact, support the conclusion that there was no indigenous

settlement on the acropolis at Apollonia and that the area

around the city center was largely uninhabited when the

744
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316] = Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102b; Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269]
= Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102c. The Archaic name used by Hecataeus, Aias,
was incorrectly cited by later authors. Cf. Pseudo-Scylax 26; Pliny HN
3.26; Steph. Byz., s.v. Λάκµων = Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F102a. Lycoph.
Alex. 1020 called the river "Aias" and also said it issued from Lacmon.
745
According to Plutarch (Caes. 38), Caesar tried to put to sea from
Apollonia in a twelve oared boat but met with difficulties at the mouth
of the Aous because of an onshore wind.
746
Fouache et al. 2001; Fouache 2007; Hammond 1967, p. 493. For an
analysis of the ancient testimonia concerning the port of Apollonia,
see Masci 1943.
747
Morel 1984, pp. 124-126; Morgan 1999, pp. 105-109; Hall 2002, p. 97.
748
Cf. Ceka 2005, pp. 66-67.

210
colonists arrived.749 Archaeological evidence presented in

Chapter 7 and discussed in Chapter 9 reinforces this

hypothesis.

As seen in Chapter 2, the early Greek geographers were

familiar with the coast of the Adriatic. The first extant,

though fragmentary, references to southern Illyria's

geography are from the 6th century B.C. works by Hecataeus

of Miletus and Scylax of Caryanda.750 Scylax appears to have

been familiar not only with the geography of coastal

Illyria, but also with the areas inhabited by the various

Illyrian tribes living near the sea.751 Pseudo-Scylax,

relying heavily on Scylax, discussed the Adriatic coast and

the territory associated with various Illyrian tribes in

great detail in the Periplus (22-33). While all the

geographers were familiar with the inhabitants along the

coast, none of them knew very much about the situation

inland.

The territory between the Apsus (Seman) and the Aous

(Vjosa) rivers is the only area in Illyria that is not

linked with a specific Illyrian tribe, nor do any of the

Greek geographers assign control of Apollonia to anyone.

Pseudo-Scylax, in his discussion of Illyrians and the

749
The coastal plain in front of Apollonia was probably marshy, hot, and
mosquito ridden.
750
See Chapter 2.
751
Beaumont 1936, p. 159.

211
extent of their territories, referred to Apollonia as "a

Greek city."752 He mentioned no tribe in the immediate

vicinity of the apoikia, information that he did record for

Epidamnus, which he specifically placed in the land of the

Taulantii. Pseudo-Scylax did, however, record that the

Atintanes lived inland from the coast, in the hinterland

and to the south of Apollonia.753

Strabo, as noted, provided information about the

origin of the Greek colonists and the location of the

polis. He said nothing about any native inhabitants in or

near the city. He did comment, though not specifically in

reference to Apollonia, on the excellence of the Illyrian

seaboard regarding harbors and land fertility, but noted

that earlier inhabitants made small use of the coastal

plain either out of ignorance or because of the wildness of

the natives and their piratical habits.754 Strabo provided

different information about the inland neighbors of

Apollonia than did other ancient writers. He placed the

territory of Bylliaca between Apollonia and Oricum and

later noted that the Bylliones were the inland neighbors of

Apollonia as well as the most southern of the Illyrian

752
Pseudo-Scylax 26.
753
Pseudo-Scylax 26. Cabanes 1976 argues that Apollonia itself and the
Myzeqe plain were controlled by the Atintania, but there is no evidence
for this. For the debate about which tribe lived in the vicinity of
Apollonia, see Holleaux 1921, pp. 109-111; Léveque 1957, p. 184;
Cabanes 1976, pp. 78-81; Hammond 1966a, p. 247, 1989b; Ceka 1984,
1987b.
754
Strabo 7.5.10 [C 317].

212
tribes.755 The Bylliones were among those tribes that became

bilingual. The fact that they minted coins with legends in

Greek suggests that they became thoroughly Hellenized.756

The capital of the Bylliones was at Byllis; the

location has been securely identified by a rock cut

inscription of the Roman era.757 This confirms that their

territory lay to the east and southeast of Apollonia, along

the Aous river. As noted below, the Myrmidons returning

from the Trojan war, who were being led home by

Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, supposedly founded

Byllis.758

A late 3rd century B.C. inscription at Dodona mentions

a "Koinon of the Bylliones."759 This information led Ceka to

propose the existence of an Illyrian federated state known

as the "Koinon of the Bylliones." He contends that the

confederation was composed of three Illyrian tribes: the

Bylliones, the Amantes, and the Atintani.760 According to

755
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316], 7.7.8 [C 326].
756
See Hammond 1966a, p. 242.
757
Strabo 7.7.8 [C 326-327]. CIL III 600. See Anamali 1976b, pp. 126-
127 for a discussion of epigraphical sources about Byllis. See also
Hammond 1966a, p. 242, 1972, pp. 36-38; Hammond and Griffith 1979, p.
93; Hammond and Walbank 1988, p. 354; Winnifrith 2003, pp. 46-47. See
Deniaux 2005a for a discussion of the Roman colony at Byllis during the
reign of Augustus.
758
Steph. Byz., s.v. Βύλλις.
759
Prakt 1965, p. 59.
760
Ceka 1984, 1987b. The Atintanes are listed as part of the Epirote
League in the second Delphic list of theorodokoi dated ca. 220-189 B.C.
On the territory occupied by the Atintani and their relationship to the
Atintanes, see Holleaux 1921, pp. 109-111; Lévêque 1957, p. 184;
Hammond 1966a, p. 247, 1989b; Cabanes 1976, pp. 78-81. For a
discussion of the Delphic list, see below and Plassart 1921, pp. 1-85;

213
Ceka, the federation was founded before the arrival of the

Greeks, and the territory controlled by its member tribes

included all of southern Illyria, which extended beyond the

modern day Albanian/Greek border into Epirus.761 The area

Cross 1932, pp. 109-114; Robert 1946; Daux 1949, 1965, 1980a, 1980b;
Hammond 1980a; Cook 1988, p. 10; Perlman 2000, pp. 125-126.
From the Archaic period onwards states that were organizing
Panhellenic festivals sent out official envoys known as theoroi who
traveled from city to city to notify Greeks of upcoming festivals
(Boesch 1908, pp. 100-102; Dillon 1997, pp. 1-3). Theoroi extended
invitations to Greek cities to send representatives to participate in
these celebrations and also announced the inception of sacred truces
that accompanied Panhellenic events (Dillon 1997, pp. 250-254). The
sacred ambassadors were given hospitality in cities they visited by
individuals known as theorodokoi (Boesch 1908, pp. 105-108; Plassart
1921, p. 36). Theorodokoi, who hosted sacred embassies from
participating cities, were appointed by the festival organizers and
provided envoys with food, lodging, transportation, and logistical
assistances (see Boesch 1908, pp. 110-113; Plassart 1921, p. 36, n. 2;
Daux 1949, p. 2; Charneux 1966a, pp. 167-168; Perlman 1984, pp. 12-17,
2000, pp. 48-49).
As noted above, Panhellenic festivals emphasized ethnic and
political ties as well as shared religious practices. Since only Greek
citizens were allowed to participate in Panhellenic events, theoroi
traveled only to Greek cities. Sanctuaries often kept lists of the the
places the envoys visited and the people who received them. These are
known as the theorodokoi lists. Eight theorodokoi lists from five
different locations, ranging in date from the early 4th century B.C. to
the late 2nd century B.C., are extant. These are from Epidaurus (IG IV2
1, 94-95; Rigsby 1996, pp. 41-44), Argos (Charneux 1966a, 1966b, pp.
710-714; SEG XXIII 189; SEG XXXIII 289), Nemea (Miller 1988; SEG XXXVI
331), Delphi (Syll.3 90; Plassart 1921, pp. 5-80; Daux 1949, pp. 4-28),
and Hermione (IG IV 727a).
The lists of theorodokoi, although from different places and
chronologically disparate, share certain organizational features. The
entries are divided into columns and each entry contains the name of
the city to be visited, followed by one or more personal names,
presumably the host or hosts in that city. Cities that received
theoroi are listed by region and topographically arranged within each
region. It is possible that in some cases this topographical
organization reflects the actual itineraries followed by the sacred
envoys (cf. Boesch 1908, pp. 36-37; Robert 1946, pp. 506-510; Cabanes
1976, p. 117; Perlman 1984, p. 4, 2000, pp. 30-34). Other scholars,
however, doubt that the arrangement of cities in the inscriptions
record the route taken by the theoroi (cf. Kahrstedt 1936, pp. 416-444;
Daux 1949, pp. 3-4, 1967, pp. 295-296, 1980b, pp. 120-121; Cook 1973,
pp. 221, 342-343, 1988, pp. 7-19). Only three lists are relevant to
the discussion below: one from Epidaurus, the Argive list, and one from
Delphi.
761
Anamali 1976b; H. Ceka 1982; Ceka 1984; Cabanes 1986a; Papazoglou
1986, p. 444.

214
and city of Apollonia fall within this territory, so it

follows that Apollonia was originally an "Illyrian city."762

This proposal, endorsed by other Albanian

archaeologists, is an example of the type of ideologically

"correct" argument that was encouraged under communism and

was designed to promote the notion of Illyrian supremacy

over foreign (Greek) foundations. This line of reasoning

also resulted in the construction of an enlarged Illyrian

territory that extended beyond modern Albania's borders

into Greek Epirus. The fact is, however, that the Koinon

of the Bylliones was probably a formation of the

Hellenistic period, by which time the Illyrians had been

influenced by various other leagues and federations that

existed in Greece and Molossia (and thus irrelevant to

understanding the situation at the time Apollonia was

founded).763 Additionally, it is unlikely that the Illyrian

762
Ceka 1984, p. 80, fig. 8; Anamali 1976b.
763
The League of the Molossians was created by Alexander I (342-326) and
was formalized between 330-297 B.C. This "symmachy of the Epirotes,"
combined elements of tribal organization, monarchy, and federalism; it
was the first time that the tribes in Epirus met together in a single
assembly. See Tarn 1913, pp. 55-60; Hammond 1967, pp. 536-539, 701-
704; Cabanes 1981, pp. 82-94; Shipley 2000, p. 139. On the later
Koinon of the Epirotes, see Lévêque 1957, pp. 211-218; Cabanes 1976,
pp. 198-239; Papazoglou 1986, pp. 444-446.
The Chaonians were not a part of the Epirote koinon at this time;
they are not mentioned as part of the Molossian territory in the Argive
list of theorodokoi of ca. 330 B.C., which lists as a group other
Epirote cities that are a part of the League. SEG XXIII 189; SEG
XXXIII 289; see Franke 1955, p. 46; Lévêque 1957, p. 215; Larsen 1968,
p. 278; Hammond 1980a, p. 16. For dating and discussion of the Argive
list, see Charneux 1966a, pp. 178-179, 1966b; Cabanes 1969, pp. 550-
551, 1976, pp. 117-120, 144-145, 173-185; Daux 1971, pp. 355-357;
Hammond 1980a, 1980b, pp. 473-476, 1989b; Perlman 2000, p. 102.

215
koinon ever encompassed as large a territory as Ceka

proposes. It more probably was restricted in extent to the

southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does

not include Epirus.764

The medieval lexographer, Stephanus of Byzantium, who

provided great detail in his lexicon, also knew of no

ancient tradition firmly linking Apollonia or the area

around the polis with an Illyrian tribe. He described the

geographical position of Apollonia in the most vague way

possible; his entry reads "a city of Illyria, that used to

be inhabited by the Illyrians, from Epidamnus."765 In

antiquity, the term "Illyrian," as used by Stephanus, was a

general term applied to non-Greek speaking neighbors who

lived to the north of Greece, and the land of "Illyria"

referred to the area north of Chaonia, from the north bank

of the Aous river to Istria.766 No specific "Illyrii" tribe

existed in Archaic or Classical times, although several

powerful tribes were included under the appellation of

Illyrians, all of whom were known to, and described by,

Greek geographers and historians.767

764
Epirus was Greek speaking. See Hammond 1967; Papazoglou 1986, p.
439.
765
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία.
766
For example, cf. App. Ill. 1.5; Strabo 7.7.1 [C 321], 7.7.8 [C 326].
On the use and meaning of "the Illyrians," see Chapter 2 and Zippel
1877; Papazoglou 1965; Hammond 1966a; Wilkes 1992. Hammond (1966a, p.
241) suggests that the name "οἵ Ἰλλυριοί" had a Bronze Age origin.
767
Hammond (1966a) notes that "Illyrii proprie dicti" is first used in
Pliny HN 3.144 to describe a tribe living to the north of the

216
 In his entry for Epidamnus, Stephanus said that the

Parthini inhabited the territory around Epidamnus.768

According to Pliny, however, the Parthini were centered

inland around Elbasan, and controlled the Shkumbi valley

between the ancient Genusus and Apsus rivers.769 Cassius Dio

hypothesized that early on the Parthini may have held the

lands around Epidamnus, but were later pushed inland and

lost their coastal holdings to the Taulantii when this

tribe moved south.770 It is possible that Stephanus

misinterpreted these earlier passages when he described

Apollonia as an Illyrian city.

Based on the two passages in Stephanus of Byzantium,

even though one may be incorrect, some modern scholars,

both Albanian and foreign, argue that in the 7th-6th

century B.C. the area around Apollonia was controlled by

the Taulantii,771 although only the geographer Ptolemy, a

late ancient, made this claim.772 According to their

argument, Cassius Dio was correct in calculating that the

Taulantians originated north of Epidamnus, but came to

Taulantii. See also Papazoglou 1965. See Wilkes 1992, pp. 91-104 for
a discussion of individual Illyrian tribes and their territories.
768
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἐπίδαµνος. All other sources stated that Epidamnus
was in the territory of the Taulantii. Cf. App. B Civ. 2.39; Thuc.
1.24.1.
769
Plin. HN 3.23.145. This meant that the Parthini controlled the best
route to the east, which the Romans later transformed into the Via
Egnatia.
770
Cass. Dio 41.49.2.
771
Cf. Hammond 1966a, p. 247; Wilkes 1992, p. 98; Ceka 2005, p. 67;
Korkuti, Baçe, and Ceka 2008, pp. 148-149.
772
Ptol. Geog. 3.12.2.

217
control the fertile coastal plains along the Adriatic

between Epidamnus and Apollonia by the time the apoikiai

were founded. They had been expelled from their lands and

forced to move south by the Liburnians, a seafaring tribe

from farther north.773 It is indeed likely that at the end

of the Early Iron Age the Taulantii were centered inland

from the coast near modern Tirana.774 Thucydides in 435 B.C.

wrote that the Taulantii were neighbors of the Epidamnians,

but mentioned nothing about any relationship with

Apollonia.775 At the height of their power, under king

Glaucias ca. 435 B.C., they managed to control territory as

far south as the Myzeqe plain, including the lands of the

Parthini, but were unable to capture the city of

Apollonia.776 This fact suggests that, prior to the mid-5th

century B.C., the Taulantii were never in control of

Apollonia or the southern part of the Myzeqe plain.

The lack of clarity reflected in ancient sources

indicates that there existed no single tradition in

antiquity about who controlled the territory around

Apollonia when the Greeks arrived. The textual confusion

lends credence to the hypothesis that the hinterland of the

773
The Taulantii invited colonists to Epidamnus ca. 627 B.C. in order to
regain control of their city. Appian (B Civ. 2.39) noted this as the
reason for the foundation of Epidamnus, and Eusebius (Schone 1866, p.
89, line 1392) recorded the date. See Davis et al. 2003, p. 41.
774
Pseudo-Scylax 26.
775
Thuc. 1.24.1.
776
App. Ill. 2.7; Polyaenus 4.2.4.

218
apoikia was virtually uninhabited during the Iron Age.

Apollonia was probably located on the border between the

Bylliones to the east and the Taulantii and/or Parthini to

the north. The colonists likely took advantage of this

territorial vacuum, and would have exploited the enmity

between these two rival Illyrian tribes.

The preceding summary describes the benefits of

Apollonia's location and outlines what is recorded in the

ancient sources about the colony. As noted above, it is

likely that Apollonia was established for both commercial

and agricultural purposes.777 Apollonia was part of a

seaborne network that linked the shores of the

Mediterranean. It was a gateway city for coastal and

inland trade, and the site of the colony was selected for

its location on land routes, as well as its proximity to

the sea and suitability as a riverine port.778 The quality

of the land around Apollonia suggests that the site was

also selected for the excellence of its pastureland.

Moreover, although the city was built on a defensible

acropolis above the floodplain, the location of the

settlement does not appear to have been chosen solely for

defensive reasons. Finally, the area around Apollonia

777
See Chapter 4. Cf. Will 1955, pp. 521-538; Kahrstedt 1922, pp. 361-
369.
778
See Hammond 1992, p. 34.

219
appears to have been uninhabited or very sparsely populated

when the colonists arrived.

Euboeans in the Adriatic

As Chapter 4 relates, the earliest post-Mycenaean

Greek maritime presence in eastern and western

Mediterranean was Euboean; this was also the case in the

Adriatic. Euboean forays north of the Ionian Sea probably

began as early as the 9th century B.C.; indeed, Malkin

suggests that these proto-colonial contacts preceded the

exploration of the west coast of Italy.779 In addition to

their activities in the Levant, Italy, and Sicily, the

Euboeans, in conjunction with Phoenician traders,

established exchange networks along the eastern shores of

the Adriatic that included the sites of Corcyra, Buthrotum

on the mainland opposite, Oricum, Apollonia, and

Epidamnus.780 These trade routes followed the same paths

that had been traversed during the Mycenaean period, as

remembered in the nostoi legends of Bronze Age heroes

attached to localities up and down the Albanian coast.781

Archaeological confirmation has not been forthcoming

at most sites where there is a memory in the literary

779
Malkin 2002b, p. 151.
780
Lamboley 1996, p. 60; Malkin 2001b, p. 188.
781
See Sherratt and Sherratt 1993; Harding 1976, 1984; Gaffney et al.
2002.

220
record of a Euboean presence.782 This is particularly true

in the Adriatic, where strong mythological traditions,

discussed in detail below, about pre-Corinthian activities

along the coast prior to the arrival of Archaic colonists

survived in ancient sources, but very little archaeological

evidence of Euboeans has been found.783 The lack of

artifactual confirmation, however, does not necessarily

mean that Euboean seafarers did not venture into these

parts. Rather, the foundation myths and legends that exist

in the ancient texts for Apollonia, Thronium, and Oricum

are likely, in my view, to preserve a memory of early

Euboean explorers along the eastern seaboard of the

Adriatic,784 and several circumstances of the history of

archaeological research in this region could help to

explain their invisibility in the current archaeological

record.

782
The presence of the Euboeans in the Adriatic is even more evanescent
than in those places where Euboean pottery has been found, such as
Torone. On "phantom Euboeans," see Chapter 4 and Papadopoulos 1996,
1997a.
783
See Morgan 1998 who discusses in detail the archaeological evidence
for Euboeans in the Ionian and Adriatic seas. She concludes (pp. 299-
301), based on the paucity of material evidence, that the literary
testimonia should be disregarded. See also Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 22-25;
Papadopoulos 1996, pp. 166-167, 1997a.
Alternately, evidence might be lacking because the later colonial
foundations may not have been on the same spots as Euboean trading
posts (since they may have had somewhat different criteria for choosing
locations); research that has focused on later Greek cities would not
have found the earlier evidence of Euboean activity. No conclusions
can be valid until some broad program of sampling and surface survey
has been conducted.
784
There is more evidence for Mycenaean activity in Albania and farther
north than for Euboean. For the Mycenaeans in the northeast Adriatic,
see Harding 1976, 1984, 1992; Gaffney et al. 2002, pp. 32-33.

221
 Apollonia, which has a history of systematic

excavations spanning over nearly a century785 is illustrative

of the impediments to detecting evidence for the Euboeans.

Like other sites in Albania, much of the excavation was

conducted prior to World War II, especially on the

acropolis and within the ancient city walls.786 At that time

(as today), the earliest levels were not the primary

research focus, which was rather directed at the better-

preserved Hellenistic and Roman monuments.787 Sporadic and

random excavations of graves in the vast necropolis outside

the city walls also consumed considerable energy.788

Moreover, most excavations at Apollonia took place

well before Sir John Boardman began his seminal study of

Euboean pottery, which enabled him to define a regional

Euboean style for Iron Age pottery.789 It is likely,

therefore, that Euboean pottery would not have been

recognized by early excavators at Apollonia, even if it had

been recovered. Additionally, in 1967, the archaeological

site was seriously and irrevocably disturbed when the upper

acropolis was assaulted with heavy machinery and nearly 400

785
For the history of excavation, see, most recently, Ceka 2005, pp. 9-
32; Dimo, Quantin, and Vrekaj 2007.
786
See Rey 1920, 1921-1922, 1925, 1927, 1928a, 1928b, 1932, 1935a,
1935b, 1935c, 1939; Praschniker and Schober 1919; Praschniker 1922-
1924; Delouis et al. 2007, pp. 38-44; Dimo, Quantin, and Vrekaj 2007.
787
See Chapter 3.
788
Only a small fraction of the necropolis has been excavated to date.
See Section III.
789
Boardman 1957.

222
huge concrete military bunkers were installed at and near

the ancient polis. The probability of finding

archaeological evidence to support a Euboean presence at

Apollonia has been, therefore, very slim.

Other sites along the Albanian coast have a similar

history of spotty excavation and modern military

disturbance, with similar challenges for the discovery and

recognition of any possible evidence for an early Euboean

presence. The literary testimony alone remains, which,

although scant, is nevertheless persistent and plausible.

Several ancient sources suggest that the Adriatic was

a region of enterprise for the Euboeans prior to the

arrival of the Corinthians. Both Strabo and Pausanias

recorded early Euboean activities in southern Illyria,

which might have been prompted, as at Pithekoussai, by the

search for metals.790 Eretrians, as discussed below, were

mentioned specifically at Corcyra and Oricum, and

unspecified Euboeans were recorded at Apollonia and in the

Ceraunian Mountains.791

According to Plutarch, the island of Corcyra was first

settled by Eretrians from Euboea.792 If a Euboean trading

790
Strabo 10.1.15 [C 449]; Paus. 5.22.3-4. See Chapter 4.
791
Cf. Casson 1926, p. 323; Hammond 1967; Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 22-23;
Malkin 2001b, p. 191; Cabanes 2007b.
792
Plut. Mor. 293a-b. In this particular passage of the Moralia
(Quaestiones Graecae 11), Plutarch offered an aition to explain the
identity of the aposphendonetai, Eretrian colonists who were refused
the right to return to their homeland after they were expelled from

223
station existed on Corcyra, it was established sometime

before the middle of the 8th century B.C. and was of fairly

short duration; it is therefore hardly inexplicable that

archaeological evidence for its existence has not been

found.793 Because of its strategic location and protected

harbors, the Euboeans probably used Corcyra as a base for

voyages further west and northward.794 This information is

not mutually exclusive with other traditions about

different groups of pre-Corinthian residents on the island,

including ancient identifications of Corcyra with Phaeacian

Scheria in the Homeric nostos of Odysseus' homeward journey

from Troy to Ithaca.795 Corcyra is large enough to have

accommodated several different groups of settlers. The

Corcyra by the Corinthians. See Halliday 1928, pp. 63-65 for a

discussion of Quaest. Graec. 11. Morgan (1998, pp. 281-285) calls into
question the historical validity of such aitia in Plutarch and argues
against a Euboean settlement on Corcyra. For a similar view, see
Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 22-23, 1987, p. 187. In support of Euboeans on the
island, see Myres 1925, p. 651; Beaumont 1936, p. 165, 1952, p. 68;
Hopper 1955, p. 5; Graham 1971, p. 46; Calligas 1982; Salmon 1984, p.
65; Malkin 1998a, pp. 3-6; Antonelli 2000, pp. 15-37. For a general
discussion about the colonization of Corcyra, see Mueller 1835, pp. 9-
11; Graham 1983, p. 110; Malkin 1994a, p. 3; Antonelli 2000.
793
Lamboley 1996, p. 60; Malkin 1994b, pp. 3-4, 2001b, p. 189. Myres
(1925, p. 672, n. 1) and Blakeway (1932-1933, pp. 205-206, n. 4) note
that the Corcyraean coin followed an old Euboean type with a cow
suckling a calf. Cf. Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, http://www.sylloge-
nummorum-graecorum.org/, e.g., SNGuk 0300 1662. A similar motif is
found on the coins from other Euboean colonies (Naxos, Zancle, and
Himera). Corinthian colonies in the Adriatic, on the other hand,
employed coin types that bore a resemblance to those of Corinth.
794
Beaumont 1936, p. 164.
795
Thucydides (1.25.4) and Callimachus (Aet. F12) said that the
Phaeacians inhabited Corcyra before the Corinthians. Schol. Ap. Rhod.
1212-1214a (Wendel) also cited the Phaeacians as the original
inhabitants of Corcyra. For the equation of Corcyra and Phaeacians,
see also Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.982-992g (Wendel) = Timaeus, FGrH 566 F79;
Mueller 1835, pp. 9-10; Thomas and Stubbings 1962, p. 309; Calligas
1982; Mackie 1996; Tandy 1997, p. 79; Malkin 1998b, p. 3.

224
previous inhabitants, including the Eretrians and any other

groups, were reportedly expelled in the second half of the

8th century B.C. by a splinter group of Corinthian

colonists en route to Syracuse,796 who founded the historical

polis of Corcyra (see below).

Quasi-historical nostoi attributed Euboean foundations

during the prehistoric past to Apollonia and other eastern

Adriatic cities; these legends are strikingly similar, only

varying in their details and locations. The nostos

attached to Apollonia is recorded in the Epitome of

Apollodorus, the 1st century A.D. mythographer.797 According

to Apollodorus, the city was founded after the fall of Troy

by the survivors of the Greek contingent that had been led

to Ilium by the heroic hegemon of the Euboeans.798

Elephenor, who left his native land because he had killed

his grandfather, did not accompany his men on their

homeward journey because he was slain in battle outside the

walls of Troy by Agenor.799 According to Apollodorus,

Elephenor's troops were unsuccessful in their efforts to

796
Strabo (6.2.4 [C 269]) reported that the Corinthian colonists
expelled a group of Liburnian pirates from the island. Timaeus, FGrH
566 F80 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1216 (Wendel), on the other hand, claimed
that the earliest inhabitants were Colchians who were subsequently
displaced by the Corinthian colonists; cf. Ap. Rhod. 4.1131-1137.
797
Apollod. Epit. 6.15b; Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 911 (Scheer).
798
Hom. Il. 2.536-545; Paus. 8.15.6; Apollod. Epit. 3.11; Lycoph. Alex.
1032-1044; Biffi 1986; Walker 2004, p. 29.
799
Cf. Hom. Il. 4.463-472; Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 1034 (Scheer). Agenor
was in turn killed by Neoptolemus and his father, Achilles, killed
Aegenor's son. Cf. Paus. 10.27.2. See below for Neptolemus and
Achilles.

225
return home to Euboea after the war and found themselves

cast away into the Ionian gulf where they founded

Apollonia.

Pausanias recorded a similar story, which, although

also involving Apollonia, ascribed Euboean foundation not

to that colony but to a different city, Thronium. In his

commentary on the monument at Olympia set up by Apollonia

in commemoration of its victory over Thronium and the land

of Abantis (see above for quote), Pausanias supplemented

his description of the dedication with additional details

about the foundation of the vanquished territory.800 He

wrote that the Abantes (Euboeans)801 and the Locrians from

Thronium were driven against the Ceraunian mountains on

their way back from Troy and founded a colony on the south

bank of the Aous. They named the city Thronium after the

Locrian city and the surrounding territory Abantis after

the name used for Euboea in Homeric poetry.802 Pausanias was

apparently trying to reconcile confusion in his sources

about the name of the city, Thronium, and the name of the

800
Paus. 5.22.4. For the actual inscription, see SEG XV 251 = Kunze
1956, pp. 149-153; Cabanes and Ceka 1997, pp. 78-79. On the date of
the monument, see Beaumont 1952, p. 65; Hammond 1967, pp. 494-496;
Jeffery 1990, p. 229; Cabanes and Drini 1995, p. 32. The information
recorded by Pausanias, as noted, was similar to the nostos that
Apollodorus attached to Apollonia.
801
Homer (Il. 2.536-545) referred to the Euboeans as Abantes and Abantis
is another name for Euboea (cf. Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀβαντίς). See Malkin
1998a, p. 5, 2001b, p. 191; Walker 2004, p. 3. For a discussion of the
Abantes, see Kearsley 1999, pp. 122-125; Walker 2004, pp. 43-57.
802
See Biffi 1986, pp. 90-94.

226
territory, Abantis, a problem that Apollodorus did not have

because his nostos was attached only to Apollonia.803

Heroic origins that involved Euboeans were attributed

to several other early settlements around the Bay of Vlora,

in addition to those located at, or near, Apollonia and

recorded by Apollodorus and Pausanias.804 Euboean survivors

of Elephenor's Trojan contingent were placed in the

Ceraunian mountains by the Etymologicum Magnum, written in

the mid-12th century A.D., citing the scholiast to

Lycophron,805 and both Apollonius Rhodius and Timaeus also

mentioned Abantes in those mountains.806

The associations are more complex between possible

Euboean founders and Oricum, one of the most important

Greek cities in Chaonia,807 which was located on a small

coastal plain/marsh at the southern edge of the Bay of

Vlora; divergent foundation legends were recorded for this

city. Although Apollonius Rhodius, Pliny the Elder, and

possibly Callimachus attributed the settlement at Oricum to

803
See Chapter 4 for an example of a similar compromise between dual
metropoleis at Cumae.
804
See also Cabanes 2000, pp. 53-56; 2001, pp. 43-45.
805
Etym. Magn., s.v. "Αµαντες.
806
Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212-1216 (Wendel); Ap.
Rhod. 4.1214-1215; cf. Strabo 10.1.15 [C 449].
807
Cf. Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F106; Caes. B Civ. 3.11-40. For a discussion
of the geography of Oricum and the Bay of Vlora, see Pseudo-Scylax 26-
27; Heuzey 1886, pp. 20-32; Patsch 1904, pp. 70-72; Miller 1917;
Beaumont 1952, p. 66-68; Hammond 1967, pp. 126-130; Cabanes 2000, pp.
53-56; Lamboley 2005, p. 17.

227
Colchians,808 and Timaeus added the detail that this had

followed their expulsion from Corcyra by Chersicrates and

the Corinthians,809 Pseudo-Scymnus ascribed the foundation

legend recounted by Pausanias for Thronium to the

settlement of Oricum.810 Oricum may be further associated

with Euboean nostoi by sources that fused the term

“Abantes” with “Amantes,” and the territory of Abantis with

that of Amantia,811 a variation in spelling attributed by

Stephanus of Byzantium to Antigonus Gonatas that was then

adopted by some Hellenistic poets.812 The location of

Amantia is not altogether clear. A fragment of Callimachus

may have suggested that the hora of Amantia was in the

territory of Oricum, which was founded by people who were

808
Callim. Aet. F12; Ap. Rhod. 4.1214-1216; Pliny HN 3.26.
809
Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80 (= Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212-1216 [Wendel]) is
the only ancient author who provides a terminus ante quem (ca. 733
B.C.) for the settlement of Oricum.
810
Pseudo-Scymnus 442-443. See also Lycoph. Alex. 1044-1045. The
attachment of the same nostos to both Oricum and Thronium suggests that
the foundation of the two were conflated in antiquity. This has led
some later scholars to incorrectly equate Oricum and Thronium. See,
for example, Malkin 1998a. It is not, however, uncommon for the same
myth to be appropriated by a number of different places. For example,
numerous claims have been made about the location of the cave of the
Cyclopes, including placing it at modern Himara by a local shopkeeper
(pers. comm.). See RE XVII, 1937, cols. 1955-1961 (esp. 1956), s.v.
Odysseus (E. Wüst); Thomas and Stubbings 1962, p. 309. In many cases,
too, toponyms are changed for political reasons. For shifting
toponyms, see Zarinebaf, Bennet, and Davis 2005.
811
For Amantes/Amantia, cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 1174-1175b (Wendel); Etym.
Magn., s.v. "Αµαντες; Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 1042 (Scheer). Ἀβαντίαι is
used in the Delphic list of theorodokoi dated to 220-189 B.C. See
below and Plassart 1921.
812
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀβαντίς. Lycophron (1043) calls it Ἀµαντίαν πόλιν.
Cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1175 (Wendel).

228
expelled from Corcyra;813 although the subject of the passage

is not preserved, Stephanus of Byzantium believed that the

poem attributed the foundation of Oricum-Amantia to the

Abantes.814 Stephanus also noted that Amantia was settled by

Abantes returning from Troy, attaching the same nostos

about Elephenor's survivors to yet another location near

the Bay of Vlora.815 According to Pseudo-Scylax, the

territory of Amantia included 60 stades bordering the sea.816

Malkin suggests that Oricum was founded in the 8th century

B.C., contemporary with the Euboean settlements on

Pithekoussai and Corcyra, as a way station on voyages

across the Adriatic to Otranto;817 there is currently,

however, no archaeological evidence for an early settlement

there.818

813
Callim. Aet. F12; cf. Schneider (1873, F259), which was reconstructed
from Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀβαντίς, Ἀµαντία.
814
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀβαντίς, Ἀµαντία.
815
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀµαντία. Cf. Etym. Magn., s.v. Ἄµαντες.
816
Pseudo-Scylax 26. The PECS, following Hammond and older scholarship,
locates the site of Amantia at Klos near Byllis (p. 459, s.v. Klos [N.
G. L. Hammond]); see Patsch 1904, pp. 118-119; Miller 1917; Praschniker
1922-1924, col. 88-93; Beaumont 1952, p. 65-67; Hammond 1967, pp. 233-
234, 519-522; Papajani 1976a, 1976b. This identification has now been
ruled out by recent archaeological discoveries, which indicate that
Amantia is located at Ploçe, between the Shushica and the Aous rivers;
see Anamali 1972, pp. 67-148; Cabanes 1976, pp. 384-386. See above for
the length of a stade.
817
Malkin 1998a, p. 5, 2001b, p. 189. He suggests (2001b, p. 192),
however, that Oricum was then on Sazan island in the Bay of Vlora with
a peraia on the shore of the mainland opposite. There is no evidence
to support this hypothesis, which is refuted both by the geography of
the bay itself and by excavations on the mainland at the site believed
by most to be that of Oricum.
818
The site of Oricum was excavated by a joint Albanian-Russian team in
1958-1960. Although there is Archaic pottery from the site, the
earliest dates to the 6th century B.C. See Blavatski and Islami 1960.

229
 The entire area thus retained strong Homeric

associations into late antiquity, and it appears that

various communities vied to appropriate the same legends in

order to legitimize their claims to a Greek identity.819 Two

early foundation stories appear to have been in circulation

and were variously attributed to different specific areas

on the eastern littoral of the Adriatic; one was a Homeric

nostos in which the contingent that was blown ashore in

their attempt to return home from Troy always included

Euboeans, the other involved early Greek inhabitants of

Corcyra expelled by the Corinthian colonists, who were not

always said to have been Euboean in origin. A memory of

Euboeans in the vicinity is encapsulated in a diversity of

sources; the confusion in the details may be evidence for

the authenticity of the distant memory, since if the

versions were in complete agreement, they might be

suspected of repeating some single and thus unconfirmed

source. Therefore, it seems probable that the tradition

that there were Euboeans at Corcyra, Apollonia, and Oricum

is indicative of the detailed geographical knowledge about

the coast of the Adriatic that pre-colonial seafarers

possessed. Most of the references to Euboean traders in

the area are preserved in mythological or legendary

819
For the application of nostoi genealogies to people on the periphery
of the Greek world, see Malkin 2002b.

230
contexts, suggesting that they were remnants of a quasi-

historical stratum that predated the arrival of the

Corinthians.

As the first post-Mycenaean Greek seafarers in the

Mediterranean, the Euboeans were responsible, at least

initially, for the spread of Greek culture and were also

the carriers of Homeric myths and legends.820 They

facilitated later Archaic colonization by exploring unknown

territories and endowing them with recognizable heroic

overtones. The process of implanting the seeds of

"Greekness" in "barbarian" soil was particularly fruitful

in the Adriatic, where the Greeks likely encountered a

nomadic, tribal population821 and the transplantation of

Greek stories onto this territory met with little

resistance from the natives. As a result, the Euboeans

invested this unfamiliar, non-Greek landscape with a Greek

familiarity that persisted into historical times, in spite

of that fact that most of the region continued to be

inhabited by non-Greeks.

The superimposition of Greek myths onto a barbarian

land was a way of colonizing an alien region; the grafting

of Greek nostoi onto the toponymy Hellenized the foreign

820
Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, p. 15; Malkin 2002b. Powell (1991, pp.
67, 187-237, 1992) hypothesizes that Greek writing developed in Euboea
specifically for the purpose of recording the epics of Homer.
821
Cf. Morgan 1988, pp. 319-320; Hammond 1992, p. 30, 2000, pp. 346-347;
Galaty 2002, p. 113; and Winnifrith 2002, p. 46. See below.

231
landscape of Chaonia and southern Albania.822 The stories of

heroic predecessors in an uncharted territory served to

familiarize the unfamiliar for later Greek sailors; exotic

lands were tamed and remote geographical locales became

comprehensible; they should not be accepted at face value.

The residue of this legendary mosaic that had been

transported and deposited by the Euboeans along the east

coast of the Adriatic must have helped to justify the

appropriation of barbarian lands by later colonists, if the

colonists felt any need of justification. The continued

attachment of these mythological strata to the landscape

into historical times bears witness to the strength of the

traditions and the considerable continuity in Greek

activity along the Albanian coast.

The Euboean maritime presence in the Adriatic was

proto-colonial in nature. There is no evidence that they

planted settlers in the places with which they had contact

and they were not, so far as is known, interested in

territorial expansion. Their mission was not to convert

the natives to their way of thinking, or press them into

adopting Greek material culture. The Euboeans were,

rather, transient seafarers with an interest in

establishing trade networks that relied on interaction and

cooperation with indigenous populations and other

822
Cf. Wilson 2000, p. 38; Malkin 1998a.

232
foreigners.823 Although the Euboeans did eventually reside

permanently in some other places, initially for the

exploitation and processing of metals, later perhaps at

strategic nodes on their maritime routes, there is, as yet,

no archaeological or direct literary evidence for such

settlements in Albania.

The magnitude of the Euboean presence in the western

Mediterranean declined towards the last quarter of the 8th

century B.C., just as other poleis in Greece were beginning

to send out colonies, and their pottery disappeared

completely from the west at the beginning of the 7th

century B.C.824 It is unclear why the Euboean maritime

supremacy ended. One hypothesis is that the decline in

their overseas activities was caused by the Lelantine War

in the late 8th-early 7th century B.C., which is thought to

have weakened severely both Eretrian and Chalcidian power.825

Whatever the reason for their disappearance from the

international scene, the memory of their presence was

preserved in later myths and legends.

823
See Chapter 4. The Euboeans resembled the Phoenicians in this
respect. See Kopcke 1992; Crielaard 1996; Markoe 2000; Aubet 2001;
Malkin 2002b.
824
Osborne 1996a, p. 115; Hall 2007a, p. 4.
825
On the Lelantine War, see Thuc. 1.15; Strabo 10.1.12-13 [C 448]; Hdt.
5.99; Bradeen 1947; Donlan 1970; Bakhuizen 1976, pp. 34-36; Ridgway
1992, pp. 19-20; Boardman 1999b, p. 157; Malkin 2002b, p. 155; Hall
2007a, pp. 4-8. For the date of the war (715 B.C.), see Forrest 1969,
p. 96.

233
 Such were the Euboean traditions concerning the areas

of Albania in which Greek colonies were established.

During the later half of the 8th century B.C., Corinth

began to replace Euboea as the hegemon in the western

Mediterranean. In two places – Corcyra and Apollonia –

Corinthian colonists were said to have supplanted Euboeans

directly, as previously noted.826 The inscription dedicated

by the Apollonians at Olympia preserved the memory of the

expulsion of Euboeans from Abantis and Thronium by

colonists from Corinth (see below).827 These examples of

Corinthians replacing Euboeans reflect a shift in the

balance of power in the Adriatic and herald the decline of

Euboean maritime ascendancy and the rise of Corinthian.

Before, however, turning to the Corinthian apoikiai in the

Adriatic, it is first necessary to consider briefly certain

aspects of early Corinthian history that may have a direct

bearing on the colonization of Epidamnus and Apollonia.

Corinth and Corcyra

The Corinthians were at the forefront of the

colonization movement that began in the middle of the 8th

century B.C. and soon replaced the Euboeans as the main

826
Plut. Mor. 293a-b.
827
See above for the text and below for a detailed discussion of the
monument.

234
Greek maritime presence in the West.828 Already by the

beginning of the Archaic period, Corinth was a wealthy city

and a renowned commercial port.829 The Corinthians began to

expand their overseas concerns as the aristocratic ruling

class became more interested in trade and the acquisition

of luxury goods.830 According to Thucydides, Corinth's first

colonies, at Corcyra and Syracuse, were founded in 734/733

B.C., the year following the Euboean settlement of Naxos,

which Thucydides had described as the first Greek colony

(see Chapter 4).831 The early Corinthian colonies were quite

different from the Euboean settlements abroad in that they

did not have the same type of symbiotic relationships with

non-Greeks that the Euboeans seemed to have had at Al Mina

and Pithekoussai.832 There is no doubt, however, that, like

the earlier Euboean emporia, the Corinthian apoikiai were

largely commercially motivated enterprises, although the

828
For a discussion of the motivations for early Corinthian
colonization, see Gwynn 1918, pp. 88-98; Cook 1962, pp. 113-114;
Coldstream 1968, pp. 233-242; Graham 1971, pp. 42-45; Salmon 1984, pp.
62-66, 209-217; Bakhuizen 1986, pp. 166-167.
829
Strabo 8.6.20 [C 378]; Thuc. 1.13.2-5.
830
See Chapter 4 and Will 1955, pp. 319-337.
831
Thuc. 6.3.1. According to Eusebian chronology, Naxos was founded by
Chalcis in 737 B.C. Cf. Ephorus, FGrH 70 F137a, b; Hellanicus, FGrH 4
F82. See Bérard 1957, pp. 121-124; Coldstream 2003, pp. 233-237.
832
As noted in Chapter 4, archaeological evidence suggests that Al Mina
and Pithekoussai were multi-ethnic settlements. On the other hand,
there is no evidence that Corinthian colonists incorporated indigenous
inhabitants or earlier groups of settlers into their settlements, with
the possible exception of native women taken as wives; these, however,
would not have been citizens. The available evidence suggests the
contrary: that the colonists expelled whomever was there. Cf. Thuc.
6.3.2; Coldstream 2003, p. 234; Hall 2007a, p. 256 for Syracuse and
Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269] Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212, 4.1216 (Wendel) =
Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80; Plut. Mor. 293a-b; for Corcyra.

235
colonists may also have been prompted by agrarian

interests, too.833

According to our sources, the Bacchiad oligarchy was

responsible for the first Corinthian ventures abroad. The

Bacchiads came to power in Corinth around 747 B.C. with the

overthrow of Telestes, the last of the hereditary Dorian

kings, and ruled Corinth for over 90 years.834 The oligarchy

was composed of 200 members of a tightly restricted

aristocracy which claimed descent from the Dorian

Heracleid, Bacchis, who was himself listed as one of the

early Corinthian kings.835 Each year the oligarchs would

select one member from among them to be prytanis, which

meant, in essence, to rule as king.836 One of the most

significant aspects of Bacchiad rule for the rise of

colonization was an increase in Corinthian commercial

833
See Chapter 4 and Salmon 1984, pp. 215-217 for commercial motives and
pp. 63-65 for stenochoria.
834
Paus. 2.4.4; Diod. Sic. 7.9.2-6. Much of the "early history" of
Corinth is assembled from the fables of the Bacchiad poet, Eumelus
(Eumelus, FGrH 451; Paus. 2.1.1; see Dunbabin 1948b, pp. 66-67; West
2002, pp. 118-125). Early Corinthian chronology remains very ephemeral
and controversial, and great caution is needed in any attempt to
reconstruct Archaic "history." For a discussion of the early kingship
at Corinth, the names of the early rulers, and the date and manner in
which the monarchy was terminated, see Larcher 1802, vol. 7, pp. 515-
525; Dunbabin 1948b, pp. 62-63; Will 1955, pp. 295-319; Hammond 1959,
pp. 142-144; Oost 1972, pp. 10-11; Salmon 1984, pp. 46-47, 55-57.
835
Paus. 2.4.4; Diod. Sic. 7.9.6; Arist. F611.19; Hdt. 5.92B.1. See the
discussion in Larcher 1802, vol. 7, pp. 528-531; Will 1955, p. 279;
Morgan 2002.
836
Diod. Sic. 7.9.6; Paus. 2.4.4. See Will 1955, pp. 303-306; Oost
1972, p. 10; Salmon 1984, pp. 56-57.

236
activity at home and abroad, which led to the foundation of

Corcyra and Syracuse (see Fig. 4.1).837

Three ancient sources provide somewhat contradictory

information about the foundation of Corcyra. Thucydides

did not record a foundation date, but according to Strabo

this colony was contemporary with the establishment of

Syracuse,838 which Thucydides did discuss.839 Eusebius,

however, assigned Corcyra a foundation date about a

generation later than Strabo had indicated (ca. 708-706

B.C.), in which case Corcyra's, foundation would be

contemporary with that of Taranto.840 A date as late as the

837
See Will 1955, pp. 306-319; Jones 1980; Williams 1995, pp. 32-34;
Coldstream 2003, pp. 187-188.
838
Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269]. Dodwell (1702, pp. 39-40) was one of the first
modern scholars to attach precise dates (732 B.C.) to the foundation of
Syracuse and Corcyra. Larcher (1802, vol. 3, pp. 320-321) and Cooley
(1844, vol. 1, p. 439) agree that Corcyra and Syracuse were founded at
the same time and argue that this took place in the 3rd year of the 5th
Olympiad or 756 B.C. They also hypothesize that Archias and Eumelus
were contemporaries, which helps to anchor that date. Larcher, in
general, prefers a high chronology for the early history of Corinth.
Malkin (1998a, p. 5) thinks it only logical that Corcyra and Syracuse
were contemporaneous since Corcyra is a natural stopover on the way to
Sicily. Salmon (1984, pp. 62-70), on the other hand, proposes that the
colony on Corcyra was established slightly later than Syracuse. See
also Mueller 1835, p. 12; Blakeway 1932-1933; Dunbabin 1948a, p. 65;
Oost 1972, pp. 27-28; Wilkes 1992, p. 110; Tandy 1997, pp. 78-79.
839
Thuc. 6.4.2-3. Thucydides placed the foundation of Syracuse 45 years
before the foundation of Gela (688 B.C.) and 153 years before the
foundation of Acragas (580 B.C.). For detailed discussions about the
foundation date of Syracuse, including both high and low chronologies,
see RE XIV, 1932, cols. 1479-1480, s.v. Syrakusai (L. Wickert); Bérard
1957, pp. 121-124; Coldstream 2003, pp. 233-237. See Chapter 4 for
Thucydides' chronology and below for the perils associated with
"foundation dates."
840
Eusebius placed the foundation of Syracuse at the beginning of the
12th Olympiad and Corcyra in the 18th (Schone 1866, pp. 80-83). Cf.
Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1216 (Wendel). Larcher
(1802, vol. 3, pp. 320-321) and Cooley (1844, vol. 2, pp. 320-321) note
that Eusebius's date in the 18th Olympiad is too late. See,
furthermore, Graham 1983, pp. 218-220 for a discussion of 708 B.C. as

237
end of the 8th century B.C. is unlikely for Corcyra,

however, and most scholars accept both Thucydides' date of

ca. 733 B.C. for the foundation of Syracuse841 and Strabo’s

assertion of its contemporaneity with that of Corcyra.

The following tenuous ktisis for Corcyra can be put

together from ancient sources.842 The oikist of the colony

at Corcyra was Chersicrates, who was accompanying the

Corinthian aristocrat, Archias, on his voyage west to found

Syracuse.843 Chersicrates was himself a member of the

aristocracy who, according to one account, was the leader

of a group of Bacchiads who had been expelled from Corinth

as expiation for the death of Actaeon.844 Strabo implied

the foundation date and 1982, p. 105 where he gives 706 B.C. as
Eusebius's date.
841
Cf. Hammond 1982b, p. 266. Placing the foundation date for Corcyra
as late as the end of the 8th century B.C. creates problems for the
entire chronological sequence of colonial foundation dates. See Bérard
1957, pp. 121-123 and below.
842
Cf. RE XI.2, 1922, cols. 1409-1415, s.v., Korkyra, Kerkyra (L.
Bürchner).
843
Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1216 (Wendel); Timaeus,
FGrH 566 F79 = Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.982-992g (Wendel); Strabo 6.2.4 [C
269]. Cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212-1214a (Wendel). Plut. (Mor. 293e)
uses the variant spelling, Charicrates. Archias was also a member of
the Bacchiad oligarchy. Cf. Sainte-Croix 1779, pp. 286-288; Dunbabin
1948a, pp. 14-16; Hopper 1955, p. 5; Hammond 1959, p. 143; Salmon 1984,
p. 65.
844
Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212-1214a (Wendel). Violence and bloodshed were
elements of the ktiseis for Syracuse and Corcyra. Plutarch (Mor. 772b-
773e) told the story of how Archias, the oikist of Syracuse, was
responsible for the murder of the one he desired, Actaeon. As a
consequence of this crime, Corinth suffered from drought and plague.
When the Corinthians consulted the oracle about how to obtain relief
from this civic crisis, they were told to punish those responsible for
Actaeon's murder. Since he was a member of the delegation sent to the
oracle, Archias heard the god's response, and rather than returning to
Corinth, he sailed to Sicily and founded Syracuse. Plutarch's account,
combined with Strabo's, suggest that Corcyra was founded en route to
Syracuse. All the sources imply that the Corinthians expelled an
earlier group of settlers, either Eretrians, Liburnians, or Colchians.

238
that the colonization of Corcyra was an afterthought, not

the original objective of the overseas venture, i.e., the

colony was founded by a group of renegade Corinthians.845

Corcyra was an ideal location for a colony since it

occupied an important strategic position between Greece,

Illyria, Italy, and Sicily; it was a natural staging ground

for voyages up, and across, the Adriatic.846 Because of its

geographical setting as the northernmost of the Ionian

islands and that closest to the coast of Italy, ships

making the crossing were forced to put into Corcyra's

harbors.847 Malkin suggests that the Corcyra-Naxos route

controlled by the Euboeans began to be replaced in the mid-

8th century B.C. by a new Corcyra-Syracuse route controlled

by the Corinthians.848 The small shift in distance from

Naxos to the excellent harbor at Syracuse as the terminus

for commercial vessels crossing to and from Sicily would

help account for the exceptional wealth Syracuse accrued,

as described by Strabo.849

Cf. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.1212, 4.1216 (Wendel) = Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80;
Plut. Mor. 293a-b; Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269]. See Hammond 1967, pp. 417-
418, 1972, p. 424, 1982b, p. 266; Calligas 1982; Malkin 1987, pp. 41-
43; Tandy 1997, p. 79.
845
Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269].
846
Cf. Thuc. 1.36.2, 1.37.3 on the strategic excellence of Corcyra.
847
See Will 1955, pp. 332-338; Hammond 1959, p. 118; Roebuck 1972, pp.
96-97; Williams 1984, 1995, p. 32 for some possible reasons why Corinth
planted a colony on Corcyra.
848
Malkin 1998a, p. 5. Syracuse had a larger and more sheltered harbor
than Naxos. See also Morgan 1998, pp. 290-298.
849
Strabo 6.2.4.

239
 The earliest Greek material from Corcyra, to date,

consists of three Eretrian sherds of the 9th or early 8th

century B.C., one of which is a fragment of a pendent semi-

circle skyphos; the presence of early Euboean material is

in keeping with Plutarch's reference to an Eretrian

settlement that predated the arrival of the Corinthians

(see above).850 Catherine Morgan, however, doubts the

identification of these sherds as Euboean and has seen

nothing yet that she dates earlier than the mid-8th century

B.C.851 The earliest Corinthian material, on the other hand,

can be securely dated to the mid-8th century B.C., lending

support to Thucydides' foundation date.852 Corinthian

imports increase and come to dominate the ceramic

assemblages in the 7th-6th centuries B.C., along with a

smaller quantity of Ionian and Attic imports.853 Yioryios

Dontas, who conducted excavations in the 1960s at a Late

Geometric-Early Archaic cemetery in the Evelpidis plot on

Corcyra, found a similar assemblage: the pottery was mostly

850
Kallipolitis 1972, 1984; Arafat and Morgan 1995, p. 27; Coldstream
2003, p. 185. The majority of the earliest pottery from the island is,
however, Corinthian. This is not problematic since most of the
material on Pithekoussai is also Corinthian, yet there is no doubt that
Euboeans lived there. For a discussion of the Archaic material from
Corcyra, see Kallipolitis 1972, pp. 53-57, 1984, pp. 74-75; Arafat and
Morgan 1995; Morgan 1998, pp. 284-286; Thomas 2004.
851
Morgan 1995, p. 342; (pers. comm. 2008).
852
Kallipolitis 1972, 1984; Arafat and Morgan 1995.
853
Arafat and Morgan 1989; Preka 1992b, pp. 41-52; Morgan 1995, p. 324,
1998, pp. 285-286; Thomas 2004, p. 13.

240
Protocorinthian, with some Attic and East Greek imports.854

Locally produced Corcyraean pottery that imitated

Corinthian wares was also recovered from all excavated

contexts.855 As Morgan notes, the foundation of Corcyra came

at a time when Corinth appeared to be restructuring her

inland trading routes in the northwest via Ioannina in

favor of coastal land and sea routes.856 Goods continued to

move into the interior of Illyria, but in an west-east

direction from starting points on the coast, rather than

along the south-north routes described above.

Corcyra began to make her presence felt in the Ionian

and Adriatic seas almost immediately and the colony quickly

became an important naval power.857 The early relationship

between Corcyra and Corinth is somewhat obscure, although

it appears to have been contentious from the beginning.858

Herodotus, for example, noted that relations between

Corinth and her colony had always been strained.859

Thucydides, too, talked about conflict between metropolis

and apoikia, which later was one of the primary catalysts

854
Dontas 1965, 1967, 1968. See also Kallipolitis 1984.
855
Morgan 1995, p. 342.
856
Morgan 1988; Arafat and Morgan 1995, p. 28. See also Chapter 4 and
above.
857
See Cabanes 2001, pp. 45-54.
858
Cf. Sainte-Croix 1779, pp. 110-112. Larcher (1802, vol. 3, p. 321)
suggests that enmity between Corcyra and Corinth existed from the
beginning because the oikist, Chersicrates, a Bacchiad, and his group
were exiles who were hostile to Corinth.
859
Hdt. 3.49.1.

241
for the Peloponnesian war.860 He recorded an early sea

battle between the Corinthians and the Corcyraeans in which

the Corcyraeans were victorious, clearly indicating that

the Corcyraeans had violated any apoikia-metropolis bond

that might have, or should have, existed.861 According to

Thucydides' chronology, this would have taken place in 664

B.C., during the final years of the Bacchiad reign.862 This

would imply, therefore, that Corinth had no authority over

Corcyra by the middle of the 7th century B.C.863 Some

scholars suggest that the Corcyraean "revolt" might

ultimately have led to the downfall of the Bacchiad

oligarchy in the middle of the 7th century B.C.864 Other

scholars, however, challenge the Thucydidean date of 664

B.C. for the Corcyraean victory over the Corinthians and

therefore the correlation between that event and the

political situation in Corinth,865 while some even question

860
Thuc. 1.49-55.
861
Thuc. 1.13.4. The speeches Thucydides attributed to the Corcyraean
and Corinthian ambassadors suggest that the lack of respect shown by
Corcyra for Corinth was not normal. Cf. Thuc. 1.34, 1.38.
862
Thucydides (1.13.4) said that the conflict occurred 260 years before
the end of the Peloponnesian War (404 B.C.), which implies a date of
664 B.C. Larcher (1802, vol. 7, pp. 443-444) places the battle in the
28th Olympiad, which leads to the calculation of a similar date; he
thus situates the battle prior to the expulsion of the Bacchiad
oligarchy, which, according to his chronology, occurred the following
year, in the 29th Olympiad.
863
And conversely, Corcyra felt no loyalty to Corinth as its metropolis
by the mid-7th century B.C. See Chapter 4 and below.
864
PECS, p. 449, s.v. Kerkyra (L. Vlad Borrelli); Hopper 1955, p. 8;
Andrewes 1963. Gomme (1945, p. 122) suggests that the sea battle
occurred in either 680 B.C. or 660 B.C. and that it certainly predated
the inception of the Cypselid tyranny.
865
Hornblower (1991, p. 45), following Forrest (1969, p. 99), places the
Corcyraean-Corinthian naval battle much later (almost 75 years),

242
the historicity of the sea battle itself, since the latter

is not mentioned in any of the chronographers and nothing

else is known about it.866 The date of the sea battle and

when, if ever, Corcyra was yoked to Corinth are relevant to

the foundation dates of Epidamnus and Apollonia and to the

composition of the original colonizing bodies, as will be

further discussed below.

William Forrest thinks that the date of the naval

battle between Corinth and Corcyra should be down-dated

from 664 B.C. He regards Thucydides' dates with suspicion

because they rely on an allotment of 40 years to a

generation, which Forrest considers too long and would

lower by 10 years per generation.867 This revised

calculation would thus place the conflict in the last

quarter of the 7th century B.C. and would ensconce it

safely within the time of the Cypselid tyranny, situating

it perhaps even as late as the reign of Periander, rather

than just prior to the overthrow of the Bacchiads.868

Forrest argues that one problem with dating Corcyra's

towards the end of Periander's reign, when there was marked hostility
between apoikia and metropolis.
866
One group of scholars, among them Graham in particular (1982, p.
131), suggests that the sea battle never took place.
867
Eratosthenes also calculated 40 years per generation. Burn (1935,
pp. 130-146), too, argues that this figure is too high and likewise
suggests that chronological calculations should assume 30 years per
generation. See discussion in Chapter 4.
868
Moving the battle towards the end of the 7th century B.C. would fit
well with Periander's aggressive foreign policy and approximately,
perhaps, with the introduction of the trireme. See Lloyd 1972, p. 278,
1975, pp. 52-53, 1980, p. 195. See Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F58-59 for
Periander's foreign policy.

243
revolt before the downfall of the oligarchy is that,

according to Nicolaus of Damascus, some of the Bacchiads

settled in Corcyra after they were expelled from Corinth by

Cypselus; it is unlikely that the fleeing aristocrats would

have been welcomed if the Corcyraeans had just revolted

against their overlordship.869 A lower date for the struggle

would make sense politically, if members of the oligarchy,

after having settled on Corcyra, displayed hostility

towards Cypselus, the tyrant who had deprived them of power

and forced them into exile, by fomenting revolution.

Although Forrest's proposed date for the sea battle

between Corcyra and Corinth makes historical sense, it is

not without problems. His resolution of the dating dilemma

casts suspicion on the veracity of Thucydides' chronology

and suggests, in turn, that all of Thucydides' early dates

are subject to question. Also, Nicolaus of Damascus should

be used with caution in this case, since he is a late

source and his information is not always reliable.870 It is

alternatively possible that Corinth never had control of

Corcyra and the colony was independent from the beginning.871

869
Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F58.7. See Chapter 4 for political dissidents as
colonists.
870
Cf. Salmon 1984, pp. 188-189.
871
Graham (1982, p. 131, 1983, pp. 8-9) dismisses Thucydides' sea battle
as viable evidence for the relationship between Corinth and Corcyra.
Will (1955, pp. 413-460) suggests that the first colonies, including
Corcyra and Syracuse, were founded as entirely independent entities and
that these differed in status from the later Corinthian apoikiai
established under the tyrants. See also Shepherd 2000, p. 58 for a

244
If, however, Corcyra did revolt, most historians would

prefer to situate this incident at the beginning of

Cypselus' tyranny and to believe that the island remained

independent until the reign of Periander.872

The beginning of the Cypselid tyranny is generally

dated to ca. 655 B.C.873 Cypselus, the founder of the

dynasty, was himself an aristocrat and a member of the

ruling Bacchiad oligarchy;874 the “revolution” thus

originated within the ruling elite. Despite numerous

obstacles, he managed to seize control of the government

and install himself as tyrant, as had been foretold by

similar view. Thus, the ties between colony-mother city outlined by

Thucydides would never have existed between Corcyra and Corinth. This
conclusion leads back to the questions discussed in Chapter 4 of the
nature of the ties between colony and mother city, the date that the
polis emerged at Corinth, and whether or not colonization was state
sponsored. Williams (1984, pp. 9-19, 1995) discusses the emergence of
the polis at Corinth in light of archaeological evidence from the city
center. He notes changes in the location of burials and the attendant
grave rituals in the 8th century B.C. and suggests that these might be
indicative of the evolution of a new community consciousness. This
suggests that at least a fledgling polis structure existed in Corinth
when Corcyra was founded. On the urbanization of Corinth, see Roebuck
1972; Williams 1984, 1986, 1995; Salmon 1984, pp. 57-62; Rhodes 2003.
872
According to Herodotus (3.52.3), Periander reasserted Corinthian
hegemony over the colony during his reign. See below.
873
Ancient sources do not agree on the dates of Cypselus' reign. See
Larcher 1802, vol. 7, pp. 525-528, who provides textual citations and
commentary and discusses previous scholarship. He calculates
Eusebius's date for the beginning of the tyranny to be 660 B.C., but
himself prefers 663 B.C. The high chronology for the Cypselid tyranny,
which is widely accepted today, is 657-583 B.C. Servais (1969, pp. 28-
81) gives the sources and also argues for a high chronology, placing
Cypselus' coup in the mid-7th century B.C. See Oost 1972 for a
discussion of modern scholarship. The low chronology, which is
championed by Busolt (1893a, pp. 625-671, 1893b, pp. 313-319) and Will
(1955, pp. 363-440), but is not generally accepted, would place the
reign of the Cypselids from 610-537 B.C. See also van Compernolle
1960; Lloyd 1975, p. 45, n. 2; Oost 1972, p. 16; Salmon 1984, p. 186;
West 2002, p. 110.
874
See Larcher 1802, vol. 4, pp. 348-350 for the genealogy of Cypselus.

245
several oracles from Delphi.875 John Salmon interprets the

tradition that the Delphic oracle sanctioned his coup as

evidence that Cypselus had popular support for his

"revolution."876 As gratitude to the gods for his success,

Cypselus dedicated a beaten gold statue of Zeus at Olympia

and a treasury at Delphi.877 Antony Andrewes suggests that

general dissatisfaction with the Bacchiads' inability to

maintain control of Corcyra facilitated Cypselus' overthrow

of the oligarchy.878 Cypselus ruled for 30 years and died in

625 B.C. at the height of his prosperity.879 Herodotus noted

the harshness of the beginning of Cypselus' tyranny: he

deprived people of their wealth and exiled or killed his

rivals.880 In spite of his brutal start, however, later

875
Herodotus (5.92) gave a lengthy account of Cypselus' rise to power
and the oracles that foretold his success. See also Diod. Sic. 7.9;
Paus. 2.4.3-4; Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F57. For modern accounts, see Busolt
1893a, pp. 637-640, 1893b, pp. 313-319; Dunbabin 1948b, pp. 59-69; Will
1955, pp. 296-298; Hammond 1959, pp. 146-147; Oost 1972, pp. 10-30;
Salmon 1984, pp. 186-196; Osborne 1996a, pp. 194-196. For a discussion
of the oracles that foretold Cypselus' coup, see Parke and Wormell
1956, vol. 1, pp. 116-120; den Boer 1957, p. 339; Oost 1972, pp. 16-18.
For a discussion of the "Cypselus myth" and its meaning in Herodotus,
see Gray 1996; Johnson 2001; West 2002.
876
Salmon 1984, pp. 188-192. Salmon (1977, pp. 97-101) contends that
Cypselus was successful because he had hoplite support.
877
Hdt. 1.14.2; Strabo 8.3.30 [C 353], 8.6.20 [C 378].
878
Andrewes 1963, pp. 44-45. See also Oost 1972, p. 15. At any rate,
relations between apoikia and metropolis would have been strained if
many of the Bacchiads settled in Corcyra.
879
Hdt. 5.92F; Arist. Pol. 1315b. See Larcher 1802, vol. 7, pp. 531-
532, who places the beginning of Periander's reign in 633 B.C.; Salmon
1984, p. 187.
880
Hdt. 5.92F1. See Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 3.46-47) and
Strabo (5.2.2 [C219-220], 8.6.20 [C 378]) for the example of the
Bacchiad, Demaratus, who fled with a group of artisans from Corinth to
Tarquinii in Etruria because of Cypselus. Larcher (1802, vol. 7, p.
443) places this event in the 29th Olympiad, along with the expulsion
of the Bacchiads. See also Larcher 1802, vol. 4, pp. 350-351; Cooley

246
tradition was favorable to Cypselus and hostile to the

Bacchiads.881 Before his death, Cypselus passed control of

control to his son, Periander.

A number of colonies are recorded to have been founded

by Corinth during Cypselus' tenure, three of which are near

the mouth of the Adriatic: Anactorium, Ambracia, and

Leucas.882 All three colonies were founded by illegitimate

sons of the tyrant. According to Nicolaus of Damascus,

Cypselus appointed his bastard sons as oikists of two of

them, Pylades at Leucas, and Echiades at Anactorium.883

1844, vol. 2, p. 177; Osborne 1998, pp. 119-125; Malkin 2002b, pp. 160-
161.
881
Arist. F611.20. Salmon suggests that there were two competing groups
of aristocrats in Corinth: the Bacchiads and non-Bacchiads; Cypselus'
mother was a Bacchiad, but his father was not (cf. Nic. Dam., FGrH 90
F57.1). Salmon thinks Cypselus belonged to the latter group and sees
this as a possible explanation for the hostility between Corinth and
Corcyra, if the Bacchiads fled to the island. Plutarch (Lys. 1.2), on
the other hand, said the exiled Bacchiads went to Sparta. Both
traditions might be true, if the Bacchiads did not emigrate en masse to
a single destination, and indeed they might have been rather less
welcome in any other city had they arrived as a large, cohesive, and
angry group. Demaratus’ unique choice of a destination in Etruria
likewise supports the supposition that former members of the Bacchiad
oligarchy scattered in their exile from Corinth. See also Andrewes
1963, p. 49; Oost 1972, pp. 12-13. Demaratus acquired great wealth and
married an Etruscan noble woman. Their son, Tarquinius Priscus, became
the first Tarquinian king of Rome (cf. Polyb. 6.11a.7; Livy 1.34.2;
Blakeway 1935, pp. 147-149; Cornell 1995, pp. 125-126).
882
The foundation dates of all three colonies are problematic and will
be discussed below in relation to the foundation of Apollonia. The
main sources for the Cypselid colonies are Strabo and Nic. Dam., FGrH
90 F57. See Raoul-Rochette 1815, pp. 292-296. Graham (1983, p. 31),
basing his argument on passages in Plutarch (Them. 24) and Thucydides
(1.55.1), thinks that Leucas and Anactorium were joint Corinthian-
Corcyraean foundations. This, however, seems unlikely. See below.
883
Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F57.7; Strabo 10.2.8 [C 452]. A passage in
Plutarch (Mor. 552e) confirms that Leucas and Anactorium were
Corinthian foundations, but it is problematic because it implies that
Periander, rather than his father, founded them. Herodotus (8.45),
Thucydides (1.30.2), Pseudo-Scylax (30), and Pseudo-Scymnus (465) also
recorded that Leucas was a Corinthian colony. Strabo (10.2.8 [C 452])
noted that the Corinthians made Leucas into an island by cutting a

247
Strabo added that Ambracia was founded at the same time as

the other two, perhaps around 630 B.C., by Gorgus, another

of Cypselus' sons, and that the three colonies were

conceived of as a single enterprise with Gorgus in charge

of the entire expedition.884 At least some of the

participants in all three ventures were political

dissidents who, voluntarily or involuntarily, left Corinth

because of dissatisfaction with the tyranny.885 The

colonies, on the other hand, remained loyal to Corinth,

perhaps specifically because the oikists were relatives of

the tyrant, and even fought with Corinth against Athens

during the Peloponnesian War.886

Periander's reign in Corinth began ca. 625 B.C. and

lasted 40 years.887 Eusebius placed the first year of his

tyranny at the start of the 38th Olympiad and the last year

of his reign in the first year of the 48th Olympiad, (585

B.C.).888 The evaluations of Periander's tyranny were mixed;

channel through the isthmus (cf. Plin. HN 4.1.5). See Zachos 2008, pp.
10-23 for Ambracia and Anactorium.
884
Strabo 7.7.6 [C 325]; 10.2.8 [C 452]; Thuc. 2.80.3. Cf. Pseudo-
Scymnus 453-455. See Morgan 1988, 1995, p. 337.
885
Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH 90 F57.7) explicitly said that the
colonists were hostile to Cypselus.
886
Cf. Thuc. 1.38.2-3; McGlew 1993, pp. 174-176. It is likely that
Cypselus' sons ruled as tyrants in the apoikiai they founded.
887
Aristotle (Pol. 1315) said that Periander ruled for 43 years.
Larcher 1802, vol. 7, p. 607 prefers a low chronology which places the
end of Periander's reign in 563 B.C. See Cooley (1844, vol. 3, pp.
436-438, n. 82) for a discussion of Larcher's low chronology. Forrest
(1969, p. 99) also accepts the lower dates. The more widely accepted
date for Periander's death, however, is 585 B.C. See Oost 1972; Salmon
1984, p. 225. See Salmon 1979 for Periander's commercial policy.
888
Eusebius (Schone 2.88-89).

248
some sources considered him one of the Seven Sages, but

others used him as an example of the "bad tyrant."889

Herodotus recorded that Periander began by displaying

tolerance towards enemies, but quickly reversed this

policy,890 thus inverting the sequence of mild and harsh rule

recorded for Cypselus' reign. He illustrated Periander's

ruthlessness with the following story about the cruel

punishment of Corcyraean youths, which also contains

instructive information about the relationship between

Corinth and Corcyra at this time.891

Lycophron was a legitimate son of Periander who had

long refused to have anything to do with his father,

considering him guilty of the murder of his mother,

Melissa.892 Lycophron lived peacefully in exile on Corcyra

for some time until Periander, in his old age, asked his

son to come back to Corinth to take over the tyranny.

Lycophron's condition for returning was that Periander

switch domiciles with him, so that they need not have any

889
Cf. Diogenes Laertius (1.97) for the favorable tradition, and
Aristotle (Pol. 3.1284a26) and Herodotus (5.92, 3.50) for the
unfavorable. Periander was not included as one of the Seven Sages by
everyone; alternatives were Myson of Chena, Anacharsis, Epimenis of
Crete, or Arcesilous of Argos. See Larcher 1802, vol. 3, pp. 317-318;
Busolt 1893a, pp. 644-645; Martin 1993, p. 111. See Aristotle (Pol.
1279a32-b10, 1305a6-28, 3.1310b12-1311b6) for a general discussion of
tyranny.
890
Hdt. 5.92, 3.50.1; Plut. Mor. 1104d; Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F59.2-4;
Arist. Pol. 1313a35-b32; Ephorus, FGrH 70 F70. See Berve 1967, pp.
529-530; Salmon 1984, pp. 197-205.
891
For an analysis of this passage, see Cawkwell 1995, pp. 84-86; Gray
1996, pp. 370-371; Johnson 2001; Hall 2007a, pp. 136-137.
892
Hdt. 3.50-53. According to Herodotus (5.92G3), Periander had sex
with his wife's corpse.

249
contact.893 However, before this could happen, the desperate

Corcyraeans killed Lycophron, seeing his murder as the only

certain way to prevent Periander from moving to Corcyra.

In retaliation for the death of his son, Periander

sentenced 300 Corcyraean aristocratic youths to be sent to

Sardis to be made into eunuchs.894

Periander was left without a direct heir after

Lycophron's murder and, when he died in ca. 585 B.C., power

passed to his nephew.895 Psammetichus, who was the grandson

of Cypselus and the son of Gorgus, the oikist of Ambracia,

only ruled for a few years, and the tyranny was abolished

in 584/583 B.C., shortly after Periander died.896 It is not

clear whether Psammetichus controlled Corcyra, but the

island had certainly reasserted its independence upon the

demise of the tyranny. Thucydides' discussion of the

893
Hdt. 3.52.
894
Hdt. 3.48. Cf. Plut. Mor. 860b-c. The Samians returned the boys,
intact, to Corcyra. The scholiast to Thucydides 1.13 (Hude) thought
Periander's treatment of the youths prompted the sea battle between
Corinth and Corcyra. See also Larcher 1802, vol. 3, pp. 314-322;
Cooley 1844, vol. 1, p. 440; Will 1955, pp. 550-552; Osborne 1996a, pp.
194-196; Gray 1996, p. 372.
895
Cf. Herodotus (5.92), where the Delphic oracle foretold that the sons
of Periander would not inherit the tyranny. One of Periander's sons
was the oikist for Potidaea; he was killed while founding the colony
(Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F59.1). Periander's other surviving son was deemed
unfit to rule (Hdt. 3.53.1). According to Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrH
90 F59.4), Psammetichus went from Ambracia to Corcyra after Lycophron
was murdered and from there to Corinth after Periander's death.
896
Arist. Pol. 1315b. See Servais 1969; Oost 1972, p. 30; Salmon 1984,
p. 186, n. 1. It is likely that Periander's nephew was named after the
Egyptian ruler of the Saite period, Psammetichus I. See Lloyd 1972,
1975, pp. 55-56 for the close relations enjoyed between Egypt and
Corinth during the reigns of Necho and Periander. Periander's nephew
Psammetichus also went by the name of Cypselus, perhaps after he became
tyrant.

250
dispute over Epidamnus indicated clearly that the

Corinthians and Corcyraeans were not on friendly terms

after Periander's death, and Corinthian supremacy in the

Adriatic was waning by the time the last Cypselid tyrant

was deposed.897

The era of Corinthian colonization and maritime

ascendancy began to unravel with the downfall of the

Cypselid tyranny. One of the first Corinthian colonies,

Corcyra, which occupied a valuable strategic position for

ships crossing to and from Magna Graecia, was founded under

the Bacchiads, who, as it was suggested above, encouraged

trade and overseas exploration.898 As Thucydides899 and

Herodotus stated,900 the Corinthian-Corcyraean relationship

was contentious from early on, contrary to the normal ties

that, according to Thucydides, existed between metropolis

and apoikia. This enmity perhaps occasioned the sea battle

mentioned by Thucydides, as discussed above, that presented

an early challenge to Corinthian naval supremacy. One

theory about the origin of the tension, as noted, is that

the Corcyraean colonizing body was composed, partially or

wholly, of Corinthian political dissidents, something that

is common in ktiseis of other colonies (see Chapter 4).

897
Cf. Hdt. 3.49.1.
898
The quantity of Corinthian goods found abroad begins to increase
dramatically after the mid-8th century B.C. See above and Chapter 4.
899
Thuc. 1.49-55.
900
Hdt. 3.49.1.

251
 With hoplite support, Cypseulus was able to take

control in Corinth and remove the Bacchiads from power. He

was responsible for expanding Corinthian maritime

suzerainty and founded at least three apoikiai, Anactorium,

Ambracia, and Leucas, using his illegitimate sons as

oikists. His son and heir, Periander, followed suit and

expanded Corinthian commercial activities into the Black

Sea and southern Illyria. The colonies at Epidamnus and

Apollonia, which are among the latest apoikiai founded

during the Archaic "wave of colonization," were likely

established during Periander's tenure. The following

section examines the foundation and history of those two

apoikiai.

The Foundation of Epidamnus and Apollonia

The foundations of Epidamnus and Apollonia, the only

two apoikiai established in southern Illyria, are generally

held to have framed Periander's tyranny, with the former

founded in the year that he came to power, and the latter

shortly before his death. Mixed traditions survived about

the origins of the colonists for both settlements, in which

Corcyra, Corinth, or both together are named as the

metropol(e)is. As noted above, it is unclear whether

252
Corcyra was controlled by or independent of Corinth when

the colonies were established.

Epidamnus has usually been interpreted as the first

Corinthian colony established in the Adriatic.901 The

traditional foundation date, based on Eusebius and Jerome,

is the second year of the 38th Olympiad, or 627 B.C.902

Eusebius placed the beginning of Periander's reign in the

same Olympiad as the colonization of Epidamnus, but listed

901
The name Epidamnus is troublesome because the colony was also
referred to as Dyrrachium, and controversy existed in antiquity about
why there were two names. Explanations were offered by Pliny the Elder
(HN 3.145), Pomponius Mela (2.56), Pausanias (6.10.8), Appian (B Civ.
2.39), Cassius Dio (41.49), and Stephanus of Byzantium (s.v. Δυρράχιον
and Ἐπίδαµνος). The name had been changed to Dyrrachium by ca. 330 B.C.
when the Argive list of theorodokoi was compiled. Cf. SEG XXIII 189;
Charneux 1966, pp. 156-159. See above for theorodokoi.
Appian (B Civ. 2.39) offered the most detailed explanation for
the dual names. According to him, the city was built by, and named
after, a "barbarian" king, Epidamnus. The king's daughter had a son,
ostensibly by Poseidon, named Dyrrachus, who built a harbor for the
city. When his rule was challenged by his brothers, Dyrrachus received
help resecuring his throne from Heracles. In exchange for his
assistance, Heracles was given a part of Dyrrachus' territory. Because
he had a share of the land, the townspeople of Dyrrachium considered
Heracles to be the oikist of their city. Cf. Steph. Byz., s.v.
Δυρράχιον.
Both Strabo (7.5.8 [C 316]) and Eratosthenes (in Step. Byz., s.v.
Δυρράχιον) described Epidamnus as a city on a peninsula named Dyrrachium.
Thucydides (1.25) called it an isthmus. See Heuzey (1886, p. 44)
regarding the interpretation of this passage of Thucydides in light of
the geography of the Durrës area. It seems probable that the peninsula
of Strabo and Eratosthenes consisted of the uplands that were examined
by the Durrës Regional Archaeological Project, an area that has until
recently been almost completely separated from the mainland by a marsh.
See Raoul-Rochette 1815, vol. 3, pp. 345-346; RE V.1, 1905, cols. 1882-
1887, s.v. Dyrrhachion (A. Philippson); Beaumont 1936, p. 166;
Ducellier 1981, pp. 500, 507, 525; Schmitt 2001, pp. 537-542; and, most
recently, Davis et al. 2003, p. 69.
902
Eusebius placed the foundation of Epidamnus in the 38th Olympiad,
which falls between 628 B.C. and 624 B.C. (Schoene 1866, p. 89, line
1392). Jerome's continuation of Eusebius put the foundation in 627
B.C. (Helm 1956, p. 97b). Regarding the foundation of the original
colony at Epidamnus, the problem of the dual name, the uncertainty of
its location, and what little is known of its early history, see Raoul-
Rochette 1815, vol. 3, pp. 344-345; Hammond 1967, pp. 425-426, 469-470;
Cabanes and Drini 1995, pp. 19-28; Davis et al 2003, p. 41, n. 2.

253
Periander's ascension first.903 Thucydides, Strabo, and

Pseudo-Scymnus recorded that Epidamnus was founded by

Corcyra.904 Diodorus Siculus, however, noted that the

Corcyraeans were joined by colonists from Corinth, as well

as other Dorians.905

Epidamnus had a legendary oikist as well as a historic

one. As noted above, Polybius said that the Epidamnians

regarded Heracles as their founder.906 Thucydides, on the

other hand, named Phalius, a Heracleid who hailed from

Corinth, as the oikist.907 Thucydides suggested that the

Corcyraeans were acting in accordance with an old custom

(kata de ton palaion nomon) by inviting their metropolis to

supply the oikist and some colonists for their venture.908

Phalius is likely also to have been a member of the

Bacchiad aristocracy, which might have made him attractive

to the Corcyraeans if, as suggested above, members of the

exiled oligarchy had moved to the island after Cypselus'

coup.909

903
Graham (1983, p. 31), however, seems to imply that the colony was
founded at the end of Cypselus' reign.
904
Thuc. 1.24.1-2; Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]; Pseudo-Scymnus 435-436.
905
Diod. Sic. 12.30; Gwynn 1918, p. 112; Gomme 1945, p. 159; Oost 1972,
p. 21. See Hopper 1955, p. 5 for the view that Phalius was from a
genos hostile to the Bacchiads.
906
App. B Civ. 2.39.
907
Thuc. 1.24.1. Gomme 1945, p. 159; Sheets 1994; Malkin 2003, p. 68.
908
The fact that Corcyra asked Corinth to select an oikist suggests that
Corcyra recognized to some extent the apoikia-metropolis relationship.
Even though Corinth provided an oikist and some colonists for the new
colony, Corcyra was regarded as the metropolis for Epidamnus. See
Chapter 4.
909
Cf. Sainte-Croix 1779, p. 170.

254
 Modern historians have concluded that Apollonia was

the second apoikia founded in ancient Illyria.910 No

coherent ktisis is preserved among the ancient sources for

Apollonia, so its sketchy foundation history must be

cobbled together from a variety of apparently contradictory

sources, some of which have been presented above, but will

be summarized here and discussed in detail below. Apollo,911

Elephenor's contingent of Abantes returning from Troy,912 and

a Corinthian named Gylax were all put forward as founders.913

The metropolis was either Corinth, or Corinth and Corcyra

together, and the original colonists numbered 200.914

Originally the settlement was called Gylakeia, but later

the name was changed to Apollonia.915 Sometime during the

Early Classical period, the polis conquered the city of

Thronium and expanded to the south of the Aous.916 The city

was associated with divination, and wealth was based on

landed property and animal husbandry.917 In mythology, the

area around Apollonia was pastureland for the cattle of the

910
No ancient source explicitly stated that Epidamnus was founded before
Apollonia; it is an assumption of modern historians, based on
Eusebius's date for the foundation of Epidamnus and the interpretations
of passages in Plutarch, Strabo, and Pausanias about Apollonia.
Eusebius did not record a foundation date for Apollonia in his
chronology.
911
Paus. 5.22.4. The attribution of Apollo as the oikist was a later
interpolation to Apollonia's ktisis. See below.
912
Apollod. Epit. 6.15b.
913
Steph. Byz., s.v. Γυλάκεια.
914
Thuc. 1.26.2; Cass. Dio 41.45; Plin. HN 3.23.145; Steph. Byz., s.v.
Ἀπολλωνία; Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]; Pseudo-Scymnus 439-440.
915
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία; Γυλάκεια.
916
Paus. 5.22.4.
917
Hdt. 9.93-9.95.

255
Hyperboreans, and Geryones was said to have pastured his

cattle in the area around Oricum.918

The date typically given by modern authors for the

foundation of Apollonia is 588 B.C., shortly before

Periander's death.919 Although archaeological evidence

supports a foundation date almost half a century earlier,

the traditional "literary" date has maintained a tenacious

hold in modern scholarship, and various attempts have been

made to reconcile the textual evidence with the

archaeological. It is clear, however, that neither type of

evidence, when considered in isolation, is fully

comprehensive, and that only through a combination of both

is it possible to approach a more accurate narrative. As

demonstrated below, there are no compelling textual or

archaeological reasons to accept the 588 B.C. foundation

date.

Although no foundation date for the colony at

Apollonia is reported explicitly by any ancient source, 588

B.C. is standard in modern historical discussions.920

Despite its apparent precision and frequent citation, this

date was established only in modern times, based on the

918
Pseudo-Scylax 26; Phot. Bibl. 186.30.136a; Eust. 2.18.40.
919
Some of the following discussion has already been published in
Stocker and Davis 2006.
920
Cf. RE II, 1896, cols. 111-113, s.v. Apollonia (O. Hirschfeld);
Praschniker and Schober 1919, p. 71; Rey 1930, p. 116, 1932, p. 27.
See Blavatsky (1962, 1966, 1971) and van Compernolle (1953) for a
review of earlier scholarship.

256
interpretation of problematic passages in Plutarch, Strabo,

and Pausanias.921 Examination of the evidence for and

bibliography of this date demonstrates that it is entirely

a fabrication of 18th and early 19th century scholars.922

The following section will review the three ancient

sources, Plutarch, Strabo, and Pausanias,923 that have been

used to construct Apollonia's foundation date. A passage

in Plutarch's Moralia is given as the first step. Plutarch

linked the establishment of Apollonia with the final years

of Periander's tyranny,924 providing the first evidence for a

foundation date for the colony in 588 B.C. As noted above,

Eusebius placed the last year of Periander's reign in the

first year of the 48th Olympiad. Calculating from 776 B.C.

as the first year of the first Olympiad, therefore, the

terminus ante quem for any act of Periander must be 585

B.C. according to Eusebius’ chronology. The wording in

Plutarch, however, lacks precision; Apollonia could have

been founded at any time during Periander's forty-year

rule. Nevertheless, the passage does tie the foundation of

921
Plut. Mor. 552e; Strabo 8.3.32 [C 357]; Paus. 6.22.4.
922
Van Compernolle (1953, p. 56, n. 1) was first to challenge this date.
Still earlier, the date of 588 B.C. is given as a terminus ante quem by
Curtius (1876, p. 230), who himself refrains from suggesting a precise
date for the foundation of Apollonia.
923
Plut. Mor. 552e; Strabo 8.3.32 [C 357]; Paus. 6.22.4.
924
Plut. Mor. 552e: "So, too, no Greeks would now be living in
Apollonia, in Anactorium, or on the peninsula of Leucas, if the
punishment of Periander had not been long deferred."

257
Apollonia to the chronology of the Cypselids, particularly

that of Periander.

Strabo wrote that the inhabitants of Dyspontium

emigrated to Epidamnus and Apollonia after the city was

destroyed, implying that Apollonia had already been

colonized by that time.925 The destruction of Dyspontium was

linked with the struggle between Pisa and Elis for control

of the sanctuary at Olympia. The defeat of Pisa and its

allies by the Eleans, which brought about the destruction

of Dyspontium, took place ca. 575 B.C.926 The passage by

Strabo does not say that Apollonia was founded to receive

these displaced immigrants, nor does it support the

supposition that Epidamnus was an old foundation and

Apollonia a new one.

Pausanias provided supplemental information about the

destruction of Dyspontium.927 Damophon, son of Pantaleon and

king of Pisa, aroused the suspicions of the Elians in the

925
Strabo 8.3.32 [C 357]: "Here, too, is Cicysium, one of the eight
cities; and also Dyspontium, which is situated in a plain and on the
road that leads from Elis to Olympia; but it was destroyed, and most of
its inhabitants emigrated to Epidamnus and Apollonia."
926
For the date that Elis regained control of the Olympic games from
Pisa, see RE V.2, 1905, col. 2385-2390, s.v. Elis (E. Swoboda); RE
XXII, 1950, col. 1738-1739, s.v. Pisa, Pisatis (E. Meyer); Morgan 1990,
pp. 53-56; Cabanes and Drini 1995, p. 27; Yalouris 1996, pp. 26-27.
927
Paus. 6.22.3-4: "When Pyrrhus, the son of Pantaleon, succeeded his
brother Damophon as king, the people of Pisa of their own accord made
war against Elis, and were joined in their revolt from the Eleans by
the people of Macistus and Scillus, which are in Triphylia, and by the
people of Dyspontium, another vassal community. The last were closely
related to the people of Pisa, and it was a tradition of theirs that
their founder had been Dysponteus the son of Oenomaus. It was the fate
of Pisa, and of all her allies, to be destroyed by the Eleans."

258
first year of the 48th Olympiad (588 B.C.). Although

Damophon succeeded in averting a war with Elis on that

occasion, his brother Pyrrhus, who inherited the throne,

led the people of Pisa and their allies, including

Dyspontium, in a revolt against Elis. Pyrrhus became king

sometime after the first year of the 48th Olympiad (ca. 587

B.C.), near the time when Periander died.

None of the preceding passages demonstrates, or even

suggests, that Apollonia was itself founded in 588 B.C.,

but rather that it was in existence by the time Periander

died in the 48th Olympiad (588-584 B.C.). The following

section illustrates how this date has become so firmly

rooted in modern scholarship.

Désiré Raoul-Rochette’s 18th century study of Greek

colonization appears to be the source of the dubious

foundation date of 588 B.C. Raoul-Rochette discusses the

textual evidence for the foundation of Apollonia in great

detail, and he is the first modern scholar to attach a

specific year to the event. He sees as simultaneous acts

the establishment of colonies by the Corinthians at

Apollonia, Anactorium, and Leucas and he believes that

Plutarch (Mor. 552e) not only linked the dates of these

colonies, but also placed all three in the final years of

259
Periander's tyranny.928 He concludes from the passage in

Strabo (8.3.32) that Apollonia was a recent foundation at

the time Dyspontium was destroyed.929 Finally, from these

disparate bits of information, the destruction of

Dyspontium and the emigration of its inhabitants to

Apollonia on the one hand, and the end of Periander's reign

on the other, he places the establishment of Apollonia,

Anactorium, and Leucas at the beginning of the 48th

Olympiad, i.e., 588/7 B.C.

Central to Raoul-Rochette's argument is the belief

that the colonies must have been founded at the end of

Periander's reign, because, based on the passage in

Plutarch, Periander did not become "tyrannical" until his

final years.930 If and when Periander lapsed into

"tyrannical" behavior, the specific event to which Plutarch

was referring931 cannot be determined with certainty. The

passage does seem to imply, however, that Periander was

responsible for the foundation of Apollonia sometime after

committing an act for which he deserved to be punished.

Nevertheless, the length of time between his outrageous

928
Raoul-Rochette 1815, pp. 347-348.
929
Raoul-Rochette was one of the first scholars to propose that
Epidamnus was "re-founded" with colonists from Dyspontium.
930
See van Compernolle 1953, p. 63 on Raoul-Rochette's confusion of
"tyrannical" with "tyrant."
931
See Lapini (1996) for a different interpretation of Periander's
"tyrannical" behavior.

260
behavior and the foundation of the colony is not specified,

and it could have occurred at any time during his reign.

Throughout his discussion about the foundation of

Apollonia, Raoul-Rochette criticizes Pierre-Henri Larcher,

who wrote extensively about the chronology of Greek

colonization in a translation and commentary on Herodotus

published in 1802, a few years before his death.932 Larcher,

in a detailed chronological analysis, discusses the

passages in Plutarch, Strabo, and Pausanias with meticulous

attention and concludes that they provide no firm basis for

assigning a foundation date either to Epidamnus or

Apollonia; conclusions more precise than that both colonies

were founded during the reign of Periander are deemed

unsupported by Larcher. Raoul-Rochette criticizes Larcher

for his unwillingness to commit to a specific foundation

date for either colony, in spite of the obvious ambiguity

of the textual evidence.933

The German dissertation by Wilhelm Mueller cites

Raoul-Rochette’s date of 588 B.C. for the foundation of

Apollonia with approbation.934 He interprets the passage in

Plutarch as implying that the colony at Apollonia was

founded on the advice of Periander before the end of his

932
Larcher 1802.
933
Cf. Raoul-Rochette 1815, pp. 185, 347. See Chapter 4 for the
importance of establishing foundation dates in earlier scholarship.
934
Mueller 1835.

261
tyranny and then contends that Strabo, Pausanias, and

Raoul-Rochette equated the migration of the inhabitants of

Dyspontium to Apollonia with the start of the colony.

Mueller does not offer an analysis of the sources or an

opinion about the work of Raoul-Rochette other than to

assert that Apollonia cannot have been founded much

earlier.935

The date of 588 B.C. for the foundation of Apollonia

was ratified through its inclusion by Otto Hirschfeld in

the 1895 edition of authoritative reference work, Real-

encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.936 He

cites Plutarch Mor. 552e as his source for dating the

foundation of Apollonia to the first year of the 48th

Olympiad (588 B.C.) without explanation, however, of the

reasoning that derived this date from the passage nor

acknowledgement that it might be problematic. Mueller, who

had explicitly cited Raoul-Rochette, may have been

Hirschfeld’s direct source for the 588 B.C. date.

The unwarranted certainty that has been attached to

the specific date of 588 B.C. for the foundation of

Apollonia has seriously hampered interpretations of the

archaeological evidence. In Albania, it has facilitated

935
"Non multo antea Apollonia condita fuerit (Mueller 1835, p. 18)."
936
RE II, 1896, cols. 111-113, s.v. Apollonia (O. Hirschfeld). Most
early 20th century scholars cite Hirschfeld as their source. See, for
example, Praschniker and Schober 1919, pp. 69 and 71; Praschniker,
1922-1924, col. 37; Rey 1932, pp. 26-27.

262
the construction of nationalist myths compatible with

accepted historical narratives preferred by socialist

archaeologies (see Chapter 3).937 Neritan Ceka provides an

example: "Plutarch gives a precise date: the year 588

B.C."938 He subsequently explains finds dated earlier than

the 6th century B.C. from the vicinity of the colony by

postulating the existence of a pre-colonial emporion that

was the site of mutually beneficial trade between the

native Illyrians and Greeks.939 His emphasis on reciprocal

exchange is consistent with the role in stimulating

indigenous social development assigned by Marxism to trade,

with a view of the culture of Apollonia as a fusion of the

indigenous and exogenous, and thus with a conclusion that

the Illyrians participated actively in the process of

urbanization.

If Apollonia was not founded in 588 B.C., then when

was it established? A small group of cautious scholars

have followed Larcher. Édouard Will, for example,

discusses the texts and concludes that the 588 B.C. date is

highly questionable.940 Although he cites 625 B.C. as the

Eusebian foundation date for Epidamnus, he does not accept

937
See Chapter 3.
938
H. Ceka 1972, p. 21; N. Ceka 1982a, pp. 18-19.
939
Finds that predate 588 B.C. include 7th century B.C. Corinthian Type
A amphoras from Mashkjeza, Margelliç, and Apollonia. Ceka 1983a, 1985,
p. 117, pl. 4, 9, 1986. See Chapter 6.
940
Will 1955, pp. 518-520.

263
Eusebius's chronology unequivocally. Will concludes that

no precise date can be assigned to the colonization of

Apollonia and that, because the passage in Plutarch is so

imprecise, it is better to say only that the colony was

founded by one of the Cypselids. He suggests, in

conclusion, that the foundation of both Epidamnus and

Apollonia should be set between the last quarter of the 7th

or the 1st quarter of the 6th century B.C. Salmon and

others agree with him and think that the best historical

context for Periander's involvement in the foundation of

apoikiai in the Adriatic would have been after his

intervention in Corcyra, ca. 600 B.C.941 Based on

archaeological evidence, Beaumont also suggests a turn of

the century or early 6th century B.C. date for the

colonization of Apollonia, noting that no late 7th century

B.C. Corinthian pottery had yet been found at the site.942

Aleksandre Mano and Vangjel Dimo are among the first

Albanian archaeologists to discard the traditional

foundation date, on the basis of imported pottery found

during excavations in the necropolis of Apollonia, and to

941
Van Compernolle himself (1953) suggests that Apollonia was founded
ca. 600 B.C., using the high chronology for the Cypselids. See also
Salmon 1984, pp. 209-211; Cabanes and Drini 1995, p. 28; Hansen and
Nielsen 2004, p. 328.
942
Beaumont 1936, p. 168. He notes (1936, p. 168, n. 69) that the
oldest Corinthian sherds at Apollonia date to the 1st quarter of the
6th century B.C. Bérard (1957, p. 274, 1960 p. 126) and Casson (1926,
p. 322) also accept a date of ca. 600 B.C. or earlier, although they do
not offer an explanation for how they arrived at this date.

264
postulate that the Apollonia was colonized in the late 7th

century B.C.943 Ceramics from the MRAP survey and artifacts

recently excavated at the Bonjakët site also suggest that

Raoul-Rochette's foundation date is too late.944

The preceding critique of the texts and review of 17th

and 18th century scholarship demonstrates how and when the

588 B.C. foundation date was manufactured for Apollonia,

and it obviates the need for archaeologists to use it to

interpret the material record. There is no compulsion to

fit this alleged foundation date to the archaeological

remains or the archaeological remains to this supposed

foundation date, as earlier archaeologists, like

Praschniker, Rey, and Nicholas Hammond felt obliged to do.945

There is likewise no reason to be surprised by the presence

of 7th century B.C. finds at, or near, Apollonia, and

material of this date no longer needs to be explained as

evidence of "pre-colonial trade."

An additional glaring problem requires discussion.

Plutarch linked the foundation of Apollonia to that of

Anactorium and Leucas and implied that all three colonies

943
Mano 1986; Dimo 1991, p. 75.
944
Recent survey and excavations have recovered ceramics that should be
dated to the 7th century B.C. See Stocker and Davis 2006, Davis et al.
2006, 2007. See also Quantin 2007b, pp. 340-342 for a brief summary of
the 2004-2006 seasons at the Bonjakët site (Chapter 7, Site 043).
945
Hammond (1967, p. 515), for example, tries to reconcile the 588 B.C.
date with the archaeological evidence by suggesting that the
Corcyraeans organized a new venture at this time to join an original
group of settlers.

265
had come into being only because Periander's punishment was

delayed by the gods; if he had died earlier, the colonies

would not have been founded.946 Here, however, traditions

are in conflict. Nicolaus of Damascus and Strabo both

recorded that Anactorium and Leucas were founded by bastard

sons of Cypselus, rather than Periander.947 There is no need

to link the foundation of Apollonia, Leucas, or Anactorium

to Periander, and it is just as likely that these colonies

were founded during the reign of his father. Salmon

concludes, as Larcher had postulated over a century and a

half earlier, that the only legitimate inference from

Plutarch is that Apollonia was likely to have been

established during the years of the Cypselid tyranny at

Corinth, i.e., between 657/6 B.C. and 585 B.C.948

Apollonia's Metropolis

Other aspects of Apollonia's early history are

shrouded in even thicker mist than the foundation date.

There is confusion about the composition of the colonizing

body, the oikist, and even the name of the colony.

Contradictory traditions existed about the origin of

946
Plut. Mor. 552e.
947
Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F57.7; Strabo 10.2.8 [C 452]. It is likely that
Strabo took his information from Ephorus. See above. Will (1955, pp.
517-518); Hopper (1955, p. 10); Oost (1972, p. 27); and Salmon (1984,
pp. 54, 209-211) agree that Anactorium and Leucas were founded during
the reign of Cypselus. See also Oberhummer 1887, pp. 73-74; Busolt
1893a, pp. 642-643; Berve 1951, p. 163.
948
Salmon 1984, pp. 209-211.

266
Apollonia's settlers: as in the case of Leucas and

Anactorium, ancient authors did not agree whether Apollonia

was a Corinthian foundation, a Corcyraean colony, or a

joint Corinthian-Corcyraean enterprise.949 Thucydides,

Cassius Dio, Pliny, and Stephanus of Byzantium claimed that

Apollonia was founded by Corinth.950 Strabo and Pseudo-

Scymnus, however, recorded that Apollonia was a joint

Corinthian-Corcyraean colony.951 In his commentary on the

Apollonian monument at Olympia quoted above, Pausanias has

been interpreted as having attributed the colonization of

Apollonia to the Corcyraeans.952 Some of the confusion about

the colony's foundation date may result from ambiguity

about the origins of the colonists. Uncertainty must also

have arisen because the various ancient authors consulted

different sources.

How and why did such mixed traditions arise in

antiquity, and why were the roles of Corinth and Corcyra so

intricately interwoven? As noted above, both Herodotus and

949
See Hammond 1967, p. 426; Salmon 1984, pp. 210-212. See also below.
950
Thuc. 1.26.2; Cass. Dio 10 F42, 41.45,; Plin. HN 3.23.145; Steph.
Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία. Cf. Zonaras 8.7.
951
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]; Pseudo-Scymnus 439-440. Praschniker and
Schober (1919, p. 71) make Apollonia a joint Corinthian-Corcyraean
foundation, as do PECS (pp. 70-71, s.v. Apollonia [P. C. Sestieri]) and
Cabanes and Ceka 1995, p. 30. Graham (1983, p. 31) proposes that all
three colonies (Leucas, Anactorium, and Apollonia) were joint
Corinthian-Corcyraean foundations.
952
Paus. 5.22.4. Bunbury (1883 vol. 1, p. 93) believes that both
Epidamnus and Apollonia were Corcyraean foundations. Rey (1930, p.
116) states Apollonia is a Corcyraean foundation. Cabanes seems also
to favor this view because it lends credence to his argument that the
Apollonians identified with Trojans (see below). See discussion below.

267
Thucydides spoke of longstanding enmity between these two

poleis;953 why, in that case, would Corinth and Corcyra be

involved in joint colonial endeavors, as they probably were

at Epidamnus and may also have been at Apollonia according

to one tradition of ancient historical narrative?954 Clearly

such shared colonial ventures could have been founded only

in periods when either the two metropoleis were not

estranged, or Corinth had hegemony over Corcyra; for the

latter possibility it is therefore crucial to consider

whether the sea battle mentioned by Thucydides actually

took place, if so when, and therefore when Corinth might

have been in control of Corcyra.955

Forrest prefers the explanation that Epidamnus and

Apollonia were each founded during periods when Corinth

controlled Corcyra. He suggests that there were two

periods after the initial rupture between Corinth and

Corcyra (i.e., after the naval battle mentioned by

Thucydides) when the metropolis regained hegemony over her

colony, both during Periander's tyranny; he places one at

the beginning of the tyrant's reign, during which he

assigns the foundation of Epidamnus, and the other shortly

953
Hdt. 3.49.1; Thuc. 1.49-55.
954
Cf. Diod. Sic. 12.30; Thuc. 1.24.1.
955
Thuc. 1.13.

268
before his death, during which he believes Apollonia was

founded.956

Forrest's theory might elucidate aspects of the

foundations of both Apollonia and Epidamnus. It could

explain the confused tradition about the origins of the

colonists at Apollonia; if that apoikia had been

established after Periander had regained control of

Corcyra, settlers would probably have included, in addition

to Corinthians, Corcyraean rebels who were fleeing the

tyranny.957 Similarly, Corinth's leadership in the

foundation of Epidamnus should not, according to Forrest’s

reconstruction of the history of Corinth and Corcyra, be

attributed to the palaion nomon, but rather to Periander’s

effort to control the new apoikia by appointing an oikist

loyal to himself; this would have been especially important

if the colonists included political dissidents who were

unhappy with Periander’s regime.958

In contrast to Forrest, however, I think it unlikely

that Corinth controlled Corcyra at the beginning of

Periander's reign, when Eusebius placed the establishment

of Epidamnus.959 Since Periander did not immediately become

956
Forrest (1969, p. 106) suggests Corcyra was subdued by Periander
around 625 B.C., revolted again ca. 590 B.C., and was re-subdued
shortly before Periander's death.
957
See Chapter 4 for colonists who were political exiles.
958
Forrest 1969, p. 106, n. 3.
959
Cf. Servais 1969; Graham 1983, p. 31.

269
"tyrranical," it is possible that Corcyra was both

independent of and on friendly terms with Corinth.

Periander might initially have respected the island's

autonomy. Archaeological evidence points toward

uninterrupted economic cooperation between the two cities

throughout much of the Archaic period.960 If the two poleis

were not enemies when Epidamnus was founded in the late 7th

century B.C., it would make sense for Corcyra to respect

the palaion nomon, as Thucydides asserted, by asking

Corinth to provide an oikist and by including Corinthians

who were interested in participating in the venture.961

The political climate might have been different when

Apollonia was founded, which could have occurred when

Corcyra was yoked to Corinth. The dates of this period of

Corinthian domination are unclear. Alexander Graham

suggests that Periander conquered Corcyra as revenge for

the murder of his son.962 On the contrary, it is more

likely, as Herodotus suggested, that the island had already

been subjugated by the time Lycophron went into exile

there, and that Periander installed his son as tyrant of

960
The quantity of Archaic Corinthian pottery found in all
archaeological deposits on Corcyra indicates that trade continued
unbroken. Corinth and Corcyra also produced macroscopically
indistinguishable Corinthian Type B jars from the late 6th-mid-3rd
centuries B.C. See Chapter 6 and Koehler 1978a, p. 237.
961
Beaumont (1936, p. 166), on the other hand, thinks that Corinth was
strong enough to force the Corcyraeans to accept a Corinthian oikist
and colonists.
962
Graham 1983, p. 31.

270
the island.963 Although Herodotus did not specify the length

of Lycophron’s sojourn on Corcyra, it is implied that he

was there for a number of years before his summons by his

father to return to Corinth. Periander’s willingness to

move to Corcyra in his old age suggests that Corinth

controlled the island in the 580s B.C.

Another plausible explanation for the conflicting

ancient traditions about Apollonia's metropolis is that at

some time in antiquity it became politically expedient for

the colony to switch mother cities. Apollonia might have

manipulated its ktisis to suit changing historical

circumstances, a change of allegiance similar to (but in

the opposite direction from) that attempted by Epidamnus at

the beginning of the Peloponnesian War.964

Both the metropolis of Epidamnus and its endeavor to

change that identity are clearly documented. Thucydides

specified that Epidamnus was founded by Corcyra.965 In 435

B.C., however, just before the onset of the Peloponnesian

War, Epidamnus attempted to change her metropolis from

Corcyra to Corinth for political motives. After the

democratic faction had seized control of the government and

963
Hdt. 3.52.6. Herodotus stated explicitly that Corcyra was subject to
Periander when Lycophron arrived. Gomme (1945, p. 122) places this
event around 610 B.C.
964
See Chapter 4 and Osborne 1998, pp. 127-129 on the manipulation of
ktiseis.
965
Thuc. 1.24.1-2.

271
the exiled oligarchs had joined with the barbarian

Taulantii to retake the city, the democrats in the city

applied to the metropolis, Corcyra, for help in suppressing

the stasis.966 The Corcyraeans rejected the democrats'

request, perhaps because they felt more sympathy with the

exiled aristocrats than with the newly installed

government. Because their original metropolis refused to

send help, the Epidamnians sought permission from the

Delphic oracle to regard Corinth as their mother city on

the grounds that some of the colonists, including the

oikist, had hailed from there. The Corinthians regarded

Epidamnus "as belonging just as much to them as to

Corcyra," so, when asked, Corinth agreed to send help to

the democrats.967 Two groups of volunteers were dispatched

to re-colonize Epidamnus and thereby strengthen Corinth's

claim as metropolis.968 The first group was composed

primarily of Corinthians, but also included people from the

loyal Corinthian colonies of Leucas and Ambracia.969

Corinth’s attempt to plant new colonists in Epidamnus

in order to bolster its position as the colony's new

966
See Sheets 1994, pp. 64-70.
967
Thuc. 1.25. See Sheets 1994.
968
Thuc. 1.26; Diod. Sic. 12.30.3. The new settlers marched overland to
Apollonia before embarking on ships for Epidamnus. See discussion in
Beaumont 1952, pp. 65-66.
969
This is a good indication that Corinth's status and rights as the
metropolis of Leucas and Ambracia were still undisputed at this time.
The Corinthians promised the new colonists, whether they set out at
once or bought the right to come later for 50 Corinthian drachmae,
"absolutely equal rights" to those held by the original colonists.

272
metropolis underscores the potential for a colony to change

its allegiance. Because, however, the Corinthians were

defeated in the ensuing struggle, and the Corcyraeans

replaced them as the dominant maritime force in the

Adriatic, the tradition that Corinth was Epidamnus'

metropolis never seriously supplanted the earlier narrative

of foundation from Corcyra in the works of ancient authors.

An alteration to Apollonia's ktisis for political

reasons subsequent to the foundation of the colony would be

expected to have left traces in the ancient sources; the

conflicting accounts about the origin of the colonists may

be precisely such evidence. The oldest, strongest, and

probably correct tradition is that preserved in Thucydides,

which identified Corinth as Apollonia's metropolis.970

Several later writers – Pliny, Cassius Dio, and the

surviving epitome of Stephanus of Byzantium – all repeated

this attribution, of which Thucydides was the original

source.971 Plutarch also supported it by linking the

foundation of Apollonia with that of two other Corinthian

colonies and the punishment of Periander.972 Theopompus was

the primary source used by Pliny and Cassius Dio for

details about the Nymphaeum, as previously noted, and,

970
Thuc. 1.26.2.
971
Plin. HN 3.23.145; Cass. Dio 41.45; Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία.
972
Plut. Mor. 555e. The passage in Plutarch is rarely cited in modern
scholarship as evidence to support Corinth's position as metropolis.

273
probably also for their information about Apollonia;

Theopompus, in turn, had relied heavily on Thucydides and,

since he lacked first hand knowledge about the eastern

Adriatic, had taken details directly from his account.973

Strabo and Pseudo-Scymnus, on the other hand, both

recorded that the Corcyraeans were co-founders of

Apollonia, although they might have encountered this

tradition in different sources.974 Posidonius, who might

actually have visited Apollonia during his travels abroad,975

was Strabo’s source for information about Illyria, while

Pseudo-Scymnus derived his account of colonization,

probably including the foundation of Apollonia,976 from

Ephorus, whom he also followed closely in his description

of the Adriatic in his Periegesis.977 A tradition assigning

the Corcyraeans a role as co-founders of Apollonia would

have been most politically advantageous for the Apollonians

in the late 5th century B.C. during the Peloponnesian War

when Corinthian ascendancy in the Adriatic was overturned.

This altered ktisis would then have been available to

973
Thucydides, in turn, derived his geographical information from
Hecataeus.
974
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316]; Pseudo-Scymnus 439-440.
975
Cf. Posidonius, FGrH 87 F19, F93.
976
Pseudo-Scymnus is unlikely to have derived the account that Corinth
and Corcyra were co-metropoleis of Apollonia from Theopompus, his other
main source, since authors who followed Theopompus in this matter all
favored the Thucydidean version of the ktisis naming Corinth as the
sole mother city. See Chapter 2.
977
Ephorus preserved a different body of geographical knowledge about
the Adriatic than that of Hecataeus; see Chapter 2.

274
Ephorus in the 4th century B.C. and by the beginning of the

1st century B.C., when Posidonius was conducting his

research, the inhabitants of Apollonia might well have

accepted the revised version of their history without

question, feeling a closer affinity with Corcyra than with

Corinth. Posidonius, moreover, was born shortly after

Corinth was razed by Mummius, when the pre-eminence of

Corinth was at a nadir, which may have predisposed his

generation to discard the Thucydidean assertion of Corinth

as the sole metropolis in favor of the altered ktisis

assigning a co-founding role to Corcyra. Furthermore,

Pseudo-Scymnus was a contemporary of Posidonius and both

had access to the same sources, so that even if Ephorus had

not provided Pseudo-Scymnus with the revised ktisis of

joint foundation by Corcyra with Corinth, it is

nevertheless plausible that Pseudo-Scymnus also consulted

more recent accounts, perhaps based on the research of

Posidonius, despite following Ephorus in most other

matters.

Modern scholars have sometimes attributed the apoikia

at Apollonia to the Corcyraeans alone, based on a passage

in Pausanias: "ἀποικισθῆναι δὲ ἐκ Κορκύρας τὴν Ἀπολλωνίαν, οἱ δὲ Κορινθίοις

αὐτοῖς µετεῖναι λαφύρων."978 A close examination of the text and

modern recensions indicates, however, that this

978
Paus. 5.22.4.

275
interpretation is incorrect. Scholars have long realized

that the final sentence in the passage, which mentions

Apollonia's foundation in conjunction with spoils from

Thronium (5.22.4.39), is corrupt and that something is

missing; however, where the lacuna occurs and how much of

the text has been affected is unclear.979

The first clause of the sentence in question reads

"ἀποικισθῆναι δὲ ἐκ Κορκύρας τὴν Ἀπολλωνίαν." The " ἐκ" is almost

always translated in English as "by," i.e., Apollonia was

founded by Corcyra. It could also, however, be translated

as "from," thus considerably altering its meaning and

modern interpretations that depend on it: in this

interpretation the colonists would have been dispatched

from Corcyra, but not necessarily by the Corcyraeans. If

Corcyra was, at the time, a dependency of Corinth, that

would explain why Corinth, as the metropolis, received a

share of Apollonia's spoils, but Corcyra did not.

Pausanias only used the perfect passive infinitive

ἀποικισθῆναι in two other passages, in both instances with the

preposition "παρά" to express "by."980

The second clause of the sentence at first glance

appears to be a non sequitur, bearing little relation to

979
I am grateful to W. Hutton for discussing this passage and the
character of Pausanias with me.
980
Paus. 2.30.103.13, 8.4.3.4. Frazer noted (1898, vol. 1, p. lxx),
however, that Pausanias was famously careless in his choice of
prepositions.

276
the first clause. In addition, there is no subject to go

with the infinitive, "µετεῖναι." It is clear, therefore, that

something integral is missing from the text. Editors

usually assume that the "οἱ δέ" is the second part of an "on

the one hand. . . on the other" statement in indirect

discourse and that the connecting link to the first clause

has fallen out. It is not certain, however, if there is a

lacuna before the " οἱ δὲ," after the " οἱ δὲ," or both before

and after.981

The problem with the text existed already in the 15th

century in the exemplar in the library of Niccolò Niccoli,

from which all 18 Renaissance manuscripts of Pausanias are

descended. Upon Niccoli's death in 1437, his manuscript

passed to the monastery of St. Mark in Venice, where it was

catalogued at the end of the century, but then

disappeared.982 The editio princeps of Pausanias was

prepared by Marcus Musurus and was printed by the Adeline

press in Venice in 1516.983 Musurus spent almost 20 years

producing his edition of Pausanias and was familiar with

the original manuscript in St. Mark and some of the later

copies.984 He did not indicate that the text of 5.22.3 was

981
Cf. Casevitz, Pouilloux, and Jacquemin 1999, p. 240.
982
Diller 1957, p. 170.
983
Musurus 1516. This edition is in the Gennadius library, and I was
fortunate to have the opportunity to consult it. I am grateful to the
librarians who assisted me.
984
See Diller (1957, pp. 184-185) for Musurus' familiarity with
Pausanias.

277
corrupt, either because he did not believe that a problem

existed, or because he merely copied the text as it

existed.

The first translations of the Adeline edition were in

Latin, one of the earliest by Abraham Loescher in 1550.

His Latin rendition remained true to the Greek, and he did

not emend the text or add commentary on the passage in

question.985 Other editors, however, soon emended the

sentence, recognizing that it made no sense. The apparent

lacuna was first noted in the 16th century in Wilhelm

Xylander's translation, in which the phrase (in italics)

was added "succississe in eorum locum;" this emendation was

incorporated in the early 19th century Latin editions of

Karl Siebelis and by Johann Schubart and Christian Walz.986

After the 16th century, when Pausanias was more widely

translated into Italian, French, and English, looser

translations of the Greek began to appear. One example is

Nicolas Gédoyn's 1731 French edition; he restored the

passage so that it incorporated both Thucydides' and

Strabo's divergent accounts of Apollonia's metropolis.987

Schubart and Walz were the first modern scholars who

attempted to classify the Renaissance codices and to

985
Loeschero 1550. This edition in the Gennadius library is bound
together in a single volume with Latin translations of Diodorus Siculus
and Thucydides.
986
Xylander 1583; Siebelis 1822-1828; Schubart and Walz 1838-1839.
987
Gédoyn 1731.

278
produce a recension of Pausanias' text.988 Their 1838 Latin

translation follows Xylander's, but their apparatus

criticus summarized earlier readings of the passage.989 In

1898, James Frazer translated the second clause to read ".

. . and some <say that> the Corinthians shared the spoils

with them. . .," interpreting the "αὐτοῖς" to refer back to

the Corcyraeans. This is based on an incorrect reading of

the dative, which is almost certainly emphatic. Friedrich

Spiro, on the other hand, emended the text and added the

phrase "τὴν δὲ Κορινθίων εἶναί φασιν ἀποικίαν," in order to clarify

the second clause of the sentence, "οἱ δὲ Κορινθίοις αὐτοῖς µετεῖναι

λαφύρων."990 He thought that, without an explanation of

Corcyra's relationship to Corinth, it made no sense for

Corinth to receive a share of the spoils. Spiro thus

interprets the sentence to mean that, because Corinth was

the original metropolis of Corcyra and the "grandmother" of

Apollonia, it received a share of Apollonia's booty,

according to the palaion nomon.991

Although it is difficult to determine the exact spot

of the corruption, a simple emendation such as the addition

of <φασί>, which is proposed in the recent Budé translation,

988
Schubart and Walz were first to conclude that all Renaissance codices
originated from Niccoli's exemplar.
989
Schubart and Walz 1838-1839. Diller's (1955, 1957) more recent
recension confirmed Schubart's hypothesis, but noted that only three of
the 18 Renaissance manuscripts were primary: Vn, Fb, and Pc (1957, p.
169).
990
Spiro 1903.
991
The Loeb edition (Jones and Ormerod 1977) follows Spiro.

279
would suffice to solve the problem.992 The second clause

would then become more instructive about the relationship

between Apollonia and its metropolis than the first. It

would be clear that Pausanias considered Corinth to be

Apollonia's metropolis, because Corinth alone, as the

mother city of the colony, received a share of Apollonia's

war booty. With this emendation, Pausanias would support

the Thucydidean identification of Corinth as the metropolis

of Apollonia, although the passage is so corrupt that

certainty is impossible; in any case, readings according to

which Pausanias provides evidence for a third possibility

for Apollonia’s metropolis – Corcyra alone – can be

rejected.

While the Epidamnian democratic faction can be

documented to have tried unsuccessfully early in the

Peloponnesian War to change their metropolis from Corcyra

to include Corinth, it appears likely that the Apollonians

revised their ktisis later during that conflict in the

opposite direction, from foundation by Corinth to a joint

venture including Corcyra, and were rather more successful

in promulgating their altered history. Thucydides, who

believed that Corinth alone was responsible for the

foundation of the apoikia at Apollonia, seems more reliable

than Strabo (via Posidonius) or Pseudo-Scymnus. These

992
Casevitz, Pouilloux, and Jacquemin 1999, p. 240.

280
later writers are likely to have incorporated an emended

version of Apollonia's ktisis, which appears to have been

created at a later stage in the life of the colony for

politically motivated reasons. Pausanias's exegesis about

Apollonia cannot be adduced as proof that the colony was

founded by the Corcyraeans.

The Oikist and Name of Apollonia

In addition to uncertainty about the foundation date

and the metropolis of Apollonia, its oikist and the

original name of the colony are also unclear. There were

three ancient accounts about the colony's oikist. The

epigram on the base of Apollonia's victory monument at

Olympia (quoted above) attributed the foundation of the

colony to Phoebus Apollo.993 Apollodorus, on the other hand,

said the settlement was established by Abantes from Euboea,

blown off course on their way home from Troy;994 this is the

heroic nostos that was ascribed to various places along the

eastern shore of the Adriatic, as discussed previously.

Stephanus of Byzantium was the only ancient author who

reported the name of a human oikist – an aristocrat from

Corinth named Gylax. He also preserved the tradition that

993
Paus. 5.22.3.
994
Apollod. Epit. 3.11, 6.15b. He also attributed the colonization of
Epidamnus to a heroic founder, Heracles (cf. App. B Civ. 2.39). See
Antonetti 2007, pp. 96-99.

281
the colony was originally named Gylakeia, after the oikist,

but then renamed Apollonia, ostensibly in honor of Phoebus

Apollo.995 The entry in the Epitome almost certainly

contains a kernel of truth – that there was an oikist from

Corinth named Gylax and that the name of the colony was

changed early in its history.996

Several theories have been proffered by modern

scholars to explain why Apollonia was renamed. As Malkin

points out, it was a very radical step for a Greek polis to

change its name.997 By designating Phoebus Apollo as the

oikist, it would appear that the colonial venture had been

sanctioned by his oracle. As noted in Chapter 4,

authorization from the Delphic oracle for the establishment

of a colony was a recurring element in many ktiseis of

apoikiai, which were not, however, named in honor of that

god.

It is possible, too, that re-naming the colony in

honor of Apollo would, in addition to providing oracular

legitimization for the colony, have had the objective of

995
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία, Γυλάκεια, Ἰλλυρία; Paus. 5.22.3. See RE
II, 1896, cols. 111-113, s.v. Apollonia (O. Hirschfeld). See Chapter 4
and Malkin 2003, pp. 64-65 for examples of other colonies that switched
allegiance from a human oikist to a hero or god.
996
A 2nd century A.D. funerary inscription (Cabanes and Ceka 1997, p.
57, no. 213) that refers to "Γυλάκιον πεδίον" adds support to the name
mentioned by Stephanus. The inscription was found in the fortress of
Berat and is today missing. A photograph of a facsimile was published
by Patch 1904, col. 193, fig. 177. See also Cabanes and Drini 1995, p.
30; Ceka 2005, p. 66.
997
Cf. Malkin 1985.

282
strengthening ties with Delphi. Divination at Apollonia

figures in Herodotus's story about Evanius, who received

the gift of prophecy from the gods as compensation for his

blinding.998 More importantly, emphasizing a connection with

divination and the Pythia would have served to establish a

bond between the Delphic oracle and the oracle at the

Nymphaeum near Apollonia. Apollo and the Nymphs were

worshipped jointly at Delphi, where the cave of the Nymphs

was directly above the site of the oracle. Apollo was also

frequently linked with the Nymphs at other sites,

particularly at Corinth and at other Corinthian colonies,

such as Corcyra and Leucas.999

The new name inserted Apollo into the city's ktisis

and applied ex post facto oracular endorsement.1000

Moreover, the worship of Apollo, often as Apollo

Archegetes, was common in many Corinthian colonies, as well

as at Corinth itself,1001 where he was one of the principal

gods, as illustrated by the prominent surviving Archaic

temple; this new name would have also emphasized the

connection between cult in the new apoikia and that of the

998
Hdt. 9.94.
999
Tzouvara-Souli 2001, pp. 238-239, 240-241. Cf. Ap. Rhod. 4.1216;
Lamboley 2000, pp. 136-137.
1000
Malkin (1987, pp. 86-88) suggests that Apollonia's renaming is an
example of a Delphic inquiry into the rightful oikist of a colony after
the foundation. As discussed above, another example of a post-
foundation oracular consultation occurred when Epidamnus sought
sanction from the Pythia to switch mother cities at the beginning of
the Peloponnesian War.
1001
Tzouvara-Souli 2001, p. 233.

283
metropolis. The association of Apollo with Apollonia was

then proclaimed by the colonists on their victory monument

at Olympia (see below).1002

It is possible that the colony acquired its new name

in the context of the political crisis in Corinth that

heralded the demise of the tyranny. Since the colony seems

to have been founded during the reign of the Cypselids, the

name change from Gylakeia, with its aristocratic overtones,

might reflect the colonists' desire to disassociate

themselves with the stigma of that regime. Apollo,

according to Will, played a role in the expulsion of the

tyrants, even though he was originally hailed as their

protector.1003

It is also possible that the name was changed to

reflect a "re-foundation" of the colony, marked by an

infusion of new colonists, perhaps people seeking refuge

after the destruction of Dyspontium, as Strabo suggested.1004

Hammond, on the other hand, hypothesizes that the

Corcyraeans organized a new venture in the early 6th

century B.C. to join an original group of Corinthian

settlers, at that time drawing colonists from both Corinth

and Corcyra.1005 In addition to explaining when and why

1002
Paus. 5.22.2-4; SEG XV 251 = Kunze 1956, pp. 149-153.
1003
Will 1955, pp. 410-413. See also Tzouvara-Souli 2001, pp. 233, 238.
1004
Strabo 8.3.32 [C 357].
1005
See Hammond 1967, p. 515.

284
Apollonia was renamed, his theory offers a neat explanation

for the dual traditions about the colony's metropolis.

With this theory, Hammond reconciled the presence of 7th

century B.C. finds with the usual foundation date of 588

B.C., which he viewed as unassailable; apart from the

supposed discrepancy between the archaeological evidence

and the interpretation of the literary testimonia

concerning the foundation date, however, there is no

evidence to support this elegant theory. Additionally, as

suggested above, it is likely that any perceived tie

between Apollonia and Corcyra, especially in a role as the

apoikia's metropolis, did not originate until after the

Peloponnesian War.

State Participation

The colonial ventures at Epidamnus and Apollonia were

state undertakings.1006 They were settlements established as

apoikiai proper and each maintained close if volatile ties

with its metropolis.1007 Thucydides' description of the

rival claims made by Corcyra and Corinth in the dispute

over Epidamnus confirms that each state proclaimed its role

and rights as metropolis and considered itself to be

1006
Corinth was clearly a polis by the time Epidamnus and Apollonia were
founded. See above and Chapter 4.
1007
See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the nature of the ties between
colony and mother city.

285
responsible for the colonies.1008 In this passage,

Thucydides described the relationship that might normally

have existed between colony and mother city. The

importance of the bond between apoikia and metropolis and

the respect due the mother city are underscored by the

intensity with which the Corinthians denounced what they

perceived to be the insolent behavior of their first

colony, Corcyra. Even three centuries after Corcyra was

founded, the Corinthians regarded their position as

Corcyra's metropolis to be an undisputed fact.1009 It is

evident that both the Corinthians and Corcyraeans professed

their legitimate right to intervene in the affairs of

Epidamnus and both were willing to submit their claims to

arbitration, committing themselves to the position that

"the colony should go to whichever side the arbitrators

awarded it."1010

Moreover, the aristocratic pedigree of oikists also

proves that the metropolis played an important role in the

organization of Corinthian colonial ventures. All of the

oikists of Corinthian colonies were of noble descent, many

1008
Thuc. 1.24-1.30, 1.31-1.55.
1009
Or Thucydides regarded Corinth's position as an undisputed fact.
His interpretation of what their relationship should be was perhaps
based on how it was with Corinth's other colonies in the mid-5th
century B.C. Thucydides could have been retrojecting into the past the
circumstances of his present. As noted above, it is plausible that
Corinth did not command the same amount of respect in Corcyra and
Syracuse as it did in its later colonies. See Chapter 4.
1010
Thuc. 1.28. The alternative means of resolving the conflict was to
appeal to Delphic oracle for advice.

286
related to the tyrants. As already noted above, Cypselus'

sons spearheaded Corinth's colonies in the Ambracian Gulf.

According to Nicolaus of Damascus, the founders of

Anactorium and Leucas, Echiades and Pylades, were his

bastards, as was Gorgus, the oikist of Ambracia.

Periander's illegitimate son, Euagoras, led the colony to

Potidaea.1011

Oikists who were not the progeny of either tyrant were

also aristocrats closely connected with the regime in

Corinth. Corcyra and Syracuse, which were founded under

the Bacchiad oligarchy, had two Bacchiads as their oikists,

Chersicrates and Archias.1012 Epidamnus's oikist, Phalius,

who was appointed by Corinth in observance of the palaion

nomon, was a Heracleid and probably a Bacchiad as well.1013

Gylax was also a member of the Corinthian aristocracy. It

is probable that these Corinthian oikists ruled the newly

established apoikiai as tyrants, following the example of

the administration in their metropolis.1014 Given the powers

that they were to wield, it was imperative that oikists

were loyal to their mother city.

1011
Nic. Dam., FGrH 90 F59. Cf. McGlew 1993, p. 174.
1012
Strabo 6.2.4 [C 269]; Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80 = Schol. Ap. Rhod.
4.1216 (Wendel). Plutarch (Mor. 293a-b) said the Corcyraean oikist was
Charikrates. See Gomme 1945, p. 159.
1013
Thuc. 1.24. See Gomme 1945, p. 159; Oost 1972, p. 21.
1014
As noted in Chapter 4, founding a colony was a source of wealth and
political power for illegitimate sons who would otherwise be deprived
of an inheritance in their metropolis.

287
 Apollonia was one of only two colonies for which

ancient sources report the precise number of colonists who

participated in the original overseas venture. Stephanus

of Byzantium recorded a very specific number: 200 colonists

from Corinth.1015 Hammond hypothesizes, because the

colonists were so few, that Apollonia began as a mixed

Greek-Illyrian settlement.1016 He cites as evidence the

coexistence in the necropolis of tumuli, which he believes

represent indigenous burials, and interments in sarcophagi,

supposedly used by the Greek colonial population. It is

now evident, however, as will be further demonstrated below

in this chapter, that the tumuli were constructed and used

by the Greek colonists.

Hinterland and Expansion

If violence and bloodshed accompanied the foundation

of Apollonia, a common trope in ktiseis, only a faint echo

of it is preserved.1017 Stephanus of Byzantium suggested

that the site was an Illyrian city before the arrival of

1015
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία. See Cabanes and Drini 1995, p. 30;
Stocker and Davis 2006, p. 61.
1016
Hammond 1967, p. 426, 1982b, p. 267. See above.
1017
According to Lycophron, Elephenor, the hegemon of the Abantes whom
Apollodorus said founded Apollonia, killed his grandfather before
embarking for Troy. Lycoph. Alex. 1034-1046; Schol. Lycoph. Alex. 1034
(Scheer); Apollod. Epit. 6.15b. As noted above, Archias, the oikist of
Syracuse, left Corinth with blood on his hands (cf. Plut. Mor. 772b-
773e). This might also have been true for Chersicrates, the oikist of
Corcyra (cf. Timaeus, FGrH 566 F80. See below.

288
the Greeks.1018 Although he did not specify whether the

Greeks expelled the natives, such action would have been

consistent with the later xenophobia said to be

characteristic of Apollonia's ruling aristocracy.1019

Whatever the case during the foundation, an element of

violence is patently evident in Apollonia's territorial

expansion. The polis extended its holdings south of the

Aous in the mid-5th century B.C. through the conquest of

the territory of Abantis and the city of Thronium.1020 The

people of Apollonia proclaimed their victory in an epigram

on the base of a bronze statue group at Olympia; both the

inscription and the symbolism of the statue group merit

detailed discussion (see above for the passage).1021

According to Pausanias, the figures on the monument

were grouped as opponents facing each other on opposite

sides of the semicircular pedestal. He presented the

1018
Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία. See above.
1019
At Epidamnus, in contrast to Apollonia, the Greek colonists were
invited to settle in the area by the Taulantii after they helped them
expel a group of invading Liburnians. Cf. App. B Civ. 2.39. See above
and Davis et al. 2003, p. 69, n. 66. For accommodation between non-
Greeks and Greeks, see Gaffney et al. 2002.
1020
The precise location of Thronium remains unknown. Hammond (1967,
pp. 493-496) suggests that Kanina, ca. 5 km east of Vlora, was its
site. Cabanes (2007a, pp. 534-536), on the other hand, identifies
Triporti at the north end of the Bay of Vlora as Thronium, but Hammond
thinks Triporti was the site of ancient Aulon.
1021
Paus. 5.22.2-4. The actual base of the monument was recovered in
archaeological excavations; see SEG XV 251 = Kunze 1956, pp. 149-153.
From Pausanias's description, it is possible to surmise that the
monument was semicircular and consisted of juxtaposed pairs of warriors
grouped around statues of Eos, Zeus, and Thetis (with Zeus in the
center). See Cabanes and Drini 1995, pp. 31-33; Cabanes 2000, pp. 52-
53, 2007a; Malkin 2001b, pp. 191-194; Lamboley 2005, pp. 15-16; Stocker
and Davis 2006, pp. 62-63.

289
pairs, starting with Achilles-Memnon and Odysseus-Helenus,

naming the Greek first and Trojan second, but then switched

the order of presentation for the next three groups from

Greek-Trojan to Trojan-Greek. Regardless of such

inconsistency, it is likely that all the Greeks stood on

one side of the base, the Trojans on the other. It is

unclear, however, whether Pausanias was describing the

monument from his perspective (i.e., that of the viewer),

placing Achilles on the left, or from that of the statues,

with Achilles on the far right. It cannot, therefore, be

determined definitively which group of warriors, Greeks or

Trojans, stood in the position of honor to the right of

Zeus; this information would indicate with which side the

Apollonians identified themselves, a matter of dispute

among scholars.

Cabanes sets the Trojans to the right of Zeus,1022

relegating the Greeks to the less privileged position

because he believes that the Apollonians were making a

public declaration of an identification with the Trojans,

rather than the Achaeans. Cabanes bases his conclusions on

three arguments. He compares the Apollonian victory

monument at Olympia with the east frieze of the Siphnian

1022
For the argument in favor of the Trojans representing the
Apollonians, see Cabanes 1993b, pp. 145-150, 2000, pp. 52-53, 2007a.
Kunze (1956, p. 150) also restores the Trojans to the right of Zeus.

290
Treasury at Delphi, which depicts the same myth;1023 he uses

Vinzenz Brinkmann's reconstruction of the Siphnian frieze,

which places gods favorable to the Trojans on the right

side of Zeus,1024 to support his reconstruction of the

Apollonian statue group.1025 Cabanes suggests that Apollonia

was attempting to forge a link with the house of Priam in

order to insert itself into the Trojan foundation legends

that prevailed along the coast from Epirus to Epidamnus.1026

As evidence for this he notes the prominence of Apollo, a

pro-Trojan god in the Epic Cycle, both in the epigram on

the victory monument, where Apollonia claimed to have been

founded by, and named after, Phoebus Apollo, and in worship

at Apollonia, where his cult is attested within the city

walls.1027 Finally, Cabanes suggests that the cult of Thetis

and Achilles, which is mentioned in two inscriptions from

1023
The story of Thetis and Eos begging Zeus to spare the life of their
respective sons was described in Aeschylus's Psychostasia, as well as
in the Aethiopis poem in the Epic Cycle; cf. Frazer 1898, vol. 3, p.
629; Neer 2003, pp. 137-141.
1024
Brinkmann 1985, pp. 79-87, 110-117. See the works of De la Coste-
Messelière (1936, p. 314, 1944-1945, pp. 20-21) for the question of
dexterity.
1025
Cabanes 2007a, p. 533.
1026
This is a condensed version of his argument. See Cabanes 2007a for
his most recent exposition of the issue.
1027
The temple at Shtyllas is frequently associated with Apollo
(especially by Albanian archaeologists), but no conclusive evidence
supports this identification. See Quantin 1999, p. 237; Lenhardt and
Quantin 2007. Although Apollo sided with the Trojans (in the Iliad),
he was unable to tamper with the pre-ordained destiny of the city or
alter the will of Zeus.

291
Apollonia, was purposefully placed outside the walls of the

polis, rather than within them.1028

As Frazer and Malkin argue, however, it is more likely

that the Greeks stood in the position of honor, on the

right of Zeus, on Apollonia's victory monument.1029 In spite

of Cabanes' well-constructed theory, there is no reason to

believe that the Apollonians sought to articulate a link

with the Trojans. The people at Apollonia were, after all,

Greeks and were publicizing their achievements at Olympia,

one of the most important Panhellenic sanctuaries in the

Greek world.1030 Moreover, by the mid-5th century B.C. when

the statue group was erected, the subject of "Greeks versus

Trojans" had become a common iconographical theme used to

represent Greeks triumphing over barbarians.1031 The

monument of the Apollonians is representative of a genre of

roughly contemporary, prominently placed, bronze statue

groups that featured this iconography.1032 Since the

monument at Olympia commemorated successful territorial

1028
Cabanes 2007a; Cabanes and Drini 2007, p. 328.
1029
Frazer 1898, vol. 1, p. 629; Malkin 2001b.
1030
See Chapter 4 for the role of Olympia in cementing colonial
identities.
1031
E.g., the theme of the Trojan War was depicted on the north metopes
of the Parthenon. Cf. Spivey 1996, pp. 132, 142-143; Hall 1997, pp.
44-46, 2002, pp. 179-189; Malkin 1998a, p. 18; Cartledge 2002, pp. 28-
29.
1032
Greeks versus Trojans was the theme of the slightly earlier "Nine
Heroes of the Trojan War" monument that stood in front of the east
façade of the Temple of Zeus. The bronze figures of that statue group,
which depicted Greek heroes casting lots for the privilege of engaging
Hector in single-handed combat, also were arranged on a semicircular
pedestal. The monument was dedicated by all the Achaean cities and was
the work of Onatas of Aegina (Paus. 5.25.8-10).

292
conquest, it would have been counterintuitive for the

Apollonians to equate themselves with a vanquished foe.1033

In attributing the foundation of the colony to Apollo

and by crediting him for the victory over Thronium, the

colonists might have been seeking expiation for their

belligerent territorial aggrandizement.1034 As noted in

Chapter 4, religious sanction for aggressively expansionist

policies was often sought from the Delphic oracle. Even

though, as Cabanes points out, Apollo supported the Trojan

cause during the war, he was worshipped at many Greek

cities, including Corinth.1035 As noted above, since Apollo

was also widely worshipped in other Corinthian colonies,

including Corcyra, Ambracia, Leucas, and Anactorium, his

worship in Apollonia does not require any special

explanation.

According to Pausanias, the figures were arranged so

as to pit Greek against "foreigner," Hellenic victor

against vanquished Trojan. There can be little doubt that

the pairs of opponents on the monument were carefully

chosen. Moreover, many of the figures had a mythological

1033
Cf. Malkin 1998a, pp. 138-140.
1034
For the worship of Apollo at Apollonia, see N. Ceka 1982a; Tzouvara-
Souli 1993, 2001; Riccardi 2007, pp. 168-170. The baetyl in the agora
at Apollonia might be a symbol of his cult.
1035
There is evidence for the cult of Apollo at Corinth, beginning in
the 7th century B.C. Cf. Will 1955, pp. 235-238, 401-412; Salmon 1984,
pp. 59-62, 78-79; Tzouvara-Souli 2001, p. 233.

293
connection to the area around Apollonia;1036 the exceptions

are Eos and her son Memnon, Menelaus, Deïphobus, and

Alexander. Zeus, the central figure, was a popular deity

in northern Greece and Chaonia, as attested by the eminence

of his oracle at Dodona, which Herodotus believed to be the

oldest in Greece.1037 As Zeus Chaonius, he was also

associated with Acroceraunian mountains, which formed the

boundary between Epirus and Illyria. Since Apollonia was

conquering territory that lay on the border of the known

world, it is logical that the polis would invoke the

protection of the most powerful god in the Greek pantheon,

erect the victory monument at his most famous sanctuary,

and choose a mythological subject that gave him the place

of prominence. The presence of Zeus would have suggested a

link between his famous oracle at Dodona and the oracle at

the Nymphaeum, a connection reinforced by the

representation of Thetis, herself a nymph, at his knees.

Of the divine mothers flanking Zeus in the Apollonian

monument – Thetis and Eos – and beseeching him to spare the

life of their sons,1038 the former was destined to win her

1036
Hammond (1967) also thinks it no coincidence that many of the
figures were closely associated with the area.
1037
Hdt. 2.52. Cf. Strabo 7.7.10 [C 328], who cited Ephorus's claim
that the oracle at Dodona was founded by the Pelasgi, the first Greeks.
See Quantin 2007a for cults in Chaonia.
1038
As noted above, Pausanias wrote "Day," but it is likely that the
figure was "Dawn." LIMC I.1, 1981, pp. 175-181, nos. 807-846, s.v.
Achilleus (A. Kossatz-Deissmann); III.1, 1986, pp. 747-750, s.v. Eos
(C. Weiss); VIII.1.1, 1997, pp. 9-11, s.v. Thetis (R. Vollkommer). For

294
campaign since it was Memnon's fate to die at the hands of

Achilles.1039 It was preordained, too, that the Achaeans

would vanquish the Trojans, as it was that Greeks would

conquer non-Greek lands. It can thus be no coincidence

that there was a cult of Thetis and Achilles at Apollonia,

whose presence is attested by two inscriptions recently

discovered near the ancient port of the city.1040

The worship of Achilles at Apollonia may have been

inspired in part by Illyrian tumuli that the colonists

found on their arrival. Achilles was closely associated

with tumuli in Homer, especially in connection with the

funeral of Patroclus.1041 According to the Odyssey, Achilles

was buried at the Hellespont, his grave marked by a large

tumulus conspicuous to seafarers.1042 Achilles, furthermore,

had ties to the hinterland of Apollonia through his son,

Neoptolemus. Legend associated the foundation of the

representations of the figures as a group, see LIMC III.1, 1986, pp.

780-787, nos. 289-333, s.v. Eos (C. Weiss).
1039
Cf. Hom. Od. 3.236-238 on the gods' inability to change the fate of
humans.
1040
See Cabanes and Drini 2007, pp. 327-328; Cabanes 2007a, pp. 529-532.
Cabanes dates the inscriptions to the 2nd half of the 4th century B.C.
on the basis of the forms of the alpha, epsilon, sigma, and omega.
Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 2, there was a strong, though
erroneous, association in some ancient works between the Adriatic and
the Euxine, which were thought to be linked via a branch of the Ister
river or by an isthmus. Cults of Achilles were common in the Black Sea
and the ancients might have believed that he or his cult traveled to
the Adriatic by this route. Also see Hedreen 1991 and Rusyaeva 2003
(with bibliography).
1041
Hom. Il. 23.245-262.
1042
Hom. Ody. 24.80-84; Hedreen 1991.

295
nearby city of Byllis with Neoptolemus.1043 According to

Pindar, the Myrmidons founded Byllis on their way to

Molossia. Neoptolemus then continued south to Molossia,

where he became the dynast of the Molossian royal family

through a son born to Hector's widow, Andromache.1044 The

Molossians thus claimed their descent from Achilles.1045

The second pair of combatants mentioned by Pausanias

was Odysseus and Helenus,1046 both of whom were connected in

legend with the area around Apollonia. Odysseus was

associated with the Adriatic, where, in some myths, he

traveled alone and in others he traveled with Aeneas.1047

After his return to Ithaca, Odysseus was said to have

visited Thesprotia and fought against the Brygi.1048 Pseudo-

Scymnus located the Brygi in close proximity to the

Taulantii and Epidamnus, where Hecataeus may also have

placed them.1049 Hammond equates them with Appian's Briges

of Epidamnus.1050 The association between Odysseus and the

1043
Steph. Byz., s.v. Βύλλις.
1044
Pind. Nem. 7.34-40. There are two different traditions about how
Neoptolemus reached Molossia: one that he came by land (Pind. Pae.
6.111), the other, by sea (Apollod. Epit. 6.5; 6.12). Pindar first
claimed that Neoptolemus was killed by Apollo at Delphi, but later
revised his opinion; after his death Neoptolemus presided at Delphi
over the procession that was a part of Apollo's festival. Cf. Paus.
4.17.4, 10.24.4-6. See Hammond 1967, pp. 383-384; Lamboley 2005, p.
15.
1045
Eur. Andr. 1240-1270. On the construction of heroic genealogies,
see Malkin 1998a.
1046
See Malkin 1998a, pp. 138-151.
1047
Phillips 1953, pp. 53-67; Malkin 1998a; Cabanes 2001, pp. 38-39.
1048
Eugammon Telegony, ca. 565 B.C. Hammond 1967, pp. 384-386, 391.
1049
Pseudo-Scymnus 436-437; Strabo 7.7.8 [C 326].
1050
App. B Civ. 2.39. Hammond 1967, p. 385.

296
Brygi points to the existence in antiquity of a tradition

linking him with the Illyrian tribes in closest proximity

to the early Corinthian colonies.

Odysseus's opponent, Helenus, was the twin brother of

Cassandra; both he and his sister were known for their

prophetic powers.1051 Helenus became the leader of the

Trojans after Hector's death. He was wounded by both

Achilles and Menelaus and was later captured by Odysseus,

who forced him to foretell how the Greeks could take

Troy.1052 Helenus was said to have stopped at Oricum, whence

he founded Buthrotum.1053 According to another version of

his story, Helenus was taken to Epirus as a captive of war

by Neoptolemus after the fall of Troy and married his

fellow Trojan captive, Andromache, after Neoptolemus had

left Molossia; Helenus then briefly ruled over Chaonia and

Molossia from Butrint.1054 The aetiological explanation for

the name of northern Epirus, Chaonia, was that Helenus'

brother, Chaon, had followed him from Ilium and the area

was called after him.1055 After Helenus' death, however, the

1051
LIMC VIII.1.2, 1997, pp. 613-614, nos. 1-7, s.v. Hellenos (N. Icard-
Gianolio). Cf. Lycoph. Alex., which is specifically concerned with
Cassandra's prophecies regarding nostoi.
1052
Soph. Phil. 604-613.
1053
Teucer of Cyzicus, FGrH 274 F1; Steph. Byz., s.v. Ὤρικος, Βουθρώτος;
Virg. Aen. 289-355; Ov. Met. 13.715-717; cf. Theopompus, FGrH 115 F355.
See Hammond 1967, pp. 412-414; Hansen 2007.
1054
Eur. Andr. 1243-1245.
1055
Virg. Aen. 3.333-336; Grimal 1987, p. 98.

297
throne reverted to Neoptolemus's son, Molossos, through

whom the Molossians claimed Greek descent.1056

The inclusion of Helenus on the monument at Olympia

may have evoked memories of Apollonia's incursion into

Chaonia and the annexation of barbarian territory on the

left bank of the Aous, as far south as Oricum. There is

reason to believe that Apollonia took control of the

quarries at Karaburun shortly before the victory monument

was erected at Olympia. It is likely, therefore, that

parts of the Early Classical temple at Bonjakët were

constructed from this limestone.1057 The wealth of Thronium,

although commonly linked to the bitumen mines thought to be

near Selenica, may, in fact, have derived in part from

control of these quarries. It is equally possible that

Apollonia took control of the bitumen mines and the oracle

at the Nymphaeum at the same time. The presence of

Helenus, one of the most famous Trojan seers, on the

Apollonian victory monument may also have recalled the

Greek seer, Evanius, as well as the oracles at the

Nymphaeum, Dodona, and Delphi.

Diomedes, son of Tydeus and leader of the Argive

contingent, was juxtaposed with Aeneas, son of Anchises and

1056
Apollod. Epit 6.12-13.
1057
See Davis et al. 2006, p. 122.

298
Aphrodite;1058 again, both heroes were associated with the

Adriatic in the nostoi. The two fought in single combat at

Troy and Diomedes would have slain Aeneas had it not been

for divine intervention.1059 The cult of Diomedes was well

established in the Adriatic and Italy by the Classical

period and a group of islands off the Dalmatian coast was

named in his honor.1060 Diomedes was, in fact, worshipped as

a seafarer and traveler all along the east coast of the

Adriatic.1061

Aeneas, too, was said to have stopped in Chaonia,

while Helenus was ruler.1062 In one legend, Aeneas was taken

as a prize by Neoptolemus; in another, later made more

famous through its adoption by the Julian gens in Rome and

its literary elaboration by Vergil, he left Troy as a free

man.1063 He was said to have visited Leucas, Ambracia,

Dodona, Buthrotum, and areas farther north, before crossing

1058
Hom. Il. 5.305; LIMC III.1, 1986, pp. 396-400, s.v. Diomedes I (C.
E. Vafopoulou-Richardson).
1059
Diomedes wounded Aphrodite when she tried to intervene on her son's
behalf, and Apollo needed to intercede to save Aeneas. Hom. Il. 5.290-
351; 432-442; LIMC I.1, 1981, pp. 381-396, nos. 1-10, 23, 33-47, s.v.
Aineias (F. Canciani).
1060
Cf. Strabo 2.5.20 [C 124], 6.3.9 [C 284]; Verg. Aen. 246-247.
1061
See Beaumont 1936, pp. 194-195; Bérard 1957, pp. 368-376; D'Ercole
2000, pp. 11-26; Lamboley 2000, pp. 138-139; Kos 2004, pp. 496-497.
1062
Vir. Aen. 3.349-351; Dion. Hal. 1.51.1-2; Steph. Byz., s.v. Τροία.
See Vanotti 2002 for accounts of Aeneas in the northern Adriatic.
1063
Strabo 13 [C 608] = Soph. Antenoriade. See Hammond 1967, pp. 384-
385; Horsfall 1979, pp. 373-374.

299
to Italy.1064 In one version of his post-Ilioupersis

biography, he even traveled with Odysseus.1065

The final pair of combatants on the monument of the

Apollonians consisted of Ajax, son of Telamon, and

Deïphobus, son of Priam.1066 The Aous river, which flowed

beside the city of Apollonia, was named after Ajax, as has

already been noted. At the time when Apollonia conquered

Thronium, it formed the boundary between Epirus and

Illyria. No literary association between Ajax and

Deïphobus is preserved; there is likewise no legend that

places Deïphobus in the Adriatic1067 – indeed he is usually

said to have died in the Ilioupersis.

By the mid-5th century B.C., as the monument at

Olympia proclaimed, Apollonia controlled territory far from

its acropolis. When the polis conquered the neighboring

city of Thronium, it encroached upon the territory of

Abantis.1068 Although Thronium was the only place mentioned

by name, the monument likely celebrated more than a victory

over this one city. The representation of Greeks

1064
Horsfall 1979, pp. 378-390. Many of the places where Aeneas and
Helenus stopped were "refounded" in historic times by the Corinthians.
Emphasis on Trojan connections probably intensified in the Augustan
period, when Epirus sought to stress ties with Rome. See Hansen 2007,
pp. 45-48.
1065
Cf. Lycoph. Alex. 1232-1243.
1066
Deïphobus was the son of Priam and Hecuba. He was awarded Helen's
hand in marriage after Hector's death. LIMC I.1, 1981, pp. 312-336,
nos. 22-23, 30-31, s.v. Aias I (O. Touchefeu).
1067
LIMC III.1, 1986, pp. 362-367, nos. 1-28, s.v. Deiphobos (L. Kahil).
1068
Paus. 5.22.4.

300
victorious over Trojans would have been more broadly

symbolic of the spread of Corinthian-based hegemony and

Greek culture in the Adriatic.1069 In this way, the nostoi

legends were successfully incorporated into the historical

reality of Corinth's colonial expansion into barbarian

lands.

As already noted, the cities of Chaonia and Epirus

were associated with the nostoi concerning either Trojans

or Euboeans. The prevalence of such myths along the

Adriatic probably indicates that the Albanian coast, at

least in part, had been explored by several different

strata of Greeks at different times: Mycenaeans, Euboeans,

and finally, Corinthians. It is unlikely that by the

Classical period, however, any of those living in these

areas who might have been descendents from pre-Corinthian

voyagers, identified themselves as Greeks, or were viewed

as such by the Corinthians who founded Apollonia.

The Government of the Colony

Apollonia was founded as a polis:1070 a self-governing

community of citizens that consisted of both an urban

1069
See Malkin 2001b and Owen 2005 for the equation of colonization and
Hellenization.
1070
See Chapter 4. Apollonia was a polis both in the physical sense
(urban and territorial [Hdt. 9.93.1, 9.94.2]) and in the political
sense (community of male citizens [Arist. Pol. 1290b11-12]).

301
center and the surrounding countryside.1071 Strabo claimed

that the city was exceedingly well-governed.1072 Aristotle

described the Apollonian government as a narrow oligarchic

regime with no element of democracy,1073 citing the colony

without disapprobation as an example of an undemocratic

city, ruled over by a minority of citizens. The citizens

were said by him to be the descendents of the original

Greek colonists and offices were filled by members of this

nobility. According to Aristotle, a large body of non-

freeborn and indigenous inhabitants were oppressed by the

ruling class and relegated to the status of serfs.1074

Herodotus's tale about the choice of guards for the sacred

sheep probably also reflects the role of the aristocracy in

the governance of the polis.1075

Bakhuizen, however, thinks that the colonists and the

natives had, for the most part, good relations, and that

the indigenous population interacted freely with the new

1071
The earliest coins date to around 450 B.C. A city had to be fairly
wealthy in order to issue its own coinage; to do so was to assert a
degree of independence and autonomy. The establishment of a self-
governing polis at Apollonia contrasts with neighboring political
systems: viz., monarchical rule in Macedonia and the tribes of the
Illyrians. See Crawford 1985; Gjongecaj and Picard 1999, 2000.
1072
Strabo 7.5.8 [C 316].
1073
Arist. Pol. 1290b3-20.
1074
See Cabanes 2002, pp. 186-187 for a discussion of Apollonia's
institutions. This is in contrast to Epidamnus, which was a joint
foundation of Greeks and native Illyrians. The system of government
there was tripartite, with an assembly of citizens at the bottom and a
constitutional monarchy at the top. Civic projects were undertaken by
publicly owned slaves. See Aristotle 1301b21-27; 1287a; 1267b18.
1075
Hdt. 9.93-9.

302
settlers.1076 He cites onomastic evidence in support of the

presence of Illyrian inhabitants at Apollonia.1077 Hammond

expresses similar views in his chapter about Illyria in the

Cambridge Ancient History where he uses the different

mortuary practices in the cemetery mentioned above as his

evidence.1078 As noted above, Ceka, too, believes that the

Greeks and Illyrians lived together peacefully at

Apollonia.1079 He also cites as evidence the tumuli in the

necropolis, which he contends represent the "rebirth" of an

Illyrian rite used by tribal families who were included

among the first colonists. He suggests that the monument

at Olympia recording the forcible expropriation of land was

an exception in the long history of good relations between

Greeks and natives at Apollonia. The opinions of these

three scholars contradict ancient sources, however, and

were probably influenced, directly or indirectly, by the

communist ideology prevalent in Albania, as described in

Chapter 3.

It seems more likely that a rigid distinction between

citizens and non-citizens was maintained at Apollonia, in

contrast to the situation at its neighbor, Epidamnus.1080

1076
Bakhuizen 1987, pp. 189-190. Cf. Mano 1976.
1077
Bakhuizen 1987, p. 189; cf. Masson 1968, 1993; Toçi 1969, 1972.
1078
Hammond 1982b. See also Wilkes 1992, p. 112; Bereti et al. 2007, p.
129.
1079
Ceka 2005, p. 71.
1080
The situation at Epidamnus was different. As noted above, the
evidence suggests that the Greeks and Illyrians lived together at

303
The citizens were said to have been particularly xenophobic

and practiced xenelasia (the expulsion of foreigners).1081

Cabanes points out that the number of people with non-Greek

or mixed non-Greek and Greek names is lower at Apollonia

than at Epidamnus, where it is well known that the

colonists co-existed with the indigenous Illyrian

inhabitants.1082 This onomastic evidence, taken in

conjunction with the passage in Aelian, suggests that the

citizens of Apollonia actually did relegate foreigners to a

subsidiary position, and, in particular, kept their

distance from members of the indigenous population.1083 Such

xenophobia on the part of the colonists would have

encouraged and perpetuated a bipolar opposition between

"Greeks" and natives and would have ensured that ethnic

distinctions remained very pronounced.1084

Epidamnus. Appian (B. Civ. 2.39) said that the indigenous population
invited the colonists into their city. The foundation legend he
recorded with Heracles as the oikist (B. Civ. 2.39) supports the
peaceful coexistence between foreigners and natives. Moreover, later
colonists were absorbed into the citizen body at Epidamnus. When the
Corinthians sought colonists to re-found Epidamnus, they emphasized
that the new settlers would have rights equal to those of the original
colonists; this explicit statement implies that such status could not
be assumed by newcomers at all established colonies. The Apollonians,
on the other hand, appear to have been unwilling to enlarge their
citizen body. Cf. Steph. Byz., s.v. Ἀπολλωνία. Malkin (2001b, p. 190)
suggests that all who were not part of the original colonizing venture,
even those whose families had lived in the city for several
generations, as well as possible refugees from Dyspontium, were
considered to be foreigners.
1081
Ael. VH 13.16.
1082
Cabanes 1993a.
1083
Malkin 2001b, p. 190.
1084
Cf. Hall 1995, 1997; Antonaccio 2001; Cartledge 2002 for Greek
versus others.

304
 As noted in Chapter 4, it is unclear if the colonists

included women (and children) or if the men intermarried

with the indigenous population.1085 It is, of course,

possible that mixed marriages occurred. As noted in

Chapter 4, a number of scholars including Morel1086 and

(John) Nicolas Coldstream1087 speculate that Greek colonizing

groups came without women.1088 Jonathan Hall speculates that

colonists intermarried with the natives and suggests that

this was a means to stabilize and cement indigenous-

colonial relations.1089 We have already seen that Ross

Holloway and Buchner argue that the colonists married

native women, based on indigenous jewelry found associated

with female burials in some of the earliest graves at

Syracuse and Pithekoussai.1090 Material culture should be

used with caution to substantiate claims of ethnicity, as

noted in Chapter 4, because artifacts are not necessarily

ethnically or gender specific.1091

On the other hand, given what Aristotle said about the

exclusivity of the citizens at Apollonia, all of whom were

1085
Women were usually not mentioned in sources relevant to
colonization. A few exceptions are Hdt. 1.164.3; Polyb. 12.5.8. See
McGlew 1993, 169-170.
1086
Morel 1984, pp. 133-134
1087
Coldstream 1993.
1088
See also Van Compernolle 1983, pp. 1038-1041, Shepherd 1999; Lyons
2000, pp. 88-89; Hall 2002, pp. 100-103.
1089
Hall 2002, pp. 100-103.
1090
Holloway 1991, pp. 51-52; Buchner 1979, pp. 133-135.
1091
The ethnicity of the people buried with Greek pottery is unlikely to
be definitively determined without DNA testing. See Chapter 4 and
Shepherd 1999, p. 275. See also Graham 1982, pp. 147-148; Morgan 1999;
Owen 2005, p. 8; Hall 2007a, pp. 40-51.

305
descendents of the original colonists, it is plausible that

Greek women were included among the settlers. The case of

Epizephyrian Locri might be analogous. Polybius noted that

100 noble families had been designated to found the colony

in Sicily.1092 He stated specifically that women joined the

venture, and it was their descendants who comprised the

nobility (nobility was passed through the female line in

Locris). If intermarriages were prevalent, cultural

blending likely would have occurred as a result, and one

would expect to find evidence of this in the archaeological

record. The paucity of indigenous material found inside,

or even near, the city walls, as shown in Section III,

suggests the opposite, however, and lends credence to the

argument that women were included among the colonists.

Only a single grave in the entire Apollonia necropolis has

produced native Illyrian Iron Age goods that are

contemporary with the Greek Archaic period.1093

It appears, therefore, that the citizens at Apollonia

continued to define themselves in relation to their

Greekness and to maintain close contacts with their

metropolis and with the larger Greek world, rather than

with the indigenous population. With a few exceptions, all

1092
Polyb. 12.5.3-11.
1093
An iron spectacle fibula and two bronze bracelets of Iron Age date
were found in association with a female burial in Tumulus 9 in the
Apollonia necropolis. The burial also included imported Corinthian
skyphoi. See Amore 2003-2004, pp. 276, 278-279, 2005b, pp. 307, 310.

306
of the Archaic and Classical artifacts from the acropolis

and necropolis are of Greek type.1094 It is likely,

therefore, that ethnic groups continued to define social

groups at Apollonia, at least throughout the Archaic

period.1095 The tradition of xenelasia described by Aelian

seems to support the conclusion that the colonists and

Illyrians formed distinct bodies.1096

The Greeks who migrated to Apollonia brought with

them, and continued to import, objects from their homeland.

In the Archaic period, especially, ethnic and cultural

distinctions between the colonists and natives appear to

have been very well-defined. The Illyrians were not Greek

and their neighbors to the south, the Chaonians and

Epirotes, who might have spoken Greek, also inhabited the

fringes of the known world.1097 Yet, the world of the

Illyrians was to be irrevocably altered by their contact

1094
See Section III. The production center for material of "Greek type"
is unknown. It is clear that imitations of Greek ceramics were
produced locally. Local production, however, cannot be equated with
indigenous production, as Mano (1971) and other Albanian archaeologists
suggest, or used as evidence for the mixing of native Illyrians with
Greek settlers. It is likely, rather, that many of the vessels of
Greek shape produced in local clays, especially in the Archaic and
Classical periods, were manufactured by Greek-trained itinerant
potters, rather than by Illyrians, and were intended for Greek
consumption. Illyrian potting traditions and technology were totally
different from Greek. On itinerant potters see Papadopoulos 1997b;
Crielaard 1999, pp. 56-57; Malkin 2002b, pp. 161-162; Boardman 2004,
pp. 151-160; Ridgway 2004, pp. 25-26. For pottery workshops and local
production, see Vreka 1994; Bereti et al. 2007.
1095
Hall 1997. See also Graves-Brown, Jones, and Gamble 1996; Jones
1997; Papadopoulos 1997a, pp. 203-207.
1096
Ael. VH 13.16.
1097
Hom. Il. 2.750-755. See above and Hammond 1967; Cabanes 1976;
Stipcević 1977; Bakhuizen 1987, pp. 185-186; Wilkes 1992.

307
with the Greeks. The process of urbanization in Illyria

began only after the foundation of the Greek colonies. The

indigenous population soon adopted many elements of Greek

culture and the process of acculturation is evident from

the distribution patterns of Greek and Greek-style

artifacts.1098 As Chapters 8 and 9 describe, results of the

MRAP survey demonstrate that Greek material culture spread

gradually from Apollonia into the interior, both reflecting

and precipitating changes in native social structures and

material culture.

It was not until the middle of the Hellenistic period

that the clear distinctions between Greek and non-Greek

populations had blurred and some "Illyrian communities" had

sufficiently "become Greek" to be invited to participate in

Panhellenic games.1099 The preserved lists of theorodokoi

preserve this transition. No native settlements in Illyria

were included on the Epidaurian list of places to be

visited by the sacred envoys, which is the earliest

preserved list (ca. 365-359 B.C.).1100 Although Chaonia was

1098
For a discussion of the opprobrium currently attached to the concept
of "Hellenization," see Jones 1997, pp. 34-36; Owen 2005; Hodos 2006,
pp. 10-16; Hall 2007b, pp. 350-353.
1099
See above for theorodokoi.
1100
Apollonia and Epidamnus were not included on this list and it is
possible that this particular theoros did not travel that far north.
On the other hand, citizens from both apoikiai participated in
Panhellenic games in the Archaic period. Pausanias (6.10.6, 6.14.13)
recorded monuments dedicated at Olympia from Cleosthenes of Epidamnus
who won the chariot race in the 66th Olympiad (516 B.C.) and
Meneptolemus of Apollonia who won the boys' race in the 70th Olympiad

308
mentioned on this list, no specific city was named.

Apollonia was mentioned on the Argive list, which is ca. 30

years later (330 B.C.).1101 The Argive list also included

two specific cities in Chaonia, Phoinice and Himara, both

of which must have been Greek, but no "Illyrian" cities. A

century later, however, on the Delphic list (ca. 220-189

B.C.), Byllis and Abantiai were included among the

recipients of a sacred envoy.1102 The length of time that

elapsed before Illyrian cities were recorded on a list of

theorodokoi makes it clear that acculturation did occur in

southern Illyria, but that the process was gradual. The

archaeological evidence presented in Section III confirms

this and demonstrates that the Hellenization of the

hinterland of Apollonia was completed only in the 2nd

century B.C.

Some Illyrian leaders would have been in close contact

with the colonists and perhaps used Greek objects to

increase their prestige.1103 They certainly adopted Greek

(500 B.C.). For the Epidaurian lists, see Kabbadias 1891, pp. 105-106,
no. 243; IG IV, 1504; Hiller von Gaertringen 1925-1926, pp. 74-83; IG
IV2 95; Cabanes 1969, pp. 550-551, 1976, pp. 116-120; Hammond 1967, pp.
517-519, 1980a, p. 79, 1980b, pp. 471-476; Daux 1971, pp. 355-357;
Gauthier 1979, p. 121; Perlman 1984, pp. 39-44, 2000, pp. 69-74.
1101
For the Argive list, see Charneux 1966, pp. 156-239; SEG XXIII 189;
SEG XXXIII 289; Cabanes 1969, pp. 550-551, 1976, pp. 117-120, 144-145,
173-185; Daux 1971, pp. 355-357; Hammond 1980a, pp. 14-16, 1980b, 473-
476; Perlman 2000, p. 102.
1102
For the Delphic lists, see Syll.3 90; Plassart 1921, pp. 1-85; Daux
1949, pp. 1-30, 1965, pp. 658-664, 1980a, pp. 318-323, 1980b, pp. 115-
125; Robert 1946, pp. 506-523; Hammond 1980a, pp. 13-14.
1103
The use of Greek objects by indigenous peoples does not mean that
they held the same symbolic meaning or served the same function for

309
practices, learning the language and otherwise "acting"

Greek.1104 The progression of mutating ethnic identities

can, for example, be traced at the site of Margelliç.

Chapters 8 and 9 will examine the diachronic changes in,

and expansion of, the indigenous settlement there as it

came to absorb populations from nearby Illyrian sites that

consequently ceased to exist by the beginning of the

Hellenistic period.

Apollonia appears to have preserved through the Early

Hellenistic period the aristocratic values and way of life

that existed in Corinth when the colony was founded.1105 The

descendents of the colonists continued to maintain the

aristocratic virtue of eunomia (lawfulness) by limiting

access to political power to members of the aristocracy.

According to Aristotle, this system produced a lasting,

well-ordered society. Thus, since Apollonia never had a

democratic faction, it did not undergo the debilitating

stasis that pitted democrats against oligarchs, as at

Epidamnus.1106

As will be discussed in later chapters, the patterns

of land use around Apollonia in the Archaic and Classical

Illyrians that they did for Greeks. Cf. Domínguez 2002, 85-87; Hodos
2006, pp. 5-6; Owen 2005, p. 8. See Chapter 4.
1104
Mano 1976; Hall 1995. See Masson 1968, 1993; Cabanes and Drini
1995; and Cabanes and Ceka 1997 for onomastic evidence for the use of
Greek names by Illyrians.
1105
See Pin. Ol. 13.3-10; Jones 1980.
1106
See Thuc. 1.24.

310
periods reflect the extent to which land remained in the

hands of the elite. Settlement in these periods was

concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the polis center;

there is very little evidence for extensive exploitation of

the hinterland.1107 Kleroi probably continued to be held by

the descendents of the colonists, who likely resided in the

polis center, working their land from afar with a servile

labor force.1108 In the Hellenistic period the pattern of

landholding changed and small farms proliferated in the

countryside, probably reflecting a different system of land

division and ownership.

The Identity of the Colonists

Apollonia, like other new colonies, sought to acquire

a degree of autonomy from its metropolis soon after its

foundation. New customs defined the settlers as a body

separate from those who had remained at home.1109 Apollonia

also differed from other Greek apoikiai, with political

institutions distinct from those of Corinth, Corcyra, or

other Corinthian colonies; nor were they even similar to

1107
This pattern of land use is reflected in Herodotus' (9.94) tale
about Evanius. As reparations for his blinding, Evanius received a
house in town and two kleroi in the hinterland.
1108
Cf. Arist. Pol. 1326a40-b5 on the desirability of this system of
land tenure. In contrast to Apollonia, the archaeological evidence at
Epidamnus points to widespread intensive exploitation of the hinterland
in the Archaic and Classical periods. Davis et al. 2003, p. 69.
1109
See Hall 2002, 104-111; Antonaccio 2003, pp. 65-67; Hodos 2006, p.
13.

311
those at Epidamnus. Apollonia's form of government, its

attitude toward foreigners, and its unusual burial

practices must all have combined to produce a peculiar

colonial identity.1110 The character of the colony was

molded by a unique set of circumstances that its colonists

encountered when they established their new polis.

One unusual practice that set Apollonia apart from

other Greek poleis represented a deviation from standard

Greek funerary practices.1111 Rather than single interments

in individual graves in sarcophagi, as was the standard

practice at Corinth,1112 the mortuary ritual at Apollonia

involved multiple burials in large earthen tumuli,1113 a type

of tomb and burial practice not found among Greeks on the

mainland or in other Greek apoikiai.1114 The distinct

colonial character that evolved at Apollonia coalesced

around this unique death ritual and set the colony apart

from other Greek poleis.1115

1110
Cf. Hall 2007b, pp. 350-353.
1111
Cf. Shepherd 1995 for other examples of deviation in mortuary
practices between apoikiai and metropoleis.
1112
See Chapter 4 for Corinthian burial practices.
1113
Snodgrass 1994a; Shepherd 1995.
1114
See Morris 1998, p. 13.
1115
Burial was a very important custom that helped define social and
ethnic unity and was held sacred in the ancient world. The importance
of this ritual is evident in Homer, and Herodotus considered burial as
a defining factor in Greek national character. The colonists, too,
used mortuary practices to cement their colonial identity. For the
development of colonial identity through hybrid burial customs, see
Shepherd 1999, 2005, pp. 36-37. For the importance of ritual, myth,
and religion in the formation of colonial identities, see Malkin 1987,
1994b, 1998a, 2002b.

312
 Illyrians had buried their dead during the Bronze and

Early Iron Age in tumuli, which were anchors in the

landscape for nomadic tribes.1116 Burial in tumuli in the

area around Apollonia appears, however, to have ended in

the late 8th century B.C., precisely the time when Euboeans

were becoming increasingly active in the Adriatic and

coastal Illyrian tribes first encountered Greeks (see

Chapter 9). It is also about this time that Illyrians

began to construct permanent settlements in hill-forts,

which apparently replaced tumuli as a focus for ritual

expressions of group identity.1117

Various hypotheses, which are presented in Section

III, have been proffered to explain why Greek colonists at

Apollonia buried their dead in tumuli.1118 Albanian

scholarship seeks to demonstrate continuity between an

indigenous practice and Greek usage, in keeping with the

Marxist interpretive framework.1119 The question of why the

colonists adopted this practice is, however, not addressed;

continuity alone would offer no explanation for the

1116
Stocker and Davis 2006; Papadopoulos 2006, pp. 78-84. See Galaty
2002, pp. 120-121.
1117
Cf. Wilkes 1992, pp. 104-110; Ceka 2005, pp. 40-43; Korkuti, Baçe,
and Ceka 2008, pp. 47-60.
1118
Cf. Galaty 2002, pp. 120-121; Morris 2007, p. 389.
1119
See Chapter 3. On the issue of who was buried in the tumuli in the
necropolis of Apollonia, see Anamali 1956, p. 20; Mano 1959, pp. 237-
239, 1971, p. 199, 1977-1978, pp. 65-66; Ceka 1998; Stocker and Davis
2006. Mano and Anamali support a native origin for the tumuli and
burials in the necropolis; Ceka, on the other hand, suggests the
presence of foreign influence and foreigners.

313
adaptation and adoption of this unusual and foreign burial

method by the colonists.

Moreover, the dating does not support such continuity

between Illyrian pre-Greek burial in tumuli and Greek use

of structures of similar appearance. As will be

demonstrated in Section III, archaeological evidence

suggests that a hiatus occurred between the discontinuation

of the practice by the indigenous peoples and the

foundation of Apollonia. Earlier Illyrian tumuli, no

longer used for burial, however, would have remained highly

visible in the landscape around Apollonia when the Greeks

arrived. Tumuli were not, of course, entirely unfamiliar

to the Greeks; they were the graves of Greek heroes, as

described by Homer,1120 and visible (in the form of even

longer disused examples than the Illyrian mounds around

Apollonia) in some places in the Greek homeland, including

both Euboea1121 and Corinth,1122 which, therefore, rendered

them a familiar and meaningful artifact. The colonists

could thus transform the foreign mounds into a burial field

of Greek heroes. This process of taming a "barbarian"

1120
Cf. Hom. Il. 23.
1121
A Homeric-style tumulus, erected over an aristocratic burial, has
been found at Lefkandi. See Antonaccio 1994, 1995, 2002.
1122
In the 8th century B.C. (MG II) burials began at the western edge of
the North Cemetery at Corinth where, as Rutter and Dickey note, a
Middle Helladic tumulus remained visible and was venerated until the
Classical period. See Shear 1930; Corinth XIII, pp. 1-12; Corinth XX,
p. 78; Williams 1984; Rutter 1990, pp. 455-458; Dickey 1992, pp. 128-
129; Morgan 1995, pp. 314-315. See Coldstream 2003, pp. 349-352 for
"heroic burials."

314
landscape, as has been already demonstrated in this

chapter, began with the grafting of nostoi myths onto the

alien Adriatic coast.

The Illyrians were not venerating their ancestral

burial grounds, or necessarily even present to interpret

them when the colonists arrived. At Apollonia the

colonists took an Illyrian form of burial and altered it in

such a way as to make it uniquely their own. They

integrated themselves into an existing landscape and

incorporated its past as their past.1123 The Greek burial

mounds at Apollonia were not constructed according to the

same methods as the indigenous tumuli;1124 the colonists

developed their own set of manufacturing techniques that

enabled them to achieve the same visual results.1125

Although the Greeks were imitating a native burial

practice, they were, at the same time, claiming it as their

own.1126

1123
Cf. Owen 2005, p. 20.
1124
Cf. Korkuti 1981, p. 9; Papadopoulos 2006, pp. 82-83; Papadopoulos,
Bejko, and Morris 2007, pp. 127-130 on the construction of Illyrian
tumuli and Dimo, Fenet, and Mano 2007, pp. 305-307 on the construction
of the Greek tumuli in the necropolis at Apollonia.
1125
It is not possible to distinguish visually the older Illyrian and
the Greek tumuli in the necropolis at Apollonia. See discussion in
Sections III and IV.
1126
Grave goods often function symbolically as a signal of social
identity and/or group solidarity, and can be used to include or exclude
individuals from defined groups. As noted above, almost all of the
artifacts from the necropolis are of Greek type. It is, therefore,
likely that both imported and locally produced "Greek" pottery played
such roles in Apollonia's necropolis. For further discussion, see
Hodder 1981; van Wijngaarden 1999; Arafat and Morgan 1989; Crielaard
1999.

315
A New Ktisis for Apollonia

The preceding close examination of the ancient sources

that mention Apollonia make it possible to construct a

"new" ktisis for the apoikia. Coastal Illyria had already

been explored by Euboean traders prior to its formal

colonization; the residue of these seafarers is to be found

in the nostos legends that were preserved into historic

times, although archaeological evidence of their presence

remains scant. Such foundation myths were a way of taming

the unknown. The Euboeans were replaced by the

Corinthians, and the later Greek apoikiai along the east

coast of the Adriatic comprised a "Corinthian colonial

zone," where the Corinthians, and, by extension,

Corcyraeans, exercised a monopoly on colonization. The

Corinthians maintained control of this area of the

Mediterranean through their colonies – at Anactorium,

Ambracia, and Leucas founded by sons of Cypselus, and at

Epidamnus and Apollonia founded later in the Cypselid

reign. The strategic placement of these apoikiai was

designed to reinforce Corinthian power in the region.

Apollonia was one of the last colonies founded in the

west by mainland Greeks during the Archaic "wave of

colonization." The location was chosen because of its

316
strategic position at the crossroads for trade north-south

along the Adriatic coast and east-west with the interior of

Illyria and Macedonia, its proximity to Italy across the

Straits of Otranto,1127 its suitability as a riverine port on

the banks of the Aous, the quality of its pastureland, and

the paucity of indigenous settlements in the immediate

hinterland of the asty. The economic potential of the

nearby bitumen mines might also have influenced the

placement of the colony. The polis was situated on a

significant cultural border – that between Chaonia, the

northernmost part of Epirus, and Illyria. Ancient sources

seem to imply that Apollonia was occupied by Illyrians

before the arrival of Greek colonists, although textual and

archaeological evidence from the MRAP survey suggest

otherwise; native settlement in and around Apollonia, if it

existed at all, was very limited when the apoikia was

founded.

As Thucydides recorded,1128 the apoikia at Apollonia was

founded by Corinth; it was likely established as a sister

city to, and then perhaps became also a rival to, the

Corcyraean colony at Epidamnus. It was colonized in the

last quarter of the 7th century B.C., probably during the

reign of Periander; the traditional date of 588 B.C. often

1127
See Deniaux 2005b, pp. 7-14 for interactions between Italians,
Illyrians, and Greeks on opposite sides of the Straits.
1128
Thuc. 1.26.2.

317
cited in modern literature is an 18th century fabrication.

At a later stage in the history of Apollonia, Corcyraean

participation in its foundation was inserted into its

ktisis for political reasons, which resulted in confusion

among later sources about Apollonia’s metropolis.

A legendary foundation myth for Apollonia claimed the

site was founded by Abantes returning from Troy.1129 The

human oikist of Apollonia, however, was Gylax, probably a

member of the old Bacchiad aristocracy; contrary to normal

procedure, he named the colony Gylakeia after himself. The

name was changed soon afterwards though, ostensibly in

honor of its divine "founder," Apollo. In re-naming the

colony, Apollonia acknowledged the power of divination and

incorporated the Delphic oracle into its ktisis; it may

also have repudiated its human oikist, Gylax, presumably

for political reasons that can no longer be deduced. The

colony might have received additional settlers during the

6th century B.C., perhaps from Dyspontium (according to a

passage in Plutarch's Moralia) or Corcyra, but it is

unlikely that these later arrivals ever achieved a status

equivalent to that of the original colonists, as both

ancient descriptions of its government and archaeological

evidence for land-use patterns attest. Control of the

government remained in the hands of a tightly knit

1129
Apollod. Epit. 3.11.

318
oligarchy and the polis was known for its xenophobia. The

colony was renowned for the richness of its pastureland and

derived much wealth from its flocks.

From the beginning, the colonists at Apollonia

emulated a non-Greek form of burial in tumuli that had been

practiced by Illyrians prior to their arrival. The

colonists observed these mounds in the landscape and

arguably interpreted them as "Homeric." Their use

contributed to the production a unique colonial identity.

The colonists soon began to expand their holdings

aggressively into Illyrian territory on the south bank of

the Aous and by the mid-5th century B.C. had conquered the

neighboring city of Thronium, whose location still remains

unclear, but which was probably near modern Vlora. The

famous bitumen mines and the oracle at the Nymphaeum were

located in the vicinity of Apollonia; for this reason some

of the surviving sources that mention the colony fall into

the paradoxa genre of ancient literature and must,

therefore, be interpreted with caution.

The clash between Corinth and Corcyra, which began

shortly after the latter was founded as a colony, came to a

head at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. The stasis

between the warring political factions at Epidamnus

resulted in irrevocable changes. Corinth was defeated at

319
sea and the Corcyraeans assumed a role as hegemons in the

northeast; the colonies and the Hellenized centers along

the east coast of the Adriatic fell under its suzerainty at

that time. The political balance of power did not shift

again until the Romans became masters of the Mediterranean

in the 2nd century B.C.

320
 Chapter 6.

Transport Amphoras from Apollonia and Its Hinterland

The problem with Hellenist

archaeology is not its commendable
level of detail, but the idea that
mastery of artifacts is all that there
is.1130

Introduction

The study of imported transport amphoras collected by

the MRAP survey (Tables 6.1, 6.2) provides important

evidence for trade with Corinth and Corcyra prior to the

supposed 588 B.C. foundation date of Apollonia (see Chapter

5).1131 Although imported fine ware would be a more

sensitive chronological indicator, the relative scarcity of

Archaic fine ware in the hinterland of the asty precludes

using this category of artifact for such analysis.

Amphoras, too, are good chronological markers because their

morphological evolution is well documented, the beginning

of their production cycle corresponds to the rise of

colonization,1132 and, because of their weight and compact

1130
Morris 2000, p. 52.
1131
For the plural of amphora, I have chosen to follow Grace and Koehler
and use the Anglicized "amphoras" rather than the Greek "amphorai" or
the Latinized "amphorae."
1132
Gras 1987; Lawall 1995, 1998.

321
form, amphora sherds are practically indestructible.1133

Fortunately, they are more prevalent in the MRAP survey

area than imported fine ware. Typological analysis has

confirmed that amphoras were imported to Apollonia. Many

of the specimens selected for this study are clearly of

Corinthian or Corcyraean manufacture, and the stratigraphic

sequence for Corinthian pottery is already well

established.1134 Through scientific analysis, it is possible

to determine where some of these pieces originated (i.e.,

their source) and to differentiate imitation vessels from

those actually produced at Corinth.

Scientific analysis is essential because both Greek

colonies and native populations became proficient at

producing virtually perfect "imitations" of Greek pottery,

and it is difficult to distinguish macroscopically between

imports and imitations.1135 Identification of Corinthian

imports, therefore, requires analyses of clay and mineral

contents.1136 Several recently published studies have

1133
Pithoi, too, are very durable and were also imported from Corinth.
A few fragments from Corinthian pithoi were found, almost exclusively
in the necropolis. Some of these are included in the fabric analysis
discussed below. Corinthian amphoras and pithoi filled with contents
were heavy to transport from one location to another. See Koehler
1986, pp. 56-60 for a discussion of methods of handling transport
amphoras.
1134
Amyx 1988; Solomon 1993; de Vries 2003; Risser 2003.
1135
Morgan 1995, p. 340. Whitbread (1986b, p. 97) notes how misleading
macroscopic descriptions of fabric can be.
1136
As a first step, Tammie Gerke and Barry Maynard of the University of
Cincinnati Department of Geology have undertaken chemical analyses of
the samples of amphoras discussed in this chapter. Petrographic
analysis of the samples from Apollonia is in progress.

322
considered the composition of Corinthian fabrics, and

analyses of Apollonian amphoras can be compared to their

results.1137

The study of the distribution of amphoras also helps

identify patterns of exchange between mother city, colony,

and indigenous populations. The fact that MRAP did not

recover many Archaic imports from places other than Corinth

or Corcyra suggests that the colonists focused on trade

with their mother city, rather than with other poleis.1138

Archaic Corinthian amphoras are primarily of Type A, which

is the first series to be produced at Corinth; these

illuminate most clearly the earliest activities of the

colonists.

Some of the amphoras from the MRAP survey that have

been sampled are from the Archaic period, and at least six,

all Type A, are earlier than 588 B.C. (Table 6.3).1139 These

provide material evidence that strengthens the arguments

for discarding that date entirely, as developed in Chapter

5. It is interesting to note that, with one exception, all

1137
Whitbread 1995a. Through petrographic analysis, it is possible to
determine where some of these pieces originated (i.e., their source)
and to differentiate imitation vessels from those actually produced at
Corinth.
1138
An alternative hypothesis – yet to be explored – might be that
amphoras from other Greek poleis were not traded in the Adriatic in the
Archaic period. This is also true of fine ware, which is predominately
Corinthian until after the 1st quarter of the 6th century B.C. See
Chapters 8 and 9.
1139
The majority of the Archaic Corinthian or Corcyraean amphoras are
Type A or A', although two Type B amphoras date to the late Archaic
period. Those that predate the traditional foundation date are: AS2,
AS22, AS42, AS66, AS76, and AS86.

323
of the Archaic amphoras come from two locations: the

necropolis of Apollonia and the Illyrian regional center at

Margelliç;1140 those that are more widely dispersed

throughout the survey area are all of later date.

The research described in this chapter is both inter-

and intra-regional. This is the first project to examine

the distribution of Corinthian and Corinthian-style

amphoras in the countryside around a Greek colony; previous

studies have focused on material from excavations at major

polis centers. Therefore, the combination of scientific

analysis of these amphoras and an analysis of their off-

site distribution offers a new approach to studying the

types of formative interactions that occurred between a

colony and its hinterland. This chapter begins with an

introduction to transport amphoras and their role in the

ancient Greek world, followed by a general discussion of

Corinthian amphoras, their production, and their

characteristics. A catalogue of the amphoras that have

been analyzed is next, and I then conclude with a

presentation of the results of the scientific analyses.

Amphoras in the Greek World

Ancient pottery is ubiquitous in Mediterranean

landscapes because of its durability. As already noted,

1140
A Late Archaic Type B amphora from S033 (A100) is the exception.

324
amphora sherds exemplify this property of

indestructibility, since they are derived from large, hard,

resilient vessels.1141 Pottery can be used, among other

types of analysis, as a dating tool, an indicator of social

organization and level of economic complexity, and an index

of trade and circulation of goods.1142

Transport amphoras reappeared in the Greek ceramic

repertoire in the late 8th century B.C.1143 The beginning of

amphora production at this time corresponded to the rise of

long distance trade, and the states that first produced

them are those associated with overseas commerce and

colonization.1144 The production of transport amphoras was

1141
On the preservation of ceramics in the archaeological record, see
Arafat and Morgan 1989, pp. 311-312.
1142
Pottery has also been used to define archaeological cultures and to
determine ethnic identities. See, for example, Childe (1925). For
problems related to the use of pottery in writing social and economic
history, see Papadopoulos 1997b. There can, of course, be an
overemphasis on pottery to the exclusion of other categories of
evidence resulting in a biased picture of trade. Van Wijngaarden
(1999) defines three important areas of study: production, consumption
and circulation.
1143
Koehler 1979, p. 55; Whitbread 1995a, p. 4. The earliest Archaic
Greek transport amphoras were produced in Euboea, the Dodecanese, and
Corinth. Transport amphoras are not unique to Classical antiquity.
They were first made in the Mediterranean in the Bronze Age, probably
by the Canaanites, and continued to be used long after the fall of the
Roman Empire, when the use of wooden barrels became common. See Grace
1956a, 1961; Koehler and Matheson 1993, p. 88 and n. 2. The word
amphora is attested in the Mycenaean period in Linear B documents Kn
233 (a-pi-po-re-we) and MY 234 (a-po-re-we). See Aura Jorro and
Adrados 1985. Homer in the Odyssey distinguishes between the wine jars
stowed by Telemachos on his journey to Pylos (2.290, 349, 379)
"amphiphoreis" and the wine jars used for storage (2.340 "pithoi");
Odyssey 2.353 describes the stoppers used to block them.
1144
The production and development of Corinthian amphoras coincides with
first wave of colonization, especially with the foundation of the
Corinthian colonies at Syracuse and Corcyra. See Corinth XV.1; Salmon
1984, pp. 96-97; Williams 1995. Numerous transport amphoras have been
found on Pithekoussai, attesting to the economic importance of wine and

325
state controlled; this is evidenced by standardization in

fabric, shape, and size.

Bulk commodities were frequently shipped in transport

amphoras; they were plain and inexpensive, and could

contain either liquids, such as wine or oil, or solids,

such as nuts, olives, pitch, pigments, or processed fish.1145

Because they themselves were not particularly expensive,

their importance lay mainly in their contents.1146 Amphoras

were not shipped back to their point of origin once empty,

but could be reused for storage, or even as funerary

urns.1147 They have been found in contexts as diverse as

ports, sanctuaries, cemeteries, agoras, and workshops.1148

The form of transport amphoras was dictated by

functional concerns; these vessels were fashioned for snug

shipboard storage and easy maneuverability. Their shape is

characterized by a narrow mouth and neck that could be

blocked with a stopper, two strong vertical handles for

carrying and pouring, a bowed, elongated body, and a thick

oil for this, the earliest western Greek colony. These amphoras, many
of which were locally produced, appear to be modeled on Phoenician
prototypes. See Gras 1987; D'Agostino 1999, p. 218.
1145
Grace 1961, p. 1; Garlan 1983a, p. 26; Koehler and Matheson 1993, p.
88; Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, p. 11; Lawall 1997, p. 113, 1998, p.
76.
1146
Amyx 1958, p. 174.
1147
Grace 1961; Pelagatti 1995, p. 407; Whitbread 1995a, p. 39. Empty
transport amphoras were often resold. Those confiscated from the
Athenians who had profaned the Mysteries are recorded in the Attic
Stelai, where resale value varied from extremely low for plain examples
(stele II, line 240) to moderately expensive for Eretrian and Chian
products (stele II, lines 18-19, 20). See Amyx 1958, pp. 174-178, 279.
1148
Pelagatti 1995. Transport amphoras were frequently reused for
enchytrismoi in the necropolis of Apollonia. See Chapters 7 and 8.

326
pointed toe that could function as a third handle.1149

Amphoras that were intended to hold liquids had to be

watertight.1150

Amphoras have been used to study trade, colonization,

modes of production, resource procurement, and ceramic

technology. They were produced in workshops and, since

production was state controlled, jars made for the same

purpose in the same center were usually similar or

uniform.1151 There was, however, a large degree of variation

between vessels from different production centers. Thus,

the shapes of amphoras, which differed by locale,

identified their places of origin and were recognizable by

1149
Grace 1947, p. 445, 1953, p. 102, 1961, Koehler 1979, p. 55, 1986,
p. 49; Peacock and Williams 1986, p. 6; Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p.
211; Garlan 2000, p. 67. The pointed toe is the main characteristic
that distinguishes transport amphoras from finer table amphoras. See
Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, pp. 34-43 for a discussion of shipboard
storage and transport.
1150
Those transport amphoras that were not impermeable as a result of
their manufacture were often coated on the interior with a substance
such as bitumen or pitch, which made them so. For a discussion of
various techniques used to make amphoras impermeable, see Koehler 1986,
pp. 50-52. For a discussion of bitumen, see Morris 2006.
1151
See Vandiver and Koehler 1986 for evidence of workshop production.
Workshops that produced amphoras probably also produced roof tiles and
large coarse ware vessels such as pithoi. See Hasaki 2002 for a
discussion of amphoras, workshops, and kilns. For ceramic
specialization, see Rice 1984a; Arafat and Morgan 1989; Hodder 1992;
van Wijngaarden 1999, pp. 7-8. See Whitbread 1995a, pp. 9-19 and
Peacock and Williams 1986, p. 41 for discussions of scale and
organization of amphora production. Whitbread also discusses amphora
production in relation to agricultural systems. See Grace 1946, p. 33,
1947, p. 446, 1949, p. 176 and Garlan 2000, pp. 76-82 for a discussion
of standardization and carrying capacities. See also Benson 1985, pp.
17-20; Arafat and Morgan 1989, p. 323; Morgan 1995, p. 324.

327
those who traded and used them;1152 they therefore "branded”

their original contents by source.

Transport amphoras can be classified according to

style, chronology, stamp impressions, and form. They can

also be dated and assigned to specific production centers

on the basis of their stylistic variations; this is

certainly the case for a number of amphoras produced at

Corinth. Some examples also bear stamp impressions that

were pressed into the malleable clay before the vessels

were fired. These, too, are useful for identification, and

stamps that have been labeled "explicit" allow for precise

sourcing.1153 As the shape and fabric of specific amphora

types evolved through time, so also did a variety of types

of stamps.1154

Laboratory analyses have facilitated provenance

studies and have provided information about technological

choices made by potters in the manufacture of transport

amphoras. These methods allow for the identification of

1152
Amyx 1958, p. 175; Grace 1961; Garlan 1983b; Whitbread 1995a, p. 35;
Lawall 1997, p. 113, 1998.
1153
Garlan 1983b makes the distinction between explicit and non-explicit
amphora stamps. Archaeologists are unable to read/interpret the
meaning of non-explicit stamps that are often found on Archaic and
Classical amphoras. This is largely due to their simplicity. Explicit
stamps, which began to appear in the Classical period, can be "read"
and indicate the place of production and sometimes the precise date of
the vessel. Notable at Apollonia, however, is the absence of stamped
amphoras.
1154
For amphora stamps, their meaning, and their importance in sourcing
and dating, see Grace 1946, 1947, pp. 446-452, 1952, 1956b, 1962, 1971,
1979, 1986a, 1986b; Kent 1953; Grace and Savvatianou-Petropoulakou
1970; Garlan 1983b, 2000; Koehler 1978b, 1982; Empereur and Garlan
1987, 1992, 1997; Koehler and Matheson 1993, pp. 90-91 and n. 3.

328
production centers and the location of raw materials. The

combined work of Virginia Grace, Mark Lawall, and Carolyn

Koehler has provided the foundation for the creation of a

large database of transport amphoras, which is an

invaluable resource for scholars of the ancient

Mediterranean.1155

Corinthian Amphoras and Their Imitations: A Brief History

The study of Corinthian amphoras is well advanced; it

is possible to date examples within a 25-year range.1156 As

already noted, transport amphoras began to be manufactured

in Corinth in the late 8th century B.C., at approximately

the same time that the Corinthians began to found colonies

abroad.1157 Three different series of transport amphoras are

attributed to Corinth, in whole or part: A, A' (called "A-

prime"), and B. These morphological types are defined on

the basis of style, technology, and the composition of

their fabric.1158 Scientific studies support the supposition

that amphoras of types A and A' were manufactured at

Corinth. Type B has been more problematic; evidence

1155
Cf. Solomon 1993.
1156
Koehler 1979, p. 58. See Coldstream 1968, pp. 97-108, 1983, pp. 31-
33 for the chronology and periodization of early Corinthian pottery.
1157
Koehler 1979, p. 55; Whitbread 1995a, p. 4. See Chapter 5.
1158
For a stylistic typology, see Koehler 1992; for a technological
typology, see Vandiver and Koehler 1986; for a typology based on the
scientific analysis of fabric, see Whitbread 1995a.

329
suggests that some were made at Corinth, but it is likely

that some were also produced at Corcyra.1159

Some of the workshops at Corinth have been explored in

which transport amphoras were made.1160 Corinth is rich in

clays of several varieties; the pale clays used for Type B

amphoras and the terra rossa used for Type As occur in a

number of outcrops and are easily accessible.1161 The

complexity of Corinthian amphoras suggests that the potters

who manufactured them were well versed in a complicated

ceramic technology. The tradition, as with most pottery

manufacture, was conservative, yet it was open to

modification and change.1162 Change is evident in Corinth

when, towards the end of the 6th century B.C., the

production of Type B jars began.1163

Type A Amphoras

The production of Corinthian Type A amphoras began in

the late 8th century B.C.; thereafter, they were

1159
Grace 1953, p. 108 was the first to suggest a Corcyraean provenance
for Type B amphoras. See below.
1160
Stillwell (Corinth XV.1, pp. 4-9, 13-22) originated the suggestion
that Corinthian ceramics and tiles were produced in the area known as
the "Potters’ Quarter" from Middle Geometric II onwards. See Morgan
1995, pp. 322-325.
1161
Morgan 1995, p. 320.
1162
For conservatism in pottery production, Rice 1984b.
1163
Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 213.

330
manufactured continuously for over four centuries.1164 The

earliest examples found at Corinth date to the 3rd quarter

of the 7th century B.C.1165 Jars of this period are

characterized by a horizontal projecting rim, heavy rolled

handles, a spherical body, and a long cylindrical toe.1166

The shape evolved through time to a sloping, less

pronounced rim, handles that were pinched at the top, and a

peg toe, while the body remained roughly spherical.1167

Type A amphoras were made from red clay, or terra

rossa, which resulted from the weathering of limestones.1168

These vessels have a very distinct fine reddish gray fabric

with many large, angular, mudstone and tuffite or breccia

inclusions.1169 The clay body and fabric did not change

1164
The form of early examples suggests that Corinthian Type A amphoras
were modified from Geometric storage jars. See Koehler 1981, p. 451,
1992, p. 1; Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 176.
1165
Koehler 1981, p. 451, 1992, p. 2. These were excavated at Corinth
in a stratified well deposit. See Corinth VII.2, pp. 157-158.
1166
Koehler 1992, p. 1; Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, p. 64.
1167
For the evolution of the shape of Corinthian Type A amphoras, see
Koehler 1978a, pp. 231-236, 1981, pp. 451-452, 1992, pp. 1-2.
1168
The clay is found near Acrocorinth, and, according to Farnsworth
(1964, p 224, 1970), it is very plastic and very fine grained. Jones
(1986, p. 179) notes that it has a high Ca content, but is less
calcareous in nature than the typical yellow Corinthian clay. See
Whitbread 1995a, pp. 308-334, 2003 for a summary of previous studies of
Corinthian clays, the problems arising from these earlier studies, his
own analyses, and the possible sources of the raw materials used to
make amphoras.
1169
In Type A amphoras, inclusions account for 10-20% of the volume of
the fabric. Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 176; Whitbread 1986b, p. 97,
1995a, pp. 268-269. The mudstone temper (Agrillaceous rock fragments =
ARFs) probably came from outcrops on the acropolis of Acrocorinth
(Farnsworth 1964, 1970; Whitbread 1986a). Mudstones change color in
the firing process and, therefore, do not necessarily display a uniform
color throughout the vessel. Mudstone temper is often mis-identified
as grog. For the source of the temper, see Farnsworth 1970, pp. 9-11;
Whitbread 1986a, 1995a, pp. 334-335. Mudstone temper was also added to
Corinthian pithoi, tile, and architectural sculptures to prevent

331
through time. The fracture is usually gray to red with

lighter red to orange surfaces. Because the terra rossa is

highly plastic, the potter intentionally added coarse

temper to the clay used to fashion these vessels, which

necessitated that they be made by hand.1170 As a result of

this manufacturing technique, voids (some quite large) are

often visible in the fracture. Type A amphoras were

extremely hard fired, almost vitrified. This effect was

produced by adding potash to the clay body; the potassium

in the potash reduced the firing temperature needed for

vitrification, which, in turn, made these amphoras

impermeable.1171 Because of their impermeability, it has

been suggested that Corinthian Type A amphoras were

primarily used to transport oil.1172

From the last quarter of the 8th century, Type A

transport amphoras were exported to Greek colonies in

shrinkage (Pfaff 2003, p. 103). A similar, very fine reddish clay

matrix with a very hard orange to gray core, but with fewer inclusions,
is often referred to as "blisterware." This fabric was used for the
production of various coarse ware pots. See Farnsworth, Perlman, and
Asaro 1977, p. 456.
1170
Whitbread 1986a, p. 85, 1995a, p. 374, 2003, p. 1, n. 4. For a
discussion of the manufacturing technique, see Vandiver and Koehler
1986, pp. 183-193, 211; Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, pp. 12-13.
1171
Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 204. The addition of potassium, which
reduced the temperature at which the clay turned to glass, also
decreased the amount of fuel required for the production of impermeable
amphoras. The knowledge of such procedures points to a high degree of
technological competence. See Vandiver and Koehler 1986, pp. 205-210
for discussion of firing techniques.
1172
Koehler 1978a, p. 231, 1981, p. 452; Pelagatti 1995, p. 404;
Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, p. 64; Garlan 2000, p. 87. No results
from residue analyses have been published.

332
Sicily and Magna Graecia.1173 The quantity of these vessels

and the number of sites in the western Mediterranean where

they are found increased steadily throughout the Archaic

period.1174 Most early Type A amphoras have been found in

colonial Greek cemeteries, where they were reused as urns

for burials, often of infants.1175 The earliest come from

Gela and the area around Metapontum; other seventh century

examples also have been found at Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea,

Cavallino, Heraclea Minoa, Leontinoi, and Sybaris.1176 The

large number of Type A amphoras from the cemetery at

Camarina and their continuous use throughout the 6th

century B.C. allow changes in shape to be traced

chronologically.1177 Numerous examples have also been found

on Corcyra, which is perhaps indicative of their route of

dispersion to the West.

The presence of Corinthian amphoras in so many early

colonies demonstrates the importance of Corinth as a leader

in overseas trade, as a disseminator of Greek material

culture, and as a link between Greece and the newly

established colonies. In the 5th century B.C., however,

the number of Type A amphoras declined, and their export

1173
Koehler 1978b, pp. 9-83, 1979, p. 58, 1992, p. 2; Gras 1987. For
bibliography see Koehler 1981, p. 451, n. 9.
1174
See Koehler 1979, p. 58 for a list of the places where Corinthian
Type A amphoras have been found.
1175
Koehler 1978a, p. 231, 1992, p. 2.
1176
Koehler 1992, p. 2.
1177
Koehler 1981, p. 451.

333
abroad seems to have slowed further throughout the 4th

century B.C.1178 Type A amphoras also became rare at Corinth

during this time, until about the middle of the 4th century

B.C., when they reappeared in quantity. They remained

principally a domestic product henceforth, until they

ceased to be produced around 300 B.C.1179

Type B Amphoras

The production of Corinthian Type B transport amphoras

began around 525 B.C.1180 They were made alongside Type A

jars until the manufacture of the latter was discontinued

at the end of the 4th century B.C. The manufacturing

process for Type B amphoras represents a different potting

tradition than that of Type A, and it is possible that Type

B was developed to hold a new or different commodity.1181 It

is not clear when the production of Type B amphoras ceased;

they continued to be produced at least throughout the 3rd

century B.C. and perhaps even until the sack of Corinth by

Mummius in the 2nd century B.C.1182

Archaic Corinthian Type B amphoras are similar to

several other kinds of transport amphoras that are found

1178
Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 213. It is at this time that Type A'
is introduced.
1179
Koehler 1979, p. 58; Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 176.
1180
Koehler 1982, p. 284.
1181
Vandiver and Koehler 1986, pp. 195-200, 213.
1182
Koehler 1981, p. 452, 1982, p. 284, 1992, p. 4; Vandiver and Koehler
1986, p. 176.

334
around the Mediterranean. They may have been inspired by

"Ionian" types, which were produced in various places and

have been found in numerous western Greek colonies,1183 but

which do not seem to have been imported by cities on the

Greek mainland, however, until late in the Archaic

period.1184 Unlike the coarse "Ionian" vessels that may have

been their models, Type B amphoras were produced in a fine

yellow or light reddish brown fabric. Type B jars are

closely related in shape to "Graeco-Massiliote" amphoras,

which predate them.1185 This commonality of shape is a clear

example of the exchange of ideas resulting from widespread

trade contacts already in the Archaic period.1186

Corinthian Type B amphoras differ from Types A and A'

in shape, as well as fabric and technology.1187 The earliest

examples have a neck characterized by a thick, rounded rim,

usually with a groove or ridge around the top, a squat

body, a small cylindrical toe, and arched handles.1188 As

1183
For the origin of Corinthian Type B amphoras, see Koehler 1981, pp.
452-453; Garlan 2000, pp. 73-74.
1184
According to Koehler (1981, p. 453), the earliest examples of
Graeco-Massiliote amphoras on the Greek mainland also date to the
beginning of the 5th century B.C.
1185
Koehler 1981, pp. 452-454.
1186
The theory that the inspiration for Corinthian B amphoras came from
the west supports the supposition that certain elements of material
culture moved from the colonies and the west to the Greek mainland
discussed in Chapter 4. Barletta (1990) has argued that what she terms
the "Ionian Sea" style of Archaic Doric architecture originated in the
Achaean colonies of South Italy and was transferred from there back to
their mother cities in Achaea. See also Malkin 1987, 1994a; de
Polignac 1995; Papadopoulos 2001, p. 376.
1187
Koehler 1981, p. 452.
1188
Koehler 1981, p. 452; Caravale and Toffoletti 1997, p. 65.

335
they evolved in shape throughout the 5th century B.C., the

body became more elongated and ovoid, the rim flared, and

the handles became less arched.1189 Koehler suggests that

the distinctions in fabric and shape between Type B, Type

A, and Type A' would have made the different commodities

they contained easily identifiable.1190

Corinthian Type B amphoras were wheelmade.1191 Their

yellow or light reddish brown fabric is finer and softer

than that of Type A and A' and has only a few visible

inclusions, primarily quartz and chert as petrographic

study has indicated.1192 Type B amphoras are more porous

than Type A, although both are water tight.1193 Pitch or a

resinous substance was, however, often used to Type B

amphoras.1194 It is possible that Type B amphoras were used

to transport wine.1195 Their export abroad increased

steadily during the 4th century B.C., as that of Type A

amphoras decreased.1196

Chemical analyses of Type B amphoras suggest that they

were not produced exclusively at Corinth. Some certainly

1189
For the development in shape of Type B amphoras, see Koehler 1978a,
pp. 236-237, 1981, p. 454, 1982, pp. 286-287; Vandiver and Koehler
1986, p. 178.
1190
Koehler 1981, p. 452.
1191
For a discussion of manufacturing techniques see Vandiver and
Koehler 1986, pp. 195-200.
1192
Whitbread 1986b, p. 97; Koehler 1992, p. 4.
1193
Vandiver and Koehler 1986, pp. 204-205.
1194
Koehler 1986, p. 51; Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 213.
1195
Koehler 1978a, p. 231, 1981, p. 452; Caravale and Toffoletti 1997,
p. 65.
1196
Koehler 1979, p. 58.

336
were made on Corcyra, as was first suggested by Grace.1197

Because the clays from Corinth and Corcyra are difficult to

distinguish optically, however, scientific tests have been

necessary to verify that there were dual production

centers.1198 These have shown that some samples match the

Corinthian control group while others match the

Corcyraean.1199

A kiln complex, probably associated with an amphora

workshop, has been excavated recently on the Michalef

property in Figareto, Palaiopolis on Corcyra.1200 Local and

Corinthianising sherds of the early 7th century B.C. were

found in the lowest levels, the majority from Corinthian

Type B amphoras.1201 The abundance of Type B amphora sherds

1197
Grace 1953, pp. 108-109. Her suggestion is based on the presence of
a star with seven or eight rays on the handles of some Type B amphoras;
a stamp with this motif was found on an amphora handle from Corcyra and
it resembles a 4th century B.C. Corcyraean coin type.
1198
Neutron activation was used by Farnsworth, Perlman, and Asaro 1977;
samples analyzed by optical emission fell into two groups on the basis
of their chemical composition; Mössbauer spectroscopy confirmed these
groupings by documenting variation in the iron content of the clay.
See Jones 1986, pp. 115-121, 176-189, 712-720, 739; Koehler 1981, p.
452, 1992, p. 4.
1199
Whitbread 1995a, p. 260. "Corinthian Type B" should, therefore,
technically be called Corinthian/Corcyraean to indicate that pots from
these two different production centers are not macroscopically
distinguishable.
1200
Kourkoumelis 1988, 1990; Preka 1992a, 1992b; Whitbread 1995a, p.
260; Kourkoumelis and Demesticha 1997. The complex, which was used
from the 6th to the 3rd century B.C., consists of a minimum of six
kilns, basins for clay processing, a building, and two wells. For
kilns in general, see Hasaki 2002; for problems associated with
studying ceramics from kiln sites, see Whitbread, Jones, and
Papadopoulos 1997; Eiring, Bocleau, and Whitbread 2002.
1201
Morgan 1995, p. 324, n. 23; Preka 1992a, 1992b. "Corinthian type
roof tiles" were also found in and around the kilns, which suggests
that the Corcyraeans were imitating other products in addition to
amphoras. A mass of red clay, as yet unanalyzed, was found in the
interior of the chamber of Kiln 1, and since clay of this color is rare

337
appears to confirm Palaiopolis as a production center for

vessels of this type. It has even been suggested that

Corcyra was the primary production center, rather than

Corinth, and that the Type B amphora should be referred to

as "Kerkyraïkos."1202

Type A'

Koehler first recognized Corinthian Type A' transport

amphoras as a separate series. Evidence for the type was

discovered in the 5th century B.C. Punic Amphora Building,

excavated at Corinth during the late 1970s and early

1980s.1203 Type A' amphoras were produced from the early 5th

century B.C. until the sack of Corinth by Mummius in the

mid-2nd century B.C.1204 From ca. 450 B.C. until ca. 350

B.C., they became increasingly prevalent abroad, while the

number of the more bulky Type A amphoras steadily declined

outside of Corinth. Type A' thus gradually supplanted Type

in Corcyra, it is possible that potters imported it – as Preka (1992b)

suggests, perhaps from Epirus, but also possibly from Corinth.
Whatever the case, it seems to have been important that Corcyraean
amphoras and tiles looked as "Corinthian" as possible.
1202
Preka 1992b, p. 50. The term "Kerkyraïkos" is taken from a passage
in Pseudo-Aristotle (Mir. 839b.104.8), first cited by Grace (1953, p.
109).
1203
The Punic Amphora Building was built in the 460s B.C. and was used
for approximately 25 years. In addition to numerous imports, the
building contained a large number of apparently local Corinthian
amphoras. These were labeled Type A' amphoras. Koehler 1981, pp. 449-
450, 454-458; Whitbread 1984; Williams 1978, 1979; Maniatis et al.
1984.
1204
Koehler 1992, p. 3. See Pausanias 7.16.1-9 on the destruction of
Corinth.

338
A as Corinth's chief export container, and totally replaced

it in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.1205

The Type A' series was developed from Type A, and is

related to it in three ways: method of manufacture; style;

and, often, fabric.1206 Type A' amphoras have a

characteristic narrow, ovoid body, an offset cylindrical

toe, a cylindrical neck, and a relatively broad, thin

overhanging rim.1207 The body is more elongated and ovoid

than the spherical Type A jars.1208 The shape continued to

change during the 3rd century B.C., when the toe cap became

more conical and the slant of the rim steeper.1209 There is,

through time, some stylistic variation in rim profiles and

in the amount of temper that was added to the clay

matrix.1210

The fabric of the Type A' amphora shares

characteristics with both that of Type A and B. In the

earliest stages of their production, the fabric is visually

very similar to that of Type A, even though Type A' was

made from yellow clays derived from Neogene sediments.

This is because early A' jars have large mudstone and

1205
Koehler 1978a, p. 236, 1981, pp. 454-457, 1992, p. 3.
1206
Koehler 1992, p. 1.
1207
Koehler 1981, p. 456.
1208
Koehler 1981, p. 454, 1992, p. 3. A stamp on the handle of a mid-
5th century Type A amphora depicts a Type A' container; see Koehler
1981, p. 457, pl. 99.i, 1982, p. 285.
1209
Koehler 1992, p. 3.
1210
Koehler 1981, p. 456.

339
tuffite temper like that used for Type A.1211 During the

later periods of their production, however, they were made

without temper. After the middle of the 5th century B.C.,

A' amphoras can, therefore, be distinguished by their finer

yellow fabric, which resembles that of Type B.1212

Corinthian Type A' amphoras were originally made

entirely by hand, but after the fabric changed in the mid

5th century B.C., the top part of the vessel was thrown on

a wheel, whereas the lower part remained handmade.1213 Type

A' amphoras were semi-permeable, but there is little

evidence to suggest that the interiors were coated. The

greater permeability of Type A' amphoras compared to Type A

might indicate that they were designed to hold a different

commodity; their differences in shape might suggest the

same.1214

The timeline for the production of Corinthian amphoras

can be summarized as follows:

ca. 725 B.C. (late 8th century B.C.): Type A series

began.1215

1211
Whitbread 1986b, pp. 97-99.
1212
Koehler 1981, p. 456; Vandiver and Koehler 1986, p. 178.
1213
For method and stages of manufacture, see Vandiver and Koehler 1986,
pp. 179, 200-202; Koehler 1992, p. 3.
1214
If the shape changed only to make Type A' amphoras easier to handle,
it is likely that Type A amphoras would have ceased to be produced.
Vandiver and Koehler (1986, pp. 213-214) suggest "nuts, dried fruit, or
grain" as possible exports in Type A'.
1215
See Vandiver and Koehler 1986.

340
 700-550 B.C.: Type A produced exclusively, technology

remains same; impermeable.

600-500 B.C.: Increase in the numbers of Type A

amphoras found abroad, especially in cemeteries.1216

ca. 550 B.C.: Production of Type A changed: more

permeable; incorporated some wheelmade elements.

ca. 525 B.C.: Type B introduced. Permeable (but

coated with pitch or resin); new technology (wheelmade) and

fabric; new commodity?

ca. 500 B.C.: Type A' introduced. Used clay body of

Type B, more permeable than A, without coating.

500-400 B.C.: Type A still exported, but numbers

declined abroad.

500-400 B.C.: Numbers of Type A' increased abroad.

400-300 B.C.: Type A now used almost exclusively at

Corinth.1217

400-300 B.C.: Increase in the numbers of Type B

amphoras. Type B outstripped A, and was more widely

distributed overseas.

300 B.C.: Production of Type A stopped.

300-200 B.C.: Large numbers of Type B amphoras were

still exported abroad.1218

1216
Koehler 1979, p. 59.
1217
Koehler 1978a, p. 237.
1218
Koehler 1979, p. 59.

341
Types of Scientific Analyses of Ceramics

Pots are more than soils; they are a result of human

agency entailing many purposeful decisions in their

manufacturing process. Potters carefully select their

components and manipulate their raw materials to achieve a

required set of properties;1219 the fabric of any individual

ceramic can thus be quite complex.1220 It is rare for a

potter to construct a pot from untreated clay, and the

handling of clay throughout the production process affects

mineral and elemental concentrations.1221 Clays are often

mixed together to make them more durable.1222 Temper can be

added to improve the workability and strength of the clay

and to prevent shrinkage and deformity during drying and

firing.1223 Differently tempered clays may be used in the

construction of handles, bases, rims, and bodies of the

same vessels.1224

Both chemical and petrological analyses have been

employed to study the composition of the clay bodies used

for the production of the transport amphoras discussed

above; the brief survey below of analytical methodologies

1219
Whitbread 2003, p. 1.
1220
See Brodie 1997.
1221
Levigation, which removes naturally occurring minerals from clay, is
one example of how a clay fingerprint might be altered.
1222
Jones 1984.
1223
Angularity suggests that temper was obtained by crushing the
selected material; rounded inclusions point to a natural origin. See
Whitbread 1986a.
1224
Matson 1995, p. 16. This is certainly the case for Corinthian Type
A' amphoras, which are partially handmade and partially thrown.

342
for pottery includes only those types of analyses that have

produced significant results in the study of the

provenances and manufacturing techniques of Corinthian and

Corinthianising transport amphoras.1225

The pioneering studies by Frank Asaro and Isaac

Perlman at Berkeley, in collaboration with Marie

Farnsworth, were instrumental in introducing neutron

activation analysis (NAA) to Greece and to the study of

transport amphoras.1226 NAA can be used to obtain precision

data for a large number of elements; these scholars were

successful in distinguishing between Corinthian and

Corcyraean pottery made from light colored clays and were

able to demonstrate that Type B amphoras were produced in

both centers.1227 NAA was also applied to Corinthian

pottery, including Type A and Type B amphoras, by Michael

Oladipo in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis. According to the

1225
Because it was not used as a primary analytical method on transport
amphoras, I therefore omit extended discussion of optical emission
spectroscopy (OES), although it was one of the first scientific
techniques applied to provenance studies and provided important
information about the sources of raw materials (see Jones 1986). It
was initially introduced in Greece by Hector Catling to identify local
production centers of Mycenaean pottery (Catling, Richards, and Blin-
Stoyle 1963.) OES has now been superseded by NAA (neutron activation
analysis), one of the methodologies used in my study below of transport
amphoras from the region of Apollonia, and ICP (inductively coupled
plasma emission), which both provide more precise information about
elemental composition; see Brodie 1997, p. 55.
1226
Farnsworth, Perlman, and Asaro 1977.
1227
Brodie 1997, p. 55. As Farnsworth, Perlman, and Asaro point out
(1977, p. 455), their analysis was conducted before typological
categories were distinguished. Jones (1986, pp. 714-720) performed OES
analysis and re-analyzed Farnsworth data; he was able to confirm that
the Type B jars can be assigned either to a Corinthian or a Corcyraean
control group.

343
summary in Whitbread, Oladipo found that the two different

amphora types can easily be distinguished because their

fabrics differ in amounts of vanadium and manganese. Type

A and Type B amphoras also differ in composition from other

types of fine and coarse Corinthian ceramics and

terracottas.1228

X-ray florescence spectrometry (XRF) has also been

used to determine the chemical composition1229 of transport

amphoras. This method was used by Watson to analyze major

and minor elements of Corinthian amphora fabrics.1230 He

included both Corinthian Type A and Type B amphora samples

in his analysis. Cluster and discriminant analyses of the

resulting data grouped Type A and B samples in distinct

clusters. XRF is among the analytical methodologies

applied to samples from the region of Apollonia in the

results reported below.

Recent studies have shown the effectiveness of ceramic

petrology as an aid in the description and classification

of amphoras.1231 An accurate description of the fabric is

essential for any system of classification, and

1228
Oladipo 1987; Whitbread 1995a, p. 267. Whitbread (1995b, p. 97)
notes that early studies of coarse ceramics that used NAA and OES often
yielded more interpretable results after petrographic studies had also
been undertaken.
1229
This method was used by Picon and Garlan to identify different
workshops (and possibly potters) that were producing Thasian amphoras
at the same time. See Picon and Garlan 1986.
1230
Whitbread 1995a, p. 45.
1231
See Peacock and Williams 1986; Whitbread 1986c, 1995a.

344
petrological analysis can be used to confirm macroscopic

identifications. Petrology offers semi-quantitative

information about ceramic temper: it is used to identify

rock and mineral inclusions.1232 It is, therefore, an

important means to understanding what raw materials were

used in the production of ceramics, knowledge essential for

determining provenance.1233 Petrology is best used in

conjunction with the results of chemical analyses to

determine the origin of individual pots and raw

materials;1234 Whitbread1235 notes conversely that early

studies of the chemical composition of coarse ceramics,

like those of Type A and early Type A’ transport amphoras,

often yielded more interpretable results after petrographic

studies had also been undertaken. Data from these analyses

can be used to identify production centers and even

different workshops within the same center.1236 Petrology,

1232
A thin section, about 0.03 mm thick, from a vessel is examined under
a polarizing microscope. Minerals become transparent in the thin
section and the types of inclusions can be identified by the way the
mineral structures affect the light from the polarizing microscope as
it passes through them. The clay matrix can also be analyzed in this
manner. The petrographer records the type, size, shape, and quantity
of inclusions. Point count analysis used to determine percentage
compositions provides semi-quantitative data. For preparation of a
thin section, see Whitbread 1986b, pp. 95-96, 1986c, 1989, 1991; for
the application of petrology to ceramic analysis, see Peacock 1970, pp.
375-389; Bishop, Rands, and Holley 1982, pp. 275-330.
1233
Jones 1993, p. 12.
1234
Whitbread (1986b, p. 97) stresses the importance of integrating
petrological studies with an understanding of the process involved in
ceramic manufacture. Petrological analysis of the samples from
Apollonia is currently underway.
1235
Whitbread 1995b, p. 97.
1236
See, for example, Picon and Garlan 1986; Whitbread 1986c. One
important step in the provenance studies is to determine the nature of

345
combined with the traditional macroscopic description of

pottery fabrics, is also essential for an understanding of

ancient ceramic technology.1237

The Program of Analysis of Amphoras from MRAP

I gratefully thank the team of scholars who

contributed their expertise to the research program to

analyze transport amphoras from MRAP under my direction.

The sherds selected for analysis in the initial group were

preliminarily identified as Corinthian or Corinthianising

transport amphoras dated to the Archaic period by Skënder

Muçaj, a co-director of MRAP and now Director of the Late

Antique Division of the Institute of Archaeology in Tirana.

Those artifacts were exported to Cincinnati in 2000.

Koehler, of the Department of Ancient Studies at the

University of Maryland Baltimore County, whose

contributions to the study of transport amphoras need no

introduction, selected the second group of the samples and

provided a macroscopic description of their shape, fabric,

inclusions, color, and date in the field in 2003. She

confirmed the identifications, dates, and descriptions of

the local soils through chemical analysis. For example, Guy Sanders,
Director of the Corinth Excavations, in cooperation with the Fitch
laboratory, has undertaken characterization studies of Corinthian clays
located in the immediate area of ancient Corinth.
1237
Jones 1993, p. 13. Replication experiments are particularly useful
in the investigation of ceramic technology.

346
the initial sample group in Baltimore in February of 2004;

all dates and typological distinctions presented below are

based on her identifications. Tammie Gerke and Barry

Manard of the Department of Geology at the University of

Cincinnati conducted the scientific analysis of the samples

using XRF, macroscopic and microscopic thin section

analysis, and materials characterization studies.

The initial objective for the analysis of transport

amphoras from MRAP was to determine chemically and

petrographically whether those identified macroscopically

and stylistically as Corinthian were indeed imports from

Corinth.1238 Four principal research questions were posed:

1. Were the vessels found at Apollonia produced at

Corinth? How do they compare to those from Corinth

analyzed by Whitbread?

2. If all are not from Corinth, how many production

centers are likely to be represented?

3. What, if anything, do these amphoras reveal about

contact between Corinth and Apollonia prior to 588 B.C.?

1238
Securely dated pre-Medieval transport amphoras comprise about 10% of
the total number of vessels collected by MRAP (1,109 out of 11,662).
Of these, 209 are Corinthian or imitation Corinthian. Roughly 10% of
the total corpus of transport amphoras and 40% of the possible
Corinthian examples were examined in this study.

347
 4. Is it possible that any of the amphoras were

manufactured locally, given what is known about local soils

and clays?1239

A total of 101 sherds were included in the analysis;

the initial group of 46 sherds was exported to Cincinnati

from Albania in 2000, and a second group of 55, selected by

Koehler, were exported in 2003. The initial corpus

included examples from all areas surveyed during the first

three years of fieldwork sponsored by MRAP and was chosen

to comprise a well-defined class of amphoras, easily

recognizable and chronologically distinct, namely, those of

Type A. Koehler's selection of sherds expanded the sample

to include all three types of Corinthian amphoras, as well

as pieces that she considered to be imitations, perhaps

"local;" the latter samples were chosen without reference

to their date.1240 Included in the group of "local" sherds

are examples that have a "mixed" fabric: i.e., two types of

clay that were so poorly combined that layers of each are

macroscopically visible.

1239
As Whitbread 1995b, pp. 97-98 notes, "it is much easier to say
whether ceramics are imported or local than to say from where they
originated." See Maggetti 1982, p. 130.
1240
It would not be surprising if there was local production of
Corinthian-type transport amphoras. They were extremely functional
vessels, both for transport and storage. See Garlan 1983b.

348
 The corpus consists of 91 amphoras and 10 non-

amphoras.1241 Of these, 40 are, or might be, Type A, 11 are

A', six are A or A’, and 17 are B.1242 The entire MRAP study

area is represented by the samples, although some zones are

better represented than others, simply because more amphora

sherds were found there (Fig. 6.1).1243 Most of the sites

represented in the sample are in close proximity to the

asty of Apollonia. Indeed, the greatest number of

Corinthian amphoras comes from its necropolis (32 samples),

where the vessels were reused as burial containers. S007

is the designation that has been applied to the entirety of

the eastern necropolis.1244 S005 is a robbed and badly

eroded burial tumulus immediately above the necropolis and

S006 is also an individual tumulus.1245 S016, which is also

near, but not actually in, the necropolis has the largest

quantity of transport amphoras collected at any site (23,

five of which were sampled); these include Corinthian Type

A and A', as well as imitation Type A. One of the earliest

samples, a Type A amphora, comes from this site. The

1241
Amphora Sample numbers (AS) were assigned to each sample by the year
that the sample was exported. They are not sequentially numbered
according to MRAP collection units.
1242
The samples consist of 13 rim fragments, four neck fragments, two
shoulder fragments, 32 handles, 14 toes, one base, and 35 body sherds.
Of the 35 body sherds collected, 22 pieces are from A or A' amphoras or
their imitations, eight are not from amphoras, but are probably of
Corinthian Type A fabric, three are not from amphoras and are not
Corinthian, and two are Type B or imitations.
1243
See Chapter 8 for a discussion of MRAP zones.
1244
See Chapter 7.
1245
S005 and S006 are both inside the borders of S007, but were
collected and analyzed as separate sites. See Chapter 7.

349
hypothesis that the colonists lived in or near the city

center in the initial phase of the colony is thus confirmed

by the location of the majority of the Archaic amphora.

The other part of MRAP's survey area where Corinthian

transport amphoras were abundant is the area of Margelliç,

including its acropolis and lower town (nine samples).

Such overland movement of Corinthian products, some 25 km

into the countryside, probably represents trade between

Apollonia and that Illyrian stronghold.

The Type A transport amphoras from MRAP provide

welcome evidence that Apollonia was in existence prior to

588 B.C. Six amphoras from the MRAP sample group date to

the Early Archaic period.1246 Koehler has postulated that of

these amphoras, four range in date from the mid to late 7th

century B.C.1247 Two of these come from the necropolis of

Apollonia, and two from Margelliç.1248 Two other samples are

also probably earlier than 588 B.C., but could be as late

as 550 B.C.1249 Both were found in the necropolis. Five of

the Early Archaic amphoras are Type A; AS66 is an imitation

of Type A.

1246
AS2, AS22, AS66, AS76, AS86, and AS42. All dates used here were
provided by Koehler.
1247
AS2, AS22, AS76, and AS86.
1248
AS2 and AS22 are from the necropolis, AS76 and AS86 are from
Margelliç.
1249
AS66 and AS42.

350
 Two additional amphoras, one Type A, one Type A',

might be Early Archaic, but could be as late as the end of

the Archaic period.1250 Two of Type B are certainly Late

Archaic in date.1251 Of these four, two were found near the

acropolis of Apollonia, one near Margelliç, and the fourth

at a site on the ridge above the Shtyllas valley.1252 Of the

ten Archaic amphoras, only the last is not from the area of

a major center.

N. Ceka, who conducted excavations at Margelliç in the

1970s and 1980s, illustrated about two dozen rims from

Corinthian Type A amphoras that he found in his 1982

campaign.1253 Based on his illustrations, Koehler has

confirmed his dating of the majority to the second half of

the 7th century B.C., but notes that several might be

earlier still, perhaps from the first half of the 7th

century B.C.1254

Ceka contends, because of the early date of his

Corinthian transport amphoras, that Illyrian centers like

Margelliç (and nearby Gurzeza, where he also excavated) had

pre-colonization contact with Greeks, independent of the

1250
AS63 and AS77.
1251
AS65 and AS100.
1252
AS63, AS65, AS77, and AS100 respectively.
1253
Ceka 1986, p. 71. For excavations at Margelliç, see Praschniker and
Schober 1919; Ceka 1977-1978, 1983c, 1985, 1987a, 1995, p. 454; and
Lafe 2003, pp. 49-54.
1254
Pers. comm. A few of the amphoras might be slightly later (early
6th century B.C.). Ceka 1986, p. 72.

351
colony at Apollonia.1255 This interpretation is in keeping

with the communist ideology discussed in Chapter 3. It is

more probable, however, as noted in Chapter 5, that the

colony was already established in the later part of the 7th

century B.C. and that amphoras were being transshipped

through it to Margelliç, since the earliest Corinthian

amphoras in the necropolis of Apollonia and at Margelliç

are contemporary.

Results of the Scientific Analysis of MRAP Amphoras

Several different methodologies are employed in this

study of amphoras. Koehler provided typological and

chronological data based on her macroscopic and stylistic

analysis. Gerke and Manard employed Rigaku X-ray

Florescence (XRF) to establish major and minor rare earth

(trace) elements in each sample and macroscopic and

microscopic thin section analysis to determine the

petrographic composition of inclusions.1256 Characterization

studies were also employed to learn what raw materials were

included in the composition of imported amphoras.

1255
See Ceka 1995.
1256
Their examination of thin sections determined the porosity and
permeability of each. Porosity refers to the number of pores or voids
in the clay; permeability indicates the amount of connection between
the pores, which allows for the penetration of water; if the voids are
not connected, the vessel will be watertight, even if there are
numerous pores. See Vandiver and Koehler 1986.

352
 A small part of each sherd was ground into powder in a

tungsten carbide ball mill for XRF analysis.1257 The major

elements recorded for each sample are SiO2, Ti O2, Al2O3,

Fe2O3, MnO, MgO, CaO, Na2O, K2O, and P2O5. The minor or trace

elements that were noted are Mo, Nb, Zr, Y, Sr, U, Rb, Th,

Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Cr, V, and Ba. Intensity data were

converted to weight percent (wt%) or parts per million

(ppm) using simple and multiple regressions applied to

United States Geological Survey and Japanese Geologic

Survey rock standards. The major elements that were then

singled out for plotting are K2O (potassium) and CaO

(calcium), and the trace elements Ni (nickel) and Cr

(chrome) (Fig. 6.2). Potassium and calcium were chosen on

the assumption that calcium content would remain fairly

constant between different amphora types, whereas Type A

and A' amphoras would be higher in potassium since this

mineral was typically added to the clay body as a flux.1258

Nickel and chrome were selected as the trace elements in an

attempt to distinguish local Albanian from Corinthian

products; Albanian soils are very high in both, whereas

Corinthian soils are low in both (Fig. 6.3).1259

1257
The sample was ground to a particle size of 5 to 10 microns.
1258
Potash is comprised largely of potassium. Therefore, variation
represented on K20 and CaO plots is likely to be a function of
technology rather than of the source material.
1259
Identification and collection of local clays for export was
conducted by Gerke, with assistance from Ols Lafe, during the 2005

353
 Most of the Type A amphoras have similar amounts of

chrome and nickel and fall into one cluster when these

minor elements are plotted (Fig. 6.4). AS5 has the highest

concentration of nickel, and AS77 has the highest amount of

chrome. When broken down by period, some of the earlier

Type A amphoras have slightly more nickel than the later.

AS2, however, which is Early Archaic in date, falls exactly

within the nickel range of the later sherds.

Corinthian Type B amphoras fall into two distinct

clusters, one large and one small. Many of those that

Koehler had trouble categorizing and ultimately classified

as B or B local fall into a smaller group on the left of

the plot. It is likely that these were all from one

production center. This group includes AS79, AS82, and

AS83. “Local” Type B amphoras (i.e., those that were

theorized at the outset of the program of analysis to have

been produced locally) are low in both nickel and chrome;

the analysis, therefore, refuted the initial supposition

that they were locally manufactured.

Several possibly locally produced and "mixed" amphoras

had been selected by Koehler because she was curious about

the technology used to manufacture them. A working

hypothesis was that these vessels had been produced in the

season at Bonjakët. Analyses of the clays were performed in Cincinnati

during the winter of 2006.

354
vicinity of Apollonia from local clays. It was, therefore,

expected that they would plot with the other “local” Type B

amphoras in a cluster that was expected to be distinct from

Corinthian imports.

Other initial theories were also disproved by the

analysis. One group of Type A' amphoras, the early ones,

had been expected to resemble the Type A amphoras, even

though the clays are different, because the inclusions are

the same;1260 a second group of A' amphoras, the later ones,

had been expected to plot closer to those of Type B because

they share the same clay type and because they lack added

temper. No chronological differentiation is, however,

apparent. Several early examples of Type A' (AS56, AS93,

AS96, and AS98) plot near the group of Type A; they are

slightly higher in nickel than the Type A group, but are

similar in their chrome content. Three other early Type A'

amphoras, (AS48, AS81, and AS89) plot with a smaller group

of Type B. Two others, (AS51 and AS63), fall close to the

large cluster of Type B amphoras. One (AS59), is an

outlier. Of the amphoras that were identified as Type A or

A', four (AS11, AS18, AS25, and AS40), plot most closely

with the Type A' examples. Seven are associated with the

1260
The powder analyzed is composed of both clay and temper. For this
reason, any two sherds from the same pot will not necessarily plot on
top of each other. This effect can be seen in the slightly different
amounts of Cr and Ni that are present in AS47a and b, which represent
two sherds from the same vessel.

355
large Type A group (AS8, AS19, AS38, AS43, AS44, AS62,

AS69]). One (AS21) plots between the A and A' group, and

another (AS15), is an outlier.

The variation apparent when Type A amphoras are

plotted suggests that these vessels were produced in

several Corinthian workshops, each using a clay with a

slightly different chemical signature. It is, indeed,

likely that there were a number of workshops at Corinth

itself, and that clay would have been mixed by each in a

slightly different way; perhaps there were other production

centers around the Isthmus and at other "Corinthian"

centers such as Corcyra.1261 On the other hand, it is not

possible to draw any significant conclusions about change

through time since the sample is small and most examples

are not tightly dated (Fig. 6.5).

Transport Amphoras from MRAP: A Preliminary Synthesis

The original goal of the particular research program

discussed in this chapter was not to examine trade patterns

in general between Apollonia and the outside world, but

rather to study in detail evidence for the earliest

contacts between Corinth and Apollonia and between

Apollonia and sites in the hinterland. On the other hand,

the virtual absence of other types of transport amphoras of

1261
Whitbread 1995a, p. 28.

356
non-Corinthian provenances (e.g., Chian, Thasian, Euboean,

etc.) among the 1189 pre-Medieval examples in the MRAP

database suggests that Apollonia and its chora had a

special relationship with Corinth, especially in the

Archaic and Classical periods.

It is not yet possible to answer questions about what

types of commodities the colonists at Apollonia were

importing in Corinthian amphoras or why they were importing

them. It is likely that the use of Corinthian products is

indicative of a certain degree of dependence on the

metropolis. It is also likely that the colonists imported

agricultural products that they could not or did not

produce themselves. They probably did not, for example,

produce their own olive oil in the early years of the

colony. Even commodities that were produced locally might

also have been imported from Corinth because of their

prestige value.

The typological and scientific analysis of amphoras

collected by MRAP in the hinterland of Apollonia

demonstrates conclusively that there were contacts with

Corinth prior to the traditional foundation date of the

colony. These early amphoras are all Corinthian Type A and

belong to the earliest generation of amphoras manufactured

at Corinth. The presence of imported Archaic amphoras at

357
Apollonia and in the hinterland, as well as imitations of

Corinthian jars, confirms that already in the Archaic

period Apollonia was a well-integrated part of a Greek

oikoumene.

358
A Catalogue of Amphoras Sampled

The concluding section of this chapter presents a

detailed catalogue of all amphoras included in the

scientific analysis discussed above. The following

information is presented for each entry, according to a

consistent format:

1) Amphora sample #; vessel type, shape and part.

The catalogue is organized by MRAP amphora sample

numbers (AS). Amphora sample numbers were assigned in the

year that each sample was exported. They are not

sequentially numbered according to MRAP collection units

(SRCU). The vessel shape is, in most cases, a transport

amphora. Most pieces are either Corinthian or imitation

(Corinthian). Type B amphoras are here referred to as

"Corinthian," rather than Corinthian/Corcyraean.1262

2) Figure references.

3) MRAP SRCU, associated site number, if applicable,

and zone number.

The MRAP collection unit and sequence number (SRCU) is

given. If the sherd is from a MRAP tract that is

associated with a site, the site number is provided in

parentheses. The zone number follows the SRCU.

4) Dimensions
1262
See above.

359
 Measurements are given in centimeters. Dimensions

were not systematically recorded for the initial 46

examples before they were sampled, and in some cases are,

therefore, not available.

5) Catalogue entry

a. Form description (number of sherds, elaboration on

part and shape).1263

b. Fabric description (hardness, texture, core and

surface Munsell colors.1264

I have used Koehler's chromatic terminology (i.e.,

color designations). Her Munsell numbers and Munsell

colors are provided in parentheses. Readings were taken in

the museum workroom at the site, where both the natural and

artificial light are very inconsistent. She often recorded

Munsell numbers that fall between the lines of those given

in the Munsell book. In such cases, the applicable color

range is given. If she did not provide a color

description, I have used the Munsell color listed on the

chart. I have supplied any missing Munsell information;

she had provided the Munsell data largely for the 55 sherds

that were catalogued and taken to Cincinnati in 2003. My

Munsell readings were taken inside, beneath a Halogen

1263
Koehler's method of pot description is from the bottom up.
1264
Munsell numbers are provided, even though Whitbread (1986b, pp. 97-
98) notes how misleading a macroscopic description of fabric color can
be. He suggests refiring sherds at 1100˚C for 3 hours in an electric
kiln with oxidizing atmosphere to determine their "true" color.

360
light. They are provided in brackets [], with the Munsell

color description following the number. Our color readings

vary slightly; mine tend to be a bit redder than Koehler's.

Only one Munsell number is provided when the color of the

biscuit and surfaces are uniform.

c. Inclusions: quantity, size, shape, color; presence

of voids.

The description of inclusions in the catalogue is

based on macroscopic observation. The order in which

inclusions are presented is based on their frequency, with

the most numerous given first. Inclusions are described as

angular or rounded.1265

d. Surface features.

e. Additional information.

6) MRAP Period. Date.

MRAP periods are given first. The date ranges for

periods are as presented in Table 1.1. The period is

followed by a more precise date, given in years, when

Koehler was able to supply it. Question marks after the

more refined date mean that it is uncertain, but possible.

7) Information about where each sample plots is

presented first for Ni and Cr, and second for K and Ca.

1265
See Whitbread 1986a, pp. 80-81 for a discussion of inclusion shapes.

361
 The following items are used in the special sense here

defined:

Imitation: Imitations look Corinthian in shape, but

the fabric, although similar, is not Corinthian. As

Koehler examined the corpus of transport amphoras, she

noticed that a number of pieces were similar to Corinthian

Type B amphoras in shape, and had fabric that was similar

but not identical to what she recognizes as Corinthian.

She called these "imitation Corinthian Type B," and their

fabric is described as "fine fabric similar to Corinthian

B."

"Local": A number of the imitation Corinthian Type B

amphoras have a fabric that is macroscopically similar to

that of jars excavated on the acropolis of Apollonia now

kept in the museum storerooms. These are designated as

Local? since it was previously thought that vessels with

this fabric were produced at Apollonia; the analysis of

local clays in the vicinity of the site, however, suggests

otherwise.

Mixed: Mixed indicates that two different clays are

visible as separate, joined layers; one is usually "blond,"

i.e., pale or yellowish-brown (2.5Y 8/3), and the other is

362
reddish brown (2.5YR 5/8). These amphoras are thought to

be local.

Amphora Catalogue

AS1 Type B Transport Amphora, rim

A-191-06, Zone 3.

Not Available.

Fragment preserves small part of rim, with possible

rounded outer edge and upper face sloping to interior.

Fine to medium-fine beige to cream fabric [10YR 8/2, very

pale brown]. Some tiny gray inclusions; some tiny voids.

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-400 B.C.

Plots near upper group of Bs.

AS2 Type A Transport Amphora, rim and neck

Fig. 6.6.

B-094-04 (S007), Zone 2.

Est. Diam. (interior) 14.0 (15%); est. Diam.

(exterior) 20.0; p.H. 5.0; Th. 1.8; W. of rim 4.0.

Two joining fragments preserve part of horizontal rim

and upper neck. Rim is heavy, broad, and overhanging with

concave outer face; upper and lower faces slope slightly.

Hard coarse fabric with thin gray-brown core [10YR 6/1,

gray] and orange exterior bands (5YR 7/8, reddish yellow).

363
Many large and medium rounded and angular gray, dark gray,

red-brown, and white inclusions.

Early Archaic. 650-550 B.C., probably 625-600 B.C.

Plots slightly outside A cluster, near lower A' group.

AS3 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

B-022-29 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.6-0.7.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse dark gray-brown

core [1GL 6/N, bluish gray] with orange outer bands [2.5YR

6/8, light red] and tan outer surface [7.5YR 6/4, light

brown]. Many large and medium angular gray and red-brown

inclusions. Fabric and fracture look very like Corinthian

Type A. Possibly slipped. Probably Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic. Probably 500-300 B.C.

Plots near A'/A or A' group.

AS4 Pithos, body sherd

B-090-04 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.6.

Body sherd of pithos; wall too thick for transport

amphora. Hard coarse orange to light-brown fabric [5YR

7/6-10YR 6/3, reddish yellow to pale brown] with vitrified

364
grayish-brown interior surface [2.5Y 5/2]. Many small gray

and white inclusions, some large angular white and gray

ones, and a few extremely large rounded white and gray.

Possible import, but not Corinthian.

Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Outlier.

AS5 Type A? Transport Amphora, handle

B-022-08 (S007), Zone 2.

Not Available.

Fragment preserves small part of lower attachment of

large handle, round in section, and part of body wall.

Hard coarse fabric with dark gray core [10YR 4/1], orange

outer band [5YR 6/8, reddish yellow], and tan surface

[7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow]. Many large angular red and

gray inclusions, and some small white ones; horizontal

voids. Worn surface. Possibly overfired.

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-450 B.C.?

Plots near, but not in, A cluster.

AS6 Type A? Transport Amphora, handle

B-094-01 (S007), Zone 2.

Not Available.

365
 Small fragment of handle. Hard coarse fabric with

bluish gray core [2GL 6/5PB] and gray-brown surface [7.5YR

6/2, pinkish gray]. Many small to large angular and

rounded gray and white inclusions, some look like mudstone.

Probably Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS7 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

C-176-02, Zone 5.

W. 4.1; Th. 3.9.

Fragment of handle, amygdaloid in section at base.

Hard coarse fabric with gray core [2.5Y 6/1] and orange

outer band [5YR 7/8, reddish yellow]. Many large angular

dark gray and white inclusions; voids. Brown splotches on

surface.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots slightly below main A cluster.

AS8 Type A? Transport Amphora, body sherd

D-341-03, Zone 6.

Th. 1.1.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with yellow-gray core

[2.5Y 6/2, light brownish gray] and orange surfaces [7.5YR

366
7/8, reddish yellow]. Many large angular gray, white, and

dark gray inclusions. Probably Corinthian.

Archaic-Early Classical. 625-400 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

AS9 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

D-372-01, Zone 6.

Not Available.

Small fragment of upper part of handle. Hard coarse

fabric with gray core [5YR 6/1] and orange outer band

[2.5YR 7/6, light red]. Many small to very large rounded

and angular white, gray, black, and red inclusions; many

large voids.

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS10 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

D-372-02, Zone 6.

Est. Diam. 3.6.

Fragment of handle, round in section. Hard coarse

fabric with slightly gray-brown core [10R 6/2, light

brownish gray] and orange outer band [2.5YR 6/8, light

red]. Many large angular brown and gray inclusions, and a

few small rounded white ones; many voids.

367
 Late Archaic-Classical. 500-400 B.C.?

Plots with A cluster.

AS11 Type A? Transport Amphora, handle

D-125-02 (S007), Zone 2.

Est. Diam. ca. 3.6.

Fragment of handle, round in section. Coarse fabric

with dark gray core [2GL 6/5PB, bluish gray] and orange

surface [5YR 7/8, reddish yellow]. Many large angular

white inclusions; many voids. Fracture looks Corinthian.

Worn surface with prominent inclusions. Probably

Corinthian.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots slightly outside A cluster.

AS12 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

D-268-08, Zone 3.

Th. 1.2-1.3.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with dark gray core

[1GL 5/N, gray] and thin orange outer bands [2.5YR 7/6,

reddish yellow]. Many small to large angular white and

gray inclusions; many voids. Dark smudges on surface.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

368
AS13 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

F-330-03, Zone 8.

Th. 1.1.

Body sherd. Hard coarse gray-tan fabric [2.5Y 6/2,

light brownish gray] with thin orange outer bands [2.5YR

7/8, light red]. Some small to large rounded and angular

white, red, and gray inclusions; some voids.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS14 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

J-119-01, Zone 1.

W. 3.0; Th. 3.3.

Fragment of handle, round in section. Hard coarse

fabric with gray core [2GL 6/5PB, bluish gray] and thin

light orange outer band [2.5YR 7/6, light red]. Many large

angular light gray inclusions, and a few small white ones.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic. 450-300 B.C.?

Plots with A cluster.

AS15 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, handle

J-395-07 (S007), Zone 2.

Diam. 3.5.

369
 Fragment preserves lower part of handle, round in

section at base, with part of attachment. Hard coarse tan

fabric [7.5YR 7/3; pink] with paler surface [10YR 8/3, very

pale brown]. Many small to very large angular gray, brown,

and white inclusions, and some small to very large rounded

red ones.

Late Archaic-Early Classical.

Outlier, plots above cluster of Corinthians.

AS16 Type A Transport Amphora, rim and handle

Fig. 6.6.

J-363-01 (S007), Zone 2.

Est. Diam. of rim (exterior) 20.0; W. of rim 4.3; p.H.

9.7; Th. 2.5.

Fragment preserves part of rim and upper part of

"horned" handle. Handle touches overhanging rim, rim has

slightly sloping upper face. Hard coarse fabric with gray-

brown core [10YR 4/2, dark grayish brown], thick orange

bands [2.5YR 5/6, red], and beige surfaces [5YR 6/6,

reddish yellow]. Many small to large angular red-brown

inclusions; some voids.

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-400 B.C.

Plots slightly above and to right of A cluster with

A's.

370
AS17 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-393-12 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with gray core [1GL

6/N] and orange outer bands [5YR 7/6, reddish yellow].

Fabric more red-gray than other Corinthian Type A samples.

Some large angular brown and gray inclusions; many voids.

Archaic-Early Hellenistic. 600-300 B.C.

Plots at upper end of A cluster.

AS18 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-393-14 (S007), Zone 2.

Not Available.

Body sherd. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 7/4-7/6,

pink to reddish yellow]. Very many small to large angular

brown inclusions. Probably A'.

Archaic-Early Classical.

Plots with A' cluster.

AS19 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, neck

J-393-15 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 4.7; Th. 1.1.

371
 Fragment preserves small part of lower neck. Hard

coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 7/4, pink]. Very many medium to

large angular gray, dark gray, and red inclusions; some

voids. Possibly A'?

Archaic-Early Classical.

Plots with A cluster.

AS20 Imitation Type A? Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-393-16 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.1.

Two joining body sherds. Hard coarse beige fabric

[7.5YR 7/2, pinkish gray] with pink surfaces [7.5YR 7/4].

Many medium to large angular white, gray, and red

inclusions, and a few tiny sparkles. Not Corinthian,

probably not local.

Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots near lower B and "B local" group.

AS21 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-393-17 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.9.

Body sherd. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 8/6,

reddish yellow] with slightly lighter surfaces [7.5YR 8/4,

pink]. Very many small to large angular gray, dark gray,

372
and white inclusions, and a few medium rounded red ones.

Could be A'?

Late Archaic-Classical.

Plots with A or A'.

AS22 Type A Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.6.

J-394-10 (S007), Zone 2.

Est. Diam. 22.0.

Fragment preserves small part of horizontal

overhanging rim. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 7/4, pink].

Very many medium to very large angular brown and dark gray

inclusions; many voids.

Early Archaic. 650-600 B.C., probably 650-625 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

AS23 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-395-03 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.1-1.2.

Body sherd. Hard coarse gray-brown fabric [10YR 5/2,

grayish brown] with tan outer bands [7.5YR 7/4, pink].

Many small to very large angular red-brown inclusions, a

few small white and dark gray ones, and a few small

sparkles; a few voids.

373
 Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots slightly to the left of main A cluster.

AS24 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

J-395-04 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.6-0.7.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse beige fabric

[7.5YR 7/4, pink] with very pale brown surfaces [10YR 8/4].

Many large angular brown and dark gray inclusions. Fabric

very like Corinthian Type A or A' fabric. Coated?

Probably Corinthian. Possibly same vessel as J-395-13

(AS29).

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A' cluster.

AS25 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-395-06 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.1.

Body sherd. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 8/3, pink].

Many small to very large angular dark gray and red

inclusions, and a few white ones.

Late Archaic-Early Classical.

Plots with A'/A or A' groups.

374
AS26 Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-395-09 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Gritty medium-coarse orange-tan fabric

[5YR 7/6, reddish yellow]. Many small to medium red, gray,

and white inclusions, and some small sparkles; some small

horizontal voids. Not Corinthian.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Outlier.

AS27 Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-395-10 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Gritty medium-coarse orange-tan fabric

[2.5YR 6/6, light red]. Many small to medium white and

gray inclusions, and many small sparkles. Not Corinthian.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with lower group of Bs and B locals.

AS28 Closed shape, Corinthian, body sherd

J-395-11 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.6-0.7.

375
 Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Coarse tan fabric [10YR 8/4,

very pale brown] with slightly redder surfaces [7.5YR 8/4,

pink]. Many large angular red and dark gray inclusions.

Fabric is definitely Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Classical.

Plots with A, A', and A or A' clusters.

AS29 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

J-395-13 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.6-0.7.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse beige fabric

[7.5YR 7/4, pink] with very pale brown surfaces [10YR 8/4].

Many large angular gray and brown inclusions. Fabric is

probably Corinthian. Coated? Possibly same vessel as J-

395-04 (AS24).

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A' cluster.

AS30 Pithos?, Corinthian?, rim

Fig. 6.6.

J-396-01 (S006), Zone 2.

Diam. 50.0; p.H. 5.0.

376
 Fragment of heavy overhanging pithos rim with flat top

and slightly sloping outer face. Hard coarse tan fabric

[7.5YR 7/4, pink] with gray core [10YR 6/1]. Many small to

large angular brown, gray, and red inclusions, and a few

small white ones; voids. Fabric very like Corinthian Type

A. Probably Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Classical.

Plots with A cluster.

AS31 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-771-18, Zone 7.

Th. 0.9.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with light gray-brown

core [10YR 6/2, light brownish gray] and orange outer bands

[5YR 7/6, reddish yellow]. Many large to small angular

brown inclusions, and a few large rounded white ones.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS32 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

J-398-09 (S006), Zone 2.

Th. 0.7-0.8.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse orange-tan fabric

377
[5YR 7/6, reddish yellow]. Many small to large angular

gray and red inclusions. Fabric similar to Corinthian Type

A. Probably Corinthian.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS33 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

J-400-03 (S007), Zone 2.

Th. 0.6-0.7.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR

7/6, reddish yellow]. Many small to very large angular

brown, red, and gray inclusions. Fabric is very similar

Corinthian Type A. Probably Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Falls at top of A cluster with A's and A or A's.

AS34 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, body sherd

Fig. 6.6.

J-401-04 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 11.0; Th. 1.1.

Body sherd. Hard medium-coarse tan fabric [10YR 8/3,

very pale brown]. Many small to medium angular gray and

white inclusions, and many small rounded white ones.

378
Fabric is similar to Corinthian Type B, but with more

inclusions. Imitation Corinthian fabric?

Late Archaic-Classical.

Plots with large cluster of Bs.

AS35 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd.

J-619-02, Zone 7.

Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Very hard medium-coarse gray fabric [1GL

5/N] with thin central band of red [10YR 5/4, weak red] and

tan surfaces [2.5YR 6/4, light reddish brown]. Some small

to medium gray and white inclusions. Weathered surfaces.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS36 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

J-653-01, Zone 7.

Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with light gray core

[1GL 6/N, gray] and orange outer bands [2.5YR 6/6, light

red]. Many medium angular gray and white inclusions, and a

few large rounded white ones.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

379
AS37 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

J-660-01, Zone 7.

W. 4.1; Th. 4.1.

Fragment preserves base of handle, round in section,

with lower attachment and part of shoulder wall. Hard

coarse fabric with gray core [1Gl 6/N] and orange outer

band [2.5YR 6/6-5YR 6/6, light red to reddish yellow].

Many small and some medium and large angular gray, red, and

white inclusions.

Late Archaic-Classical. Probably 500-400 B.C.,

possibly later.

Plots with A cluster.

AS38 Type A? Transport Amphora?, body sherd

J-673-01, Zone 7.

Th. 0.7.

Body sherd with very thin walls. Hard coarse dark

gray fabric [1GL 5/N, gray] with gray surfaces [2.5Y 5/1].

Many small to large rounded and angular white and gray

inclusions, and some medium red ones; many horizontal

voids. Inclusions protrude through surface. Burned or

overfired?

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

380
 Plots near A cluster.

AS39 Closed shape, Corinthian?, body sherd

S005-001G-07, Zone 2.

Th. 0.7.

Body sherd of large, coarse, closed vessel; walls too

thin for transport amphora. Hard coarse fabric with gray

core [10YR 5/1] and orange exterior band [5YR 7/6, reddish

yellow]. Many small to large angular brown, gray, and

white inclusions. Fabric similar to Corinthian Type A.

Possibly Corinthian.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots below A cluster.

AS40 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, body sherd

S005-001G-06, Zone 2.

Th. 0.9.

Body sherd. Hard coarse tan fabric [7.5YR 7/4, pink].

Many medium to large angular gray, red, and brown

inclusions, and a few medium rounded white ones; some

voids.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic. 500-400 B.C.?

Plots with A' cluster.

381
AS41 Closed shape, Corinthian?, base

Fig. 6.6.

S009-003G-11, Zone 4.

Est. Diam. 22.0.

Fragment preserves part of flat circular base with

concave sides, separately made and articulated from flaring

body wall. Hard coarse orange-tan fabric [5YR 7/6, reddish

yellow]. Many small to large angular brown and gray

inclusions, and a few large and very large rounded white

ones. Fabric is rather like Corinthian Type A.

Late Archaic-Classical.

Outlier. Plots above A and B clusters.

AS42 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

S016-004G-03, Zone 2.

P.H. 4.6; W. 5.1; Th. 5.0.

Fragment preserves lower attachment of large handle,

round in section, and part of body wall. Hard coarse gray-

brown fabric (5YR 5.5/1.5, gray to reddish gray) with beige

surface (10YR 8/3, very pale brown). Many small to large

angular dark gray and brown inclusions, and two large soft

white ones; voids.

Early Archaic. Probably 650-600 B.C., but could go to

575 B.C.

382
 Slightly outside A cluster near upper B cluster.

AS43 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, handle

S016-010G-01, Zone 2.

P.H. 8.2; W. 3.7; Th. 3.9.

Fragment preserves middle section of curved handle,

round in section. Hard coarse fabric with gray core (1GL

5/N) and beige outer band (7.5YR 7/5, pink to reddish

yellow). Many large angular brown and gray inclusions, and

a few small to medium white ones. Fabric perhaps more like

Corinthian Type A?

Late Archaic-Middle Hellenistic. Most likely 500-450

B.C., but possibly 300-275 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

AS44 Type A? Transport Amphora, body sherd

S016-010G-05, Zone 2.

Th. 0.9.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with gray core [1GL

6/N] and orange outer bands [7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow].

Many medium to large angular white, gray, and brown

inclusions; many voids. Inclusions protrude through worn

surfaces.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

383
 Plots with A cluster.

AS45 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

S016-005G-09, Zone 2.

Th. 0.9.

Body sherd with thin walls. Hard coarse fabric with

gray core [2GL 6/5PB, bluish gray] and thin orange outer

bands [5YR 7/6, reddish yellow]. Many small to large

angular dark gray, white, and brown inclusions; many voids.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with A cluster.

AS46 Type A Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.6.

S016-005G-10, Zone 2.

P.H. 6.5; max. p.Diam. of toe 6.2.

Fragment preserves part of short broad peg toe and

beginning of body wall. Hard coarse fabric with gray core

(1GL 5/N), orange outer bands (2.5YR 6/8, light red), and

orange surface (5YR 7/6, reddish yellow). Many small to

large angular gray, red, and white inclusions, and some

very large angular gray and white ones.

Late Classical. 400-350 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

384
AS47 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherds

A-054-01/05 (S002), Zone 4.

(-01) P.L. 5.5; p.W. 4.8; (-05) p.L. 6.0; p.W. 4.8.

Two joining body sherds. Very hard coarse orange

fabric (10R 6/8, light red) with lighter surfaces (5YR 7/8,

reddish yellow). Many large angular red-orange, brown, and

beige inclusions; long voids parallel to surface. Typical

Corinthian Type A fabric. Drip of dark fired slip on

interior.

Classical-Early Hellenistic. 450-300 B.C.

Both samples (a, and b) plot with A cluster.

AS48 Type A' Transport Amphora, toe and body sherd

Fig. 6.6.

A-054-06/03 (S002), Zone 4.

(-03) P.H. ca. 10.5; H. of toe 3.4; Diam. 5.8; (-06)

p.L. 9.0; p.W. 7.0; Th. 2.2.

Two joining fragments preserve complete toe and part

of lower body. "Cap" toe shaped like truncated cone.

Broad groove above upper edge. Hard medium-coarse beige

fabric (5YR 7/5, a little toward 7.5 YR 8/6, pink to

reddish yellow). A few small and large angular gray and

brown inclusions; voids.

385
 Classical-Early Hellenistic. 425-300 B.C.

Plots with small lower group of A'.

AS49 Type B Transport Amphora, handle

Fig. 6.7.

A-054-11 (S002), Zone 4.

P.H. ca. 20.0; W. 4.8; Th. 3.7.

Fragment preserves vertical side to beginning of curve

of large heavy handle, oval in section, and part of lower

attachment. Powdery medium-coarse creamy-beige fabric

(closest to 10YR 8/4, slightly toward 7.5YR, very pale

brown to pink). Many small angular gray and brown

inclusions, and a few medium rounded red ones. Worn

surface.

Middle Hellenistic. 300-250 B.C.

Plots with lower cluster of Bs.

AS50 Type A Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.7.

A-102-02, Zone 4.

P.H. 2.5.

Fragment of heavy sloping overhanging rim. Hard

coarse fabric with dark gray core [1GL 5/N, gray] and

orange surfaces (5YR 6.5/6, reddish yellow). Many large

386
angular gray and red-brown inclusions, some medium and

small beige and red ones, and a few medium white.

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic. 400-300 B.C., but

possibly as early as 425 B.C.

Plots with lower part A cluster.

AS51 Type A' Transport Amphora, handle

A-122-03 (S015), Zone 4.

P.H. 5.5; W. 3.0; Th. 3.0.

Fragment of handle, round in section, from curved

part. Hard coarse beige fabric (7.5YR 7/4, pink). Many

large angular gray and red inclusions, and some small dark

ones. Red inclusions [2.5YR 6/4, light reddish brown] look

like mudstone. Much gray deposit on surface. Possible

palmette stamp near base?

Classical. Probably 480-400 B.C.

Plots with upper A' group.

AS52 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

A-145-02, Zone 4.

P.H. 3.9; p.W. 3.4.

Body sherd from base of neck. Hard coarse fabric with

dark gray core (closest to 7.5YR 6/1, gray) and orange

387
surfaces (5YR 7/7, reddish yellow). Many medium to large

angular gray, red-brown, and white inclusions.

Classical-Early Hellenistic. Probably 480-400 B.C.

Plots with A cluster on right near a few A or A's.

AS53 Small Type B? Transport Amphora, handle

A-169-02, Zone 4.

P.L. 4.6; W. 3.5; Th. 2.0.

Fragment of small vertical handle, flattened oval in

section, with edges pinched and slight central rib on

either face. Powdery medium-coarse beige fabric (7.5YR

7/5, pink to reddish yellow). Some very small gray

inclusions. Possibly local? imitation, but looks

Corinthian.

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 400-275 B.C.

Plots with large B cluster.

AS54 Imitation Type B? Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.7.

A-187-01, Zone 4.

P.H. 3.8.

Fragment preserves small part of flaring rim with

nearly horizontal upper face. Rim has flaring outer face

nearly straight in profile and lower edge offset outside.

388
Powdery medium-coarse orange fabric (2.5YR 6/6, light red)

with slightly lighter surfaces [5YR 6/6, reddish yellow].

Many very small gray, red, and white inclusions, a few

large red-orange and white ones, and trace of sparkles.

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic?

Plots with A cluster.

AS55 Small Type B Transport Amphora, nearly complete

profile

B-014-03 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. of body and toe 15.0; p.H. of neck and shoulder

ca. 3.0; Diam. of handle (interior) 7.7; W. of handle at

base 1.1; Th. of handle at base 1.4; W. of handle at outer

curve 1.7; Th. of handle at outer curve 1.6.

Forty-five joining and non-joining fragments preserve

part of body with top of toe, small part of shoulder with

small part of lower neck, 2/3 of one handle, another small

part of neck, and multiple body sherds of a very finely

made "table size" Corinthian Type B amphora. Largest

fragment consists of beginning of "cap" toe and rounded

lower 1/2 of body. Handle is round in section. Soft

powdery very fine tan fabric (10YR 7.5/5, very pale brown

to yellow). Some very small gray inclusions, and a few

389
very small white ones; a few very small voids. Some faint

wheel ridging on body interior and rather more on neck.

Early Classical. 450-400 B.C.?

Plots with large B cluster.

AS56 Type A' Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.7.

B-043-02 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 4.6; max. Diam. of toe 5.8.

Fragment preserves complete toe to bevel and concave

side to beginning of flair of body wall. Hard coarse

grayish-tan fabric [10YR 7/4, very pale brown]. Many large

angular dark brown, red, gray, and white inclusions, one

very large angular white one, and one very large rounded

red.

Early Classical. 450-400 B.C.?

Plots with upper A' cluster.

AS57 Small Imitation? Type B? Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.7.

B-045-02 (S006), Zone 2.

P.H. 4.8; est. Diam. of toe 2.1.

Fragment preserves complete toe of very small

transport amphora. Almost button toe. Powdery very fine

390
tan fabric (7.5YR 7/6, reddish yellow). A few tiny brown

inclusions; tiny voids.

Middle Hellenistic. 300-250 B.C.

Outlier. Plots top right corner with AS75.

AS58 Type B Transport Amphora, handle

C-177-01, Zone 5.

P.H. 4.0; W. 4.0; Th. 2.9.

Fragment preserves upper curve of arched handle,

flattened oval in section, with pull marks characteristic

of 2nd half of 4th century to 1st half of 3rd century B.C.

Point where flaring rim touched handle is visible. Fine

beige fabric [7.5YR 8/4, pink]. A few very small brown,

gray, and red-orange inclusions, a few tiny white ones, and

trace of sparkles; voids.

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 350-250 B.C.

Plots with large B cluster.

AS59 Type A or A' Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.7.

D-203-02, Zone 3.

P.H. 4.1; Diam. of toe 6.0.

Fragment preserves complete solid toe, approximately

cylindrical, with concave bottom. Lower side vertical to

391
flaring, convex outer profile which then curves in.

Medium-coarse orange fabric (2.5YR 6.5/6, light red) with

beige outer band (7.5YR 7/5, pink to reddish yellow). Some

very small red-orange and brown inclusions, and a few

medium red ones; voids.

Classical. 475-375 B.C.

Outlier. High in Cr.

AS60 Imitation? Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

H-003-01, Zone 6.

P.L. 6.6; p.W. 4.0; Th. 1.1.

Body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with gray core (2GL

7/5PB, bluish gray) and orange exterior surface (2.5YR 6/6,

light red). Very many large angular dark gray, brown, and

pale yellow inclusions, and some medium light gray and

angular white ones. Inclusions protrude through weathered?

surface. Imitation?

Classical-Early Hellenistic?

Plots at bottom of A cluster.

AS61 Type A? Transport Amphora, handle

J-184-01, Zone 2.

P.H. 8.0; W. 3.8; Th. 3.9.

392
 Fragment preserves base of handle, round in section.

Hard coarse fabric with gray core (2GL 7/10B, light bluish

gray) and orange surface (2.5YR 7/8, light red). Many

large angular gray and red-orange inclusions, and some

large white ones; voids.

Classical-Early Hellenistic. Probably 480-400 B.C.?

Plots in center of A cluster.

AS62 Type A'? Transport Amphora, handle

J-393-04 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 11.3; W. 3.0; Th. 2.8.

Fragment preserves lower 1/2 of slanted handle, round

in section, and attachment. Small round impression punched

at base on either side. Medium-coarse beige fabric (7/5YR

7.5/4, pink) with gray core [1GL 6/N]. Some large angular

gray inclusions, at least one very large dark red one, and

one red-orange; some voids. Imitation?

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-400 B.C.?

Plots with A' cluster.

AS63 Type A' Transport Amphora, handle

J-395-08 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 16.0; W. 3.3; Th. 3.8.

393
 Fragment preserves side of handle from above lower

attachment to outside corner of top. Handle perhaps round

in section at base, side slightly slanted?, outside top

corner is a rounded angle. Very coarse beige fabric (7.5YR

7/5, pink to reddish yellow). Very many very large angular

red, brown, and gray inclusions. Inclusions protrude

through surface.

Archaic. 600-480 B.C.?

Plots with A' cluster.

AS64 Type B? Transport Amphora, handle

J-398-12 (S006), Zone 2.

P.H. 8.5; W. 3.9; Th. 2.2.

Fragment preserves upper side and beginning of curve

of arched handle, flattened oval in section. Soft medium-

fine beige fabric (7.5YR 7/4, pink). A few small angular

red, orange, and brown inclusions, and trace of sparkles.

Worn surface.

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic?

Plots with large B cluster.

AS65 Type B Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.7.

J-399-03 (S007), Zone 2.

394
 P.H. 4.2; est. Diam. 15.0; H. of rim 3.1.

Fragment preserves part of rim with flat upper surface

and convex outer face. Groove around neck 1 cm. below base

of rim. Medium-coarse creamy beige fabric (2.5Y 8/3-10YR

8/3, pale yellow to very pale brown). Some small rounded

gray and brown inclusions, and one large angular brown one.

Late Archaic. 525-500 B.C.

Plots with large B cluster.

AS66 Imitation Type A Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.7.

J-401-01 (S007), Zone 2.

P.H. 7.8; max. Diam. of base 9.5; Diam. of base

(bottom) 8.2.

Fragment preserves complete base and beginning of body

walls. Wide shallow cylindrical toe with nearly flat

bottom and outward sloping beveled lower edge with concave

sides above that flare to beginning of body wall. Hard

coarse beige fabric (7.5YR 7/4, pink). Many small to

medium white and translucent inclusions, some rounded, and

trace of sparkles. Wheel ridging on interior wall and

bottom. Local?

Early Archaic. 625-550 B.C.?

Plots closest to imitation B group. No Ni.

395
AS67 Type B Transport Amphora, handle

J-523-03 (S061), Zone 2.

P.H. 4.7; W. 4.2; Th. 2.2.

Fragment preserves small part of handle at base,

flattened oval in section. Fine beige fabric (10YR 7.5/3,

very pale brown). A few small brown and orange-tan

inclusions. Worn surface.

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-275 B.C.

Outlier. High in Cr.

AS68 Type B? Transport Amphora, handle

J-543-02 (S052), Zone 4.

P.H. 5.5; W. 5.2; Th. 3.0.

Fragment preserves part of upper curve of handle,

flattened oval in section, with small part of neck

attached. Medium-coarse beige fabric (10YR 8/3, very pale

brown). Some medium and small rounded red-orange

inclusions, and some small brown ones. Imitation?

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-275 B.C.?

Plots with imitation B cluster. Very low in Ni.

AS69 Imitation? Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

K-011-08, Zone 6.

396
 Max. Dim. 8.5 x 8.7; Th. 0.8.

Fragment of thin walled, curved body sherd. Hard

coarse fabric with banded gray and orange core (1GL 5/N and

2.5YR 6/8, gray and light red) and reddish yellow exterior

surface (7.5YR 7/6). Many medium to large angular white

and dark gray inclusions, some medium to large yellow ones,

and some small black and white; some voids. Inclusions

protrude through surface. Imitation?

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic?

Plots at bottom of A cluster.

AS70 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6. 7.

K-022-03, Zone 6.

P.H. 3.8; Diam. of toe 3.7.

Fragment preserves complete "button" toe with very

convex bottom, and beginning of very narrow lower body

wall. Medium-coarse beige fabric (closest to 7.5YR 7/4,

pink). Many large rounded orange-tan inclusions, and some

small brown to gray ones. Worn surface. Shape similar to

Corinthian Type B. Local?

Middle Hellenistic. 300-250 B.C.?

Outlier. High in Ni, low in Cr.

397
AS71 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, body sherd

K-043-04, Zone 6.

P.L. 5.7; p.W. 3.9, Th. 1.0.

Body sherd. Powdery coarse fabric mixed with streaks

of orange-tan and blond clays (2.5YR 5/8, red and 2.5Y 8/3,

yellow). Beige surfaces (7.5YR 7/4, very pale brown).

Many large rounded red inclusions (2.5YR 5/8, the same

shade as some of the red streaks), and trace of sparkles.

Sherd shows mixing of red and blond clays like "layers" in

section and on exterior surface. Similar to M-089-09

(AS85) and M-255-01 (AS88). Local?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic? 400-200 B.C.?

Plots by itself closest to lower A' group.

AS72 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, shoulder and

handle attachment

K-060-01, Zone 6.

Max. p.L. 11.0; max. Th. of body 2.0; piece with

handle attachment: p.L. 6.2; p.W. 6.4; 2nd fragment: p.L.

6.2; Th. 1.3-1.4.

Two joining fragments preserve part of shoulder and

beginning of handle attachment. Sherds show mixing of red

and blond clays. Two lengthwise adjoining layers visible

in section. Layers have separated in firing underneath the

398
handle attachment. Exterior layer: coarse orange-tan

fabric (2.5YR 7/5, light reddish brown to light red). Many

large rounded red-orange inclusions (2.5YR 5/8, red), many

small to medium red-orange and brown-gray ones, some small

white, and a few sparkles. Interior layer: coarse beige

fabric (7.5YR 7/4, pink). Many large rounded red-orange

inclusions like the above, and many small gray ones.

Local?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 400-200 B.C.?

Plots with lower B imitation/local cluster.

AS73 Type A Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.7.

K-070-01, Zone 6.

P.H. 5.5; max. p.Diam. of toe 6.0.

Fragment of broad peg toe with outward sloping concave

side above which is a concave side that flares to beginning

of body wall. Hard coarse fabric with gray core (1GL 5/N)

and thin orange outer bands (2.5YR 6/7, light red). Many

large angular gray, orange-red, and white inclusions.

Late Classical. 400-350 B.C.?

Plots in middle of A cluster.

AS74 Small Type B? Transport Amphora?, neck

399
 K-117-01, Zone 6.

P.H. 4.2; p.W. 5.8; Th. 0.6.

Fragment preserves small part of upper neck wall and

upper handle attachment. Powdery fine fabric with pink-

orange core (5YR 7/5, pink to reddish yellow) and beige

surfaces (10YR 7/4, very pale brown). Some small brown and

red inclusions, and a few very small white ones. Possibly

somewhat larger than K-117-02, but at least as thin-walled.

Table amphora or imitation?

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-275 B.C.

Does not plot with B cluster.

AS75 Small Type B? Transport Amphora? or Table Amphora,

rim and neck.

Fig. 6.7.

K-117-02, Zone 6.

P.H. 4.5; p.W. 5.0.

Fragment preserves small part of triangular rim and

upper neck. Rim is flaring, fairly short (profile of outer

face uncertain) with an approximately horizontal upper

face. Vertical strap handle presses close to rim at upper

attachment, probably rose at least to its height. Hard

medium-fine beige fabric (10YR 7/3, very pale brown) with

slightly lighter surfaces (10YR 7.5/4, very pale brown).

400
Many small dark gray or black inclusions, and a few large

brown ones; voids. Possibly table amphora? Shape,

especially rim, is similar to small Corinthian Type B

transport amphora of the late 4th-early 3rd century B.C.,

but probably not because there are no parallels this late.

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-275 B.C.

Outlier. High in Ni and Cr.

AS76 Type A Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.8.

L-028-01 (S055), Zone 11.

P.L. 7.0; p.W. 3.9; Th. of rim 2.5; est. Diam. of rim

18.0.

Fragment preserves small part of horizontal rim,

broken on three sides. Rim is heavy and overhanging with

approximately flat upper and lower faces, lower one is a

bit irregular. Outer face rounded at top with very slight

bevel; concave profile side; sharp, protruding lower edge.

Coarse fabric with gray core [1GL 5/N] and thin orange

outer band (2.5YR 6.5/7, light red). Many large angular

red-brown inclusions, and some medium to large white or

light gray ones.

Early Archaic. 650-600 B.C.

Plots slightly outside large A cluster with Bs.

401
AS77 Type A Transport Amphora, toe

L-035-02 (S055), Zone 11.

P.H. 2.1; p.Diam. (close to Diam. of toe) 6.4.

Fragment preserves 1/2 of bottom of toe. Bottom of

toe is flat, sides vertical in one place, convex in

another. Hard coarse orange-beige fabric (2.5YR 7/8, light

red) with gray to tan core (5YR 6.5/6, reddish yellow).

Many large and small sharp angular gray, brown, red, and

white inclusions, and trace of sparkles.

Archaic. 600-500 B.C.?

Outlier. High in Cr.

AS78 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, handle

L-053-03 (S055), Zone 11.

P.L. 9.5; W. 4.3; Th. 2.8.

Fragment preserves lower 1/2, from base to beginning

of curve, of a battered short? handle, flattened oval in

section. Coarse gray to orange-beige fabric (5YR 7/6,

reddish yellow) with lighter surfaces (7.5YR 7.5/4, pink).

Many large to small dark and light gray inclusions, and

some small sparkles; voids. Local?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 400-275 B.C.

Outlier. High in Cr.

402
AS79 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, handle

L-077-01 (S055), Zone 11.

P.L. 9.8; W. 4.2; Th. above base 2.8.

Fragment preserves lower 1/3 of handle, flattened oval

in section, and small part of shoulder wall attachment.

Coarse fabric with orange core (5YR 6.5/6, reddish yellow)

and beige surfaces (10YR 8/4, very pale brown). Many small

to medium and some very large rounded orange-tan inclusions

(5YR 7/8, reddish yellow), some very small brown ones, and

trace of tiny sparkles; some voids. Local?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 400-275 B.C.

Plots with cluster of B imitations.

AS80 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

L-077-02 (S055), Zone 11.

P.H. ca. 12.0; W. 4.0; Th. 4.0.

Fragment preserves lower part of handle, roughly round

in section, broken at top, bottom, and along most of

interior face. Hard coarse fabric with gray-brown core

(1GL 6/N, gray) and orange outer band (closest to 2.5YR

7/8, light red). Many large, sharp, angular red and gray

inclusions, some small to large white ones, and trace of

sparkles; voids. Possibly stamped?

403
 Early Classical. 350-300 B.C. if stamped.

Plots with A cluster.

AS81 Type A' Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.8.

L-208-01, Zone 11.

P.H. 8.0; Diam. of toe 4.8.

Two joining fragments preserve complete toe and part

of lower body. Toe is truncated cone with irregularly

rounded lower and upper edges. Hard coarse fabric with

orange core (2.5YR 6/8, light red) and beige exterior

surface (7.5YR 7/5, pink to reddish yellow). Many medium

and large angular dark gray, brown, and red inclusions,

some small white ones, and one larger rounded white.

Early Classical. 450-400 B.C.

Plots between A cluster and local B cluster.

AS82 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, handle

L-388-02, Zone 1.

P.L. 9.5; W. 4.4; Th. 3.1.

Fragment preserves lower 1/3 of handle, oval in

section, from base up. Medium-coarse tan fabric (5YR 7/6,

reddish yellow) with slightly paler surface (7.5YR 8/4,

pink). Many medium to large rounded red-brown inclusions

404
(7.5YR 5/6, pink to reddish yellow), some small red and

gray ones, one large white, and trace of sparkles; voids.

Worn surface. Local?

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-200 B.C.

Plots with lower cluster of B imitations.

AS83 Type B? Transport Amphora, handle

L-407-02, Zone 1.

P.L. 10.5; W. 4.8; Th. 3.3.

Fragment preserves lower 1/3 of handle, flattened oval

in section, and attachment. Surface broken on interior

face. Fine beige-tan fabric (7.5YR 7.5/4, pink), slightly

more orange at core (5YR 7/6, reddish yellow). Many small

brown and gray inclusions, a few white ones, and occasional

sparkles. Fabric looks Corinthian, but might be local

imitation.

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-200 B.C.

Plots with imitation B cluster.

AS84 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, handle

M-069-01 (S041), Zone 13.

P.L. 13.0; W. 4.6; Th. 2.6.

Fragment preserves vertical side of handle, slightly

recurved and flattened oval in section, with slightly

405
pinched edges. Coarse beige fabric (10YR 8/3, very pale

brown). Many small to large dark gray, red-brown, and

white inclusions, and some small to medium sparkles; voids.

Gritty surface. Local?

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic?

Plots with imitation B cluster.

AS85 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, handle

M-089-09 (S041), Zone 10.

P.L. 13.0; W. 4.4; Th. 2.7.

Fragment preserves vertical side of misshapen handle,

flattened oval in section. Medium orange-tan fabric (2.5YR

6/8, light red) with streaks of blond clay (7.5YR 8/4,

pink) and slightly lighter surface (7.5YR 7.5/4, pink).

Some large and small red-orange inclusions (2.5YR 6/8,

light red), a few small dark and white ones, and some

sparkles; voids. Worn surface. Sherd shows mixing of red

and blond clays. Mixing streaks clear in patches,

especially where surface sheared off. Fabric and

inclusions similar to K-043-04 (AS71) and M-255-01 (AS88).

Local?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic.

Plots with B "local" cluster.

406
AS86 Type A Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.8.

M-090-06 (S041), Zone 10.

P.H. 6.0; p.Diam. of toe 9.0; est. max. Diam. of toe

12.0; Diam. of bottom 10.0.

Fragment preserves ca. 1/4 of broad toe. Toe is flat

on bottom with lower side flaring to bevel, above which

profile is convex. Can see where outer "cap" was added

onto closed lower body in the section. Very hard coarse

grey to beige fabric (7.5YR 7.5/4, pink). Many large

angular brown and red-brown inclusions, and a few light

gray ones; voids.

Early Archaic. 650-550 B.C., probably 650-600 B.C.

Plots at top of A cluster.

AS87 Imitation? Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

M-195-01, Zone 10.

P.L. 5.4; p.W. 5.1; Th 0.7.

Fragment of thin walled body sherd. Hard coarse

fabric with gray core [2GL 6/5PB, bluish gray], beige-

orange exterior surface (2.5YR 7/5, light reddish brown to

light red), and brown interior (7.5YR 6/2, pinkish gray).

Many very large angular red and gray inclusions, and a few

white ones; voids.

407
 Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots below A cluster.

AS88 Imitation Type B Transport Amphora, shoulder

M-255-01 (S046), Zone 11.

P.L. 10.0; p.W. 7.0; Th. 1.2.

Fragment preserves part of shoulder. Powdery medium-

coarse orange-tan fabric (5YR 7/6, reddish yellow) with

streaks of blond clay (2.5Y 8/3, pale yellow). Some small

to large rounded red-orange inclusions (2.5YR 6/8, light

red), some small dark gray ones, a few white, and trace of

sparkles. Mixed blond and red clays; streaks visible,

especially in sheared-off horizontal interior. Fabric and

inclusions similar to K-043-04 (AS71) and M-089-09 (AS85).

Local fabric resembling Corinthian Type B?

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 400-300 B.C.?

Plots with local cluster.

AS89 Type A'? Transport Amphora, handle

M-305-02, Zone 13.

P.H. 6.6; W. 3.2; Th. 2.9.

Fragment preserves curve of handle, round in section,

from upper part. Coarse beige to orange fabric (5YR 7/4,

pink) with very pale brown surface (10YR 8/3). Many medium

408
to large angular red-brown inclusions, a few angular white

ones, and rare very large orange. Very worn surfaces.

Imitation?

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-400 B.C.

Plots close to B local cluster.

AS90 Type A? Transport Amphora, handle

M-308-01, Zone 13.

P.H. 9.8; W. 3.4; Th. 3.5.

Fragment preserves lower 1/2 of handle, round in

section at base, oval at mid-point, and lower attachment.

Hard coarse fabric with gray core [2GL 6/5PB, bluish gray]

and orange outer band (2.5YR 6/6, light red). Many large

angular red-brown inclusions, some large angular white

ones, and a few small sparkles; voids.

Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic. 500-400 B.C.?

Plots with A cluster.

AS91 Type A Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.8.

M-386-09 (S050), Zone 1.

P.H. 7.0; max. Diam. of toe 6.1.

Fragment preserves complete broad solid peg toe and

beginning of body wall. Toe has flat bottom and sloping

409
sides with a concave curve above that flares to lower body.

Hard coarse fabric with light gray core [1GL 6/N, gray] and

orange outer bands (2.5YR 7/7, light red). Many large

angular gray, white, and orange inclusions, and several

very large angular white ones.

Late Classical. 400-350 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

AS92 Type A? Transport Amphora, body sherd

M-386-36 (S050), Zone 1.

P.L. 8.7; p.W. 5.0; Th. 1.3.

Curved body sherd. Hard coarse fabric with thin gray

core (1GL 6/N), orange outer bands (2.5YR 6/5, light

reddish brown to light red), and orange-red surface (10R

7/7, light red). Many large angular gray and red-orange

inclusions, and some medium to large white ones. Possibly

local imitation, but probably Corinthian.

Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots with at bottom of A cluster.

AS93 Type A' Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.8.

P-007-01 (S008), Zone 1.

410
 P.H. 3.4; p.Diam. (interior) 10.0; p.Diam (exterior)

19.0.

Fragment preserves small part of broad overhanging rim

with slightly sloping upper face. Hard coarse pinkish-tan

fabric (5YR 7/4.5, pink to reddish yellow). Many large

angular red-brown and gray inclusions, and some small brown

and white ones.

Early Classical. 475-425 B.C.

Plots on upper left side of A cluster.

AS94 Type B Transport Amphora, toe

Fig. 6.8.

P-162-02 (S008), Zone 1.

P.H. 5.7; Diam. in center of bottom 1.6.

Fragment preserves complete conical "cap" toe and

flaring body wall. Toe offset inside. Fine beige fabric

(10 YR 8/3.5, very pale brown). Some very small dark

inclusions. Worn surface. Wheel ridging on interior and

central depression nearly 2 cm. deep.

Late Classical. 400-350 B.C., perhaps 400-375 B.C.

Plots with large B cluster.

AS95 Type B Transport Amphora, rim

S001-211G-01, Zone 4.

411
 P.H. 3.4; p.L. 6.2.

Fragment preserves small part of rather tall, narrow,

flaring rim, approximately triangular in section, with

nearly horizontal upper face (probably from longer side

with oval mouth) and somewhat convex outer face. Very fine

tan fabric (7.5YR 7/4, pink). A few tiny dark and white

inclusions, and trace of sparkles; voids. Worn and powdery

surfaces.

Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic. 350-300 B.C.,

perhaps to 275 B.C.?

Plots with B cluster.

AS96 Type A' Transport Amphora, handle

Fig. 6.8.

S001-311G-05, Zone 4.

P.H. 8.0; W. 3.4; Th. 3.9.

Fragment preserves upper 1/2 of handle, curved in

profile, round in section. Hard coarse tan fabric (7.5YR

7/4, pink). Many small to large angular red and tan

inclusions. Worn surface.

Classical. 450-375 B.C.

Plots with A' cluster.

AS97 Type A Transport Amphora, handle

412
 S005-004G-04, Zone 2.

Diam. of handle at base 3.8.

Fragment preserves base of handle, round in section,

and small part of body wall. Hard coarse fabric with gray

core (1GL 5/N) and orange surface (2.5YR 6/8, light red).

Some small and large angular gray and red inclusions, and a

few large beige ones.

Classical-Early Hellenistic. 425-300 B.C.

Plots with A cluster.

AS98 Type A' Transport Amphora, body sherd

S005-004G-11, Zone 2.

P.L. 5.9; p.W. 4.4; Th. 0.8-0.9.

Body sherd. Hard very coarse tan fabric (7.5YR 7/4,

pink). Many medium to large angular red and brown

inclusions, and a few very large angular dark gray ones.

Late Archaic-Early Classical. 500-450 B.C.?

Plots with A cluster.

AS99 Type A Transport Amphora, body sherd

S015-011G-08, Zone 4.

P.L. 4.5; p.W. 4.0; Th. 0.8.

Body sherd. Very hard coarse fabric with gray core

(2GL 5/5B and 1GL 5/N, bluish gray and gray) and tan

413
surfaces (5YR 7/5, pink to reddish yellow). Some large

angular gray inclusions, and a few large rounded light gray

ones.

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic.

Plots at bottom of A cluster.

AS100 Type B Transport Amphora, rim

Fig. 6.8.

S033-001G-01, Zone 3.

P.H. 5.5; H. of rim 2.8.

Fragment preserves small part of rim and neck.

Cylindrical neck has two grooves around top, with a further

groove around bottom of rim. Outward thickened rim has

upper surface of rim slanting toward interior, outer face

convex in profile. Medium-coarse beige fabric (5Y 8/2,

pale yellow). Some small gray and brown inclusions, and

rare white ones. Hackly surface.

Late Archaic?

Plots with B cluster.

AS101 Small Type B Transport Amphora, rim, neck, and handle

Fig. 6.8.

S045-411G-01, Zone 11.

414
 P.H. 4.0; W. of handle 3.7; Th. of handle 1.4; H. of

rim 2.0.

Fragment preserves small part of rim, upper neck, and

upper curve of strap handle. Cylindrical neck pressed to

oval at top where handles were attached. Ridge around base

of neck. Flaring rim, elongated triangle in section, with

almost straight slanting outer face and horizontal upper

face that rises over center of handle attachment. Base of

rim offset inside neck. Mouth a figure-eight in plan view.

Handle strap rises slightly above height of rim, except

where rim bulges at its center. Fine fabric with gray core

(1GL 5/N) and thin beige outer band (10YR 8/3, very pale

brown). Some very small gray and white inclusions, and one

platey larger white one. Black deposit on rim upper face

and a bit of handle top.

Early-Middle Hellenistic. 323-275 B.C.

Plots with B cluster.

415
416
 Chapter 7.

The Mallakastra Regional Archaeological Project Survey: The

Primary Data

Archaeology’s most important

contribution to the study of the city
has been the paradoxical one of
shifting its attention away from the
city and its monumental structures and
towards the countryside.1266

A single Doric column forms the

sole vestige of this once great and
populous city, the theatre of Caesar
and Pompey's contests, the place of
Augustus's early education. In every
map which I have seen, it is placed too
far from the sea, and too near to the
Voïussa.1267

Introduction

This chapter presents the primary data collected

during the course of MRAP. My thesis draws on this data in

order to reconstruct patterns of settlement in the

hinterland of Apollonia. MRAP was, of course, not designed

to test the propositions advanced in this thesis. Quite

the opposite: the ideas set forth here evolved as a result

of my participation in MRAP. Nonetheless, the analysis of

the results of MRAP in this section does provide a body of

1266
Wallace-Hadrill 1991, p. xi.
1267
Hughes 1820, pp. 386-387 (quoted from the journal of Mr. W. Jones).

417
information that supports certain fundamental ideas that I

have developed in this thesis. Most notably the results of

MRAP point to a presence of Greek material culture, and

probably also Greeks, at Apollonia prior to the traditional

foundation date of the apoikia (the reliability of which

has already been rejected as a result of the source

criticism documented in Section II). Additionally, MRAP

data demonstrate the scarcity of indigenous sites in the

immediate hinterland of the asty, suggesting that the

colony was established in an underexploited landscape.

Albania offers great potential for the application of

modern techniques of regional surface archaeology. Like

other Mediterranean countries, its landscape and natural

environment are well suited to this type of investigation;

much of the Albanian countryside offers the additional

advantage that, when MRAP began, it had been little

affected by intensive agricultural or industrial

development.1268 At the same time, a strong tradition of

indigenous Albanian archaeology is well-established that

includes scientific excavations at sites of all periods and

a record of prompt publication. Although much

archaeological exploration and excavation has taken place

in the area of Apollonia and its immediate environs, prior

1268
This is no longer the case, and the countryside is rapidly changing
because of both agricultural development and urban sprawl.

418
to MRAP only an incomplete archaeological map of its

hinterland could be constructed based on disparate pieces

of data collected from local archaeologists, teachers,

farmers, and school children. MRAP employed modern survey

techniques that are intensive, systematic, and conducted in

an organized scientific manner by small teams of

experienced archaeologists, leading to the discovery of

dozens of new sites, and to a much clearer presentation and

analysis of the "big picture."

Survey is able to track changes that occur over the

longue and moyenne durée that are often elusive in single

site excavations.1269 The methodologies employed by MRAP

were similar to the techniques that were pioneered on Keos

(1983-1984),1270 in the Nemea Valley (1984-1989),1271 and in

Messenia (1991-1996),1272 and almost identical to those used

by the Durrës Regional Archaeological Project in 2001.1273

The general procedures have been briefly described in a

number of preliminary publications, as well as being

discussed in detail in the final report on the survey of

northern Keos.1274

1269
See above and Braudel 1972, pp. 20-21; Cherry, Davis, and
Mantzourani 1991, p. 10; Horden and Purcell 2000; Osborne 2004, p. 88.
1270
Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991.
1271
Cherry et al. 1988; Wright et al. 1990.
1272
Davis et al. 1997.
1273
Davis et al. 2003.
1274
Cherry, Davis and Mantzourani 1991.

419
 Robin Osborne claims that survey has not met the

challenge of integrating survey results with the cultural

history of a given region.1275 Until now, a bridge linking

historical events (causes) with the consequent effects

(manifested archaeologically) in central-western Albania

could not be built because there were no concrete

archaeological data to substantiate or refute historical

claims. As anticipated in previous chapters, the results

of MRAP suggest that ethnic changes wrought by the arrival

of the Greeks are visible in the landscape, and the data to

support this claim are presented here. More generally,

this chapter provides the data required for a first attempt

at integrating archaeological data from the vicinity of

Apollonia with written testimonia about historical events

in the Adriatic in antiquity.

MRAP was the first diachronic, inter-disciplinary,

intensive regional archaeological survey to operate in

Albania. The project consisted of a program of systematic

intensive surface survey, geomorphological research,

palynological investigations, and select excavations that

were conducted in the vicinity of Apollonia. Groundwork

1275
Osborne 2004, pp. 88-89. He believes that current survey
publications fail to meet this challenge and he criticizes survey for
remaining "more heavily focused upon theoretical problems of method and
interpretation than upon bringing results of one survey into dialogue
with the results of another survey or with wider archaeological and
historical concerns."

420
for the project was laid in 1994-1996. A total area of

approximately 35 sq km was then intensively surveyed during

the course of four seasons of field walking, and test

excavations were undertaken at several sites (Fig. 7.1).

Prior to the advent of MRAP, no systematic program of rural

archaeology had been practiced in Albania.

Goals were to investigate 1) the area immediately

around the polis of Apollonia, including the necropolis and

the plain; 2) an area around an Illyrian hillfort with

known pre-Greek and Greek material (Margelliç); and 3)

several areas between the urban centers where few or no

sites of any period had been previously identified. The

areas were comprised of large contiguous territories in

which the entirety of the passable landscape was

intensively surveyed.1276 The plain of Apollonia was the

western boundary of the survey, the lower town of Margelliç

the eastern. In the south the area investigated extended

to the outskirts of the modern village of Levan. Mike

Galaty of Millsaps College directed all field work on a

daily basis.

The Methods of the Survey

1276
Areas that were covered with dense maquis, cliffs, or steep slopes
were deemed impassable. In a very few cases we were denied access to
certain properties. See Korkuti et al. 1998.

421
 The areas selected for intensive survey were

investigated by teams of five or six archaeologists and

students of archaeology under the direction of a team

leader.1277 These team members or field walkers were spaced

about 15 m apart as they walked transects (Fig. 7.2),

parallel lines within the borders of a unit of land called

a “tract,” sometimes a cultivated field or naturally

bounded parcel of land, but in any case rarely larger than

one or two ha.1278 Total numbers of sherds, bricks/tiles,

lithics, and other artifacts were recorded for each walker

per 100-m segment of a transect.1279 This information was

recorded in a team notebook by the team leader and later

entered into the "MRAP Collection Units Database (Fig.

7.3)." Teams were instructed to collect all "diagnostic"

ceramics, i.e., rims, handles, bases, decorated sherds, and

unusual fabrics; these were collected and bagged by

tract.1280 Tract walkers counted all bricks/tiles in their

1277
On the intensity of survey, see Cherry 1983, pp. 390-394; Bintliff
and Snodgrass 1985; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 16-20;
Bintliff 2000, pp. 203-205.
1278
See Snodgrass 1987; Cherry et al. 1988; Wright et al. 1990; Cherry,
Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994, p. 138.
1279
Bricks and tiles were counted together in the field, and are here
referred to as bricks/tiles, unless only one category was found.
Counts for bricks and tiles are presented separately in Tract and Site
Tables.
1280
Our methodology of collecting only diagnostics is typical of
intensive surveys in Greece, but differs from some other projects, such
as the Biferno Valley Project in Italy, where field walkers retained
all artifacts. More recent projects such as the Iklaina and Eastern
Corinthia surveys in Greece, in contrast, performed analyses in the
field and retained almost no artifacts. See Barker 1995, p. 45;
Tartaron et al. 2007.

422
path but only collected unique fragments such as those with

stamps, black glaze, unusual fabrics, and/or complete

profiles. All small finds, i.e., non-ceramic artifacts,

were also collected.

Within the areas that were intensively surveyed,

subsequent to initial tract walking, denser concentrations

of surface finds (sites) were examined in greater detail.1281

Most were examined by laying 10- or 20-meter grids over

them and then collecting the surface artifacts within each

grid-square.1282 Others were revisited by the directors or a

field team, who gathered a few chronologically distinct

diagnostic artifacts.1283 Information about individual sites

was recorded in the "MRAP Sites Database (Fig. 7.4)," which

was linked with databases containing information about

pottery and small finds collected at the site. Subsequent

to the initial analysis of artifacts by the museum staff,

team leaders suggested the category and function of a site

1281
Data about artifact densities were used to define sites
systematically. On the definition of sites, see Alcock, Cherry, and
Davis 1994, p. 138.
1282
Policy on artifact retention from site collection was different in
1998 from that of following years. All artifacts, including tiles,
were collected in vacuums, and diagnostics, including tiles, were
collected in grabs. Tiles were sorted in the field and only a very
small representative sample was brought to the museum. The rest were
left in piles on-site, and total quantities were not recorded.
1283
Artifacts from revisitations were labeled with a tract number
followed by an R, and were kept separate from other tract finds in the
databases in order not to mix material obtained from different
collection methodologies.

423
based on its location, size, artifact densities, and the

types of material that were collected.1284

Detailed information about the find-spots of artifacts

from site collection allows changes in the size of sites

through time to be calculated more precisely and the

relationship to be measured between patterns in surface

density of artifacts, on the one hand, and soil and micro-

topographic conditions, on the other. Such knowledge is

valuable not only for newly discovered sites but also for

the many known, and sometimes partly excavated, sites in

the area that had already been located by Albanian

archaeologists.

The field teams brought their finds to the base camp

at the end of each day of field walking. Processing of

artifacts and analysis in the museum was organized and

conducted under my supervision on a daily basis in all

years of the project. Team members counted the number of

ceramics and other artifacts, and a staff member recorded

these counts in separate columns on a "Museum Tracking

Form." After washing and drying, artifacts were brought

into an artifact processing room for analysis. There,

artifacts were "read" (i.e., described and dated) (Fig.

7.5). Small finds, e.g., lithics, bones, metal objects,

and stone objects, were separated from pottery. Ceramics

1284
See below.

424
were divided into groups of fine and coarse wares based on

the size and quantity of inclusions. Tiles and bricks were

isolated.1285 All finds were counted and weighed, and this

information was recorded on the "MRAP Museum Registration

Form," and then in the "Museum Registration Database (Fig.

7.6)." Each pot or sherd from a tract, and representative

examples from sites, was given a sequence number. Less

diagnostic pieces from sites were counted and described as

groups.

The preliminary analysis of all ceramic artifacts

collected in 1998-2002 was made by Skënder Muçaj. All

ceramics were re-examined in 2003: prehistoric by Lorenc

Bejko, Archaic-Roman by Kathleen Lynch, with assistance

from Maria Grazia Amore, and post-antique by Joanita Vroom

(Fig. 7.7). Information was collected about the fabric,

form, date, and decoration. Munsell numbers and dimensions

of artifacts were recorded where applicable. This

information was first entered onto the "MRAP Catalogued

Pottery Form (Fig. 7.8)," then into the "MRAP Pottery

Database." After analysis, a selection of representative

artifacts was singled out for drawing or photography.

Ceramic specialists filled out a "Site Feedback Form" for

1285
See below.

425
each site, suggesting its function based on their analysis

of the artifacts.1286

All terracotta figurines, loomweights, and non-ceramic

objects were classified as small finds and were assigned

unique numbers. Small finds were processed in a manner

similar to ceramics. Muzafer Korkuti analyzed the lithics,

with assistance from Curtis Runnels, and Jack Davis

examined all other categories of objects (Fig. 7.9).

Information about small finds was recorded on "MRAP Small

Finds Forms (Fig. 7.10)," then entered into the "Small

Finds Database." At the end of each season, artifacts were

placed in storage by tract.

The Progress of Fieldwork

A first season of fieldwork was conducted in 1998

during which ca. 5 sq km in the immediate vicinity of

Apollonia were intensively surveyed in 12 days by two teams

of field walkers.1287 Team A surveyed the ridges and valley

to the northeast of the modern village of Shtyllas (the

ridge ends above the village of Radostina); the area is

just over 3 sq km and was divided into 213 tracts. Team B

worked east and northeast of the acropolis of Apollonia,

from the modern village of Kryegjata to Havaleas-Radostina,

1286
See below.
1287
See Korkuti et al. 1998, pp. 257-258.

426
including a large part of its ancient necropolis, and

covered almost 1.5 sq km divided into 153 tracts.1288

Seventeen concentrations of artifacts were identified as

sites (Table 7.1; see Fig. 7.1).1289 An extensive earth

sciences program was also initiated in 1998 with advice

from Eberhard Zangger, and preliminary geological

reconnaissance was completed.

Two teams were also put into the field in 1999;

together they investigated a 6.5 sq km area during 21 days

of field walking. Team C surveyed the area between the

modern villages of Shtyllas and Levan to the southwest of

Apollonia and filled in some of the gaps in the Shtyllas

valley left by Team A; Team C covered slightly over 2 sq km

in 380 tracts. Team D worked in the area east of Apollonia

in the Vadhiza valley between Havaleas and Fier and filled

in several previously uninvestigated areas in the Kryegjata

valley, walking 3.5 sq km in 370 tracts. Eleven

concentrations of artifacts were identified and designated

1288
Areas surveyed by teams do not corresponds to zones. See below and
Table 8.2.
1289
These were labeled S001-S017, and include the acropolis (S008) and
necropolis (S007) of Apollonia. S001, S002, S009, S010, S011, S012,
S013, S014, and S015 were in the territory of Team A, S003, S004, S005,
S006, S007, S016, and S017 were in the area surveyed by Team B. Team B
identified the first significant open-air Paleolithic sites discovered
in Albania since WW II and the first examples from central Albania
(S003 and S017).
On the designation and nature of "site" vs. "off-site" artifact
scatters, see Bintliff 2000; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991; Davis
et al. 1997.

427
as sites (see Fig. 7.1).1290 In addition to field walking,

an electronic mapping project in the necropolis was begun

under the direction of Galaty and Korkuti (Fig. 7.11).

Geomorphological studies of the area were conducted by

Michael Timpson, and paleobotanical research was carried

out by Sergei Yazvenko.

At the beginning of the 2000 field season, prior to

the start of field walking, a small test excavation was

undertaken at a Mesolithic and Paleolithic site, S003

(Kryejgata B).1291 In conjunction with it, geomorphological

investigations were undertaken at the Paleolithic sites in

the Kryegjata valley by Timpson, and a soil map of the area

was produced. During this season, the mapping project in

the main necropolis of Apollonia was completed. Cores for

pollen analysis were extracted in three places: the Narta

Lagoon, near the island of Zvernec, the Roskovec marsh, and

the Mbrostar basin near Fier.

Field survey began in July 2000, upon the conclusion

of the excavation; three teams were put into the field (F,

H, and J). A total area of 10.5 sq km was covered in 21

days of field walking. Team F primarily worked in the

Peshtan valley south of the road linking Fier and Vlora and

1290
S018-S028. S021, S022, S026, S027, and S028 are in the area
surveyed by Team C, S018, S019, S020, S023, and S025 by Team D; S024 is
a Paleolithic site in the area covered by Team B in 1998.
1291
See Runnels et al. 2004.

428
covered a 3.5 sq km area in 433 tracts. Team H surveyed

the Gjanica river valley near Fier around the villages of

Pluk and Mbyet; Team J covered the western slopes of the

Shtyllas valley, including the area around the temple at

Shtyllas, and finished the survey of the Kryegjata valley

(see Fig. 7.1).1292

Two small excavations were undertaken at the beginning

of the 2001 season at sites that had been identified the

previous year. These were a Hellenistic farmstead at

Shkoza e Zezë in the Levan Valley (S034) and a small Bronze

Age settlement overlooking the Gjanica river valley near

the modern village of Portez (S038). On completion of

excavations, one field team, K, completed survey in a small

area between Vadhiza and Levan that had not been

investigated previously.

The last season of field work took place in 2002.

Nine sq km were surveyed by three teams. Two teams, L and

M, worked in the vicinity of Margelliç in an attempt to

define the limits of the settlement outside the citadel

walls and to determine patterns of land use in the area.

Together they covered an area of ca. 4.4 sq km in and

around Margelliç, and identified three new sites (S044,

S046, and S054). The teams also investigated the acropolis

1292
At the beginning of the survey season, Teams F and H covered
unwalked areas near Levan.

429
of Margelliç (S041), its lower town (S045 and S055), and

its necropolis (S060) (see Fig. 7.1).

The third team, P, began survey of the extensive

coastal plain west of Apollonia. Using GPS, the team

established a long transect from the center of Apollonia's

acropolis and walked west along it to the sea some 8 km

away; the goal was to determine at what distance from the

city pottery densities fall off, and thus define the

western limits of the asty. They next established a north-

south transect within the walls of Apollonia and collected

artifacts from inside the city walls that could be compared

with those found in the hinterland. Team P also surveyed

around Buçova, between the Lagoon of Narta and Apollonia,

an area that includes an old oxbow of the Vjosa river.

After Teams L and M completed survey around Margelliç,

they were transferred to the plain west of Apollonia where

Team P was operating. Team L began work just outside the

ancient walls of the polis and filled in the area south of

Pojan and around the modern village of Sopi. Team M

surveyed a large area north of Pojan, moving south to meet

Team L near the village of Islamaj.

In 2003, all sites were revisited by Galaty, and GIS

coordinates were registered. Several additional artifact

concentrations were designated as sites. Galaty then

430
divided the entire survey area into zones, which were based

on topographical considerations such as watersheds. These

are numbered 1-13 (Fig. 7.12). All artifacts from previous

years were reexamined for publication by experienced

ceramic specialists, including Carolyn Koehler, Bejko,

Lynch, Amore, Muçaj, and Vroom (see above).

In 2004, test excavations began at the Bonjakët

compound, a site (S043) that had been surveyed in 2002.

Excavations revealed a previously unknown temple apparently

of Classical date. Investigations of S043 continued in

2005-2006, and a study season in 2007 brought the

Mallakastra Regional Archaeological Project to completion.

Sixty-one sites of all periods were identified through

MRAP in the hinterland of Apollonia, from the Paleolithic

through the modern era (See Fig. 7.1). One of the most

concrete benefits of this project has been to provide an

inventory of the archaeological resources of this region of

Albania, which can be and currently is being used to guide

future decisions about site protection and programs of

excavation, particularly since Apollonia has been declared

a national park.

A total of 11,662 records were entered into the

Catalogued Pottery database, documenting 30,700 individual

artifacts from a maximum of 29,560 vessels and

431
bricks/tiles; 478 of these records are for artifacts found

in excavation (8,499 sherds for a maximum of 8,298 vessels

and bricks/tiles).1293 Eight thousand seven hundred fifty-

five records document 24,092 sherds of a maximum 23,003

vessels of pre-Roman date. I have been responsible for

maintaining the databases of the project.

Introduction to the Gazetteer of Sites

In the following pages, primary data collected during

the course of MRAP are presented in a “Gazetteer of Sites.”

The gazetteer provides the basis for the analyses presented

in Chapters 8 and 9 and contains a catalogue of all sites

that were defined. Ceramic data (or in the case of

aceramic sites, lithics) were used to compile the list of

periods and period ranges represented at each site.

Periods and period ranges are presented separately so as to

emphasize those more securely dated artifacts that fall

within a single period. The data obtained from tract and

site collections are also presented separately so that the

results of the two collection strategies can be easily

compared; a table showing the shapes, quantities, and dates

of the finds in each assemblage is provided at the end of

the thesis. It is clear that site collection often yields

valuable information, otherwise lacking, about site

1293
Some sherds are from the same vessel.

432
function, less visible periods of occupation, and site

size.1294

Pottery is the most significant tool of the

archaeologist who engages in surface survey, not least

because it typically constitutes the most prolific residue

of antiquity, at least for historical periods. In this

regard, even the presence of one or two sherds of a

particular period may have significance in attesting to a

human presence in a given place at a given moment in the

past. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility

that in still other locations we have failed to detect such

evanescent traces of human activity because, for example,

artifacts have been hidden by eroded soils or simply

overlooked by us because they are masked by the presence of

large quantities of artifacts of other dates. None of

these factors need effect the interpretation of survey

evidence so long it is clear that the focus of MRAP and of

this thesis is on the "big picture," patterns in the

distribution of artifacts grosso modo.

The study of particular fabrics represented in

archaeological contexts at Apollonia is in its infancy. In

most cases it is not possible to determine the place of

1294
In the Durrës survey, the dates of sites were determined solely on
the basis of tract collection; sites were not gridded or otherwise
reexamined systematically because of time constraints. See Davis et
al. 2003.

433
manufacture of finewares, not least because of their

fragmentary nature. Of the few imports that can be

stylistically identified, many are products of Corinth.

Certainly, Attic imports are present, especially in the

necropolis from the mid-6th century B.C. onwards,1295 and in

large quantities, but a good amount of petrological

research is an important desideratum for the future in

order to determine where certain categories of vessels,

such as those with black glaze, were produced.

In general, very little fineware was recovered in the

course of the survey except at the sites directly

associated with the major centers of Apollonia and

Margelliç. Identifiable imported finewares, especially of

the Archaic and Classical periods, were especially rare

outside the immediate environs of Apollonia (i.e., the

necropolis, the asty, and the Bonjakët sanctuary)1296 and

Margelliç (i.e. the acropolis, the slopes, the lower town,

and the necropolis).1297 On the other hand, as noted in

Chapter 6, MRAP found numerous imported Corinthian

transport amphoras in the hinterland. As will be seen

below and in Chapter 8, transport amphoras are the earliest

1295
See Mano 1971, pp. 166-176; Dimo 1991, pp. 68-70.
1296
S007, S008, and S043 respectively. For imported ceramics at
Apollonia, see Mano 1971, pp. 158-163; Dimo 1991, pp. 65-68; Bereti et
al. 2007, pp. 129-133; Dimo, Fenet, and Mano 2007, pp. 312-313.
1297
S041, S045, S055, and S060. For imported ceramics at Margelliç, see
Ceka 1986, 1987a; Korkuti, Baçe, and Ceka 2008, p. 180.

434
Greek material at indigenous sites. At Margelliç, these

were sometimes found in conjunction with drinking vessels

and other fineware shapes. Moreover, in the few instances

where Archaic-Classical finewares were found in the

hinterland of Apollonia, Corinthian transport amphoras

and/or pithoi were also found in almost every case. The

reverse, however, is not the case: Archaic-Classical

storage vessels, especially transport amphoras, were found

in numerous locations where there were no finewares. This

suggests that the Illyrians were primarily interested in

the commodities these transport amphoras contained, rather

than the vessels themselves.

In addition to pottery, brick and tile are important

categories of artifacts found in large numbers in the

countryside of Apollonia. Both have been the object of

detailed study by Albanian archaeologists, particularly

Alexandra Mano, doyenne of the excavators of Apollonia

during the communist decades. Apollonia lacked supplies of

stone nearby and, no doubt for that reason, relied more

heavily on ceramics for building materials than many other

parts of the Greek world. Tiles of the type used in

roofing systems of Corinthian style were commonly employed

already in the Archaic period and can be dated on the basis

of their profiles to broad periods (e.g., Archaic,

435
Classical, Hellenistic, or Roman).1298 Bricks, on the other

hand, were already used at Apollonia in pre-Roman times,

which is unusual for the Greek world. They, too, can be

roughly dated on the basis of their dimensions, if they are

sufficiently well-preserved.1299 Besides their function as

building materials, both bricks and tiles were used in the

Apollonia necropolis for graves.1300

In this thesis I have tried to suggest the functions

of particular sites: i.e., the types of activities that may

have been supported at them at various times in the past.

It is important to note that such observations are highly

speculative in the case of any particular site. My

approach has been to consider the estimated size of the

site, the description of the landscape provided by the team

leader, and the date and range of artifacts that were

documented at it by the ceramic specialists. Some

questions I asked are, for example: Is a given location the

sort of place where an ancient farmstead is likely to have

been situated? Is the size of the site reasonable in light

of what we know about the size of ancient farmhouses? Is

the range of pottery and other finds typical of that found

1298
Mano 1965; N. Ceka 1982b.
1299
See Balandier and Koço 1999; Balandier 2000.
1300
For brick graves, see Mano 1971, p. 125; Amore 2005c, pp. 130-131;
Dimo and Fenet 1999, pp. 220-222; Dimo, Fenet, and Mano 2007, p. 308.
For tile graves, see Praschniker 1922-1924, cols. 51-54; Rey 1932, p.
7; Mano 1971, 1977-1978; Dimo and Fenet 1999, pp. 220-222; Dimo, Fenet,
and Mano 2007, p. 308.

436
in excavations of farmhouses? For example, does the

ceramic assemblage include the types of vessels one would

expect to be associated with a farmstead, e.g., storage

vessels, cooking wares, fine wares, and open and closed

plain ware shapes associated with food consumption and

preparation?

In part, such analysis has necessarily involved a

comparison with the results of MRAP's excavations at S034,

but also, as in the case of our publication elsewhere of

those excavations, explicit comparison with data from the

excavations of farmhouses elsewhere in the Greek world

(e.g., the Vari and Dema houses in Attica).1301 In other

cases, the distribution of surface artifacts seems so large

that I have suggested that a site may have been comprised

by a cluster of farmhouses, i.e., a hamlet. In yet other

cases, finds seem too restricted in type to be convincingly

interpreted as deriving from activities that involved year-

round settlement in the countryside: e.g., fine pottery

might be absent, while coarse pottery of the sort used for

large jars and other vessels employed for the storage and

transport of agricultural products are abundant. In such

cases, I have suggested that these sites may have been the

focus of less permanent or enduring activities: e.g., field

1301
Galaty et al. 2004. Cf. Jones, Sackett, and Graham 1962 (Dema
house); Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973 (Vari house).

437
houses (of the type ubiquitous in the modern rural

landscape) that served only seasonally as a locus for

agrarian endeavors, such as the storing and processing of

agricultural commodities. Again, what is important is the

overall picture and in this regard the patterns are clear.

At certain times in the past there is evidence for

intensive exploitation of the rural hinterland of

Apollonia, at other times, not. It is the explanation and

interpretation of these broad trends that is of greatest

significance to me in this thesis, although these must

themselves be documented through thick analysis of the data

from each and every site that MRAP defined.

As noted above, both team leaders and ceramic

specialists formulated ideas about a site's function. In

some cases their interpretations were quite different.

This is, in part, because their conclusions were based on

different types of data. As already mentioned, team

leaders attempted to determine the category to which a site

belonged: e.g., field house, farmstead, regional center,

tumulus, grave. They identified a site's function based on

its context, i.e., its position in the landscape, its

relation to other topographical features, its size, the

distribution and density of artifacts, and a preliminary

reading of the dates and types of ceramics that were

438
present. Obviously, team leaders' interpretations of sites

were dependent on the expertise of the museum staff for an

understanding of the dates and types of artifacts that were

present in site assemblages.

Ceramic specialists, on the other hand, reached

conclusions about a site's function based on their reading

of the material culture that was brought in from the field.

As noted above, those decoding the pottery from particular

sites regularly reported on "Site Feedback Forms" regarding

the composition of the assemblage, e.g., the dates and

types of artifacts that are present. In addition to dating

the ceramics, when possible ceramic specialists also

recorded information about vessel function, decoration,

place of manufacture, and, in some cases, quality. Based

on these data, the museum staff made suggestions about the

function of sites and the range of activities that might

have taken place at each, such as domestic, production,

commercial, agricultural, and ritual. These observations

were made, in most cases, without an understanding of

sites' physical contexts, as recorded by team leaders.

Because of the different criteria that were used by

team leaders and ceramic specialists, discrepancies in the

interpretation of sites sometimes arose. Three examples

are discussed below. The first is Site 045, which is

439
located on the slope below the acropolis of Margelliç.

This site, as discussed below, formed part of the lower

town of the native Illyrian regional center at Margelliç.1302

The presence of high quality black glaze vessels, some of

which were used for ritual elsewhere in the Greek world,

however, led to the conclusion that S045 also had a ritual

function. The presence of cooking wares, storage vessels,

and plain open and closed shapes, on the other hand, points

to a domestic function, as does the context of the site.

As discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, it is likely that some of

these high quality imports were acquired by members of the

indigenous population, perhaps as status symbols. As also

noted above, imported objects seldom hold the same symbolic

meaning for a culture importing them as they do for the

originating culture. There is, therefore, no reason to

conclude that items used for ritual purposes by Greeks at

Apollonia and elsewhere were used in the same way by the

Illyrian population at Margelliç.

The second example comes from the necropolis of

Apollonia (S007). Site 006 is located within the borders

of the necropolis of Apollonia and is, very obviously, a

burial tumulus. Based on the presence of a small number of

cooking ware fragments, cover tiles, and bricks with

1302
Ceka demonstrated through excavations, and MRAP survey data
confirmed, that Margelliç was an Illyrian site. Cf. Ceka 1977-1978,
1986, 1987a, 1990a.

440
mortar, however, the suggestion was put forth that this

site also had a domestic function. The evidence suggests

otherwise. As noted above, both bricks and tiles were used

for graves. Furthermore, as Mano notes, cooking ware was

sometimes used at Apollonia as grave offerings.1303

Additionally, the physical context of the site indicates

that S006 had an entirely mortuary function.

The final example is the farmstead at S034 where

excavations were conducted by MRAP in 2000. The

excavators, myself among them, concluded, based on the

types and quantities of artifacts, the location of the

site, and comparisons with other farmhouses, that S034 was

a "typical" rural farmstead of Hellenistic date.1304

Analysis of the ceramics alone, however, led to the

conclusion that S034 was used as a production or storage

facility, but not for domestic purposes. This

determination was based on the large number of transport

amphoras/pithoi and the small percentages of cooking ware

and closed shapes. Nevertheless, the identification of the

domestic nature of S034 is substantiated by the evidence.

The proportions of vessel fragments in the site assemblage

appears low because of the large number of tiles. When

vessel sherds are considered separately from tiles, the

1303
Mano 1971, pp. 155-158.
1304
Galaty et al. 2004.

441
percentages of cooking wares and closed shapes are more in

line with vessel assemblages from other farmsteads (see

below). Nor is the large number of storage vessels

abnormal for an isolated rural farmstead where the

processing and storing of agricultural products are the

very sorts of activities that would take place.

In the Gazetteer of Sites that follows I have reviewed

all the useful and essential information provided by both

team leaders and ceramic specialists in the context of all

else know about sites in order to produce my own

interpretations regarding site function. In some cases I

agree with one or both sets of interpretations, in others I

do not. The information contained in the following

catalogue of sites identified by MRAP affords both a

diachronic and a synchronic view of the hinterland around

Apollonia from historic through Roman times. In Chapter 8,

I use this information to compose a new cultural history

for the area around the apoikia.

Each entry in the Gazetteer of Sites contains the

following information:

Name: Name assigned to the site, usually a local toponym.

Figures and Tables: Illustrations and tables relevant to

the site.

442
Zone: Upon the completion of tract walking, the survey

areas were divided into zones, based on topographical

considerations. These are numbered 1-13 (see Fig.

7.12).

Site Location and Description: A verbal description of the

location of the site, its physical characteristics,

and its primary features. The average visibility is

noted (i.e., the percentage of the surface open to

inspection).

Size: Estimate of the size of the site (expressed in

hectares) based on densities of artifacts observed in

tract walking and site collection. In some instances,

estimates of size were later revised using GIS

calculations. These estimates, generally smaller than

the first, are given in parentheses.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: The year the site was

discovered, the year it was collected, and the teams

that originally investigated it. In some cases a site

was under continuous investigation.

Associated Tracts: List of MRAP survey tracts that fall

totally or in part within the boundaries of the site.

In most cases, these are the initial survey tracts

that led to the identification of the site.

443
Periods Represented: List of periods that are represented

among the artifacts collected from tracts associated

with a site. The number of vessels that date to each

period is given in parentheses.1305 This subheading is

also used for artifacts collected during site

collection, revisitation, and excavation.

Period Ranges Represented: List of ranges of dates that are

represented in the artifacts collected from tracts

associated with a site. The vessel count represented

in the assemblage for each period range is given in

parentheses. This subheading is also used for

artifacts collected during site collection,

revisitation, and excavation.

Collection Method: Describes the method of collection used

for the site.

Periods Represented: Same as above for tracts, except data

presented are for site collection units.1306

Period Ranges Represented: Same as above for tracts, except

data presented are for site collection units.1307

1305
Multiple sherds that are from a single vessel are only counted once.
It is likely, especially in site collection assemblages such as those
from the necropolis, that many sherds are from the same pot. Vessel
counts thus denote the maximum number of possible vessels.
1306
If the site was revisited, these periods and period ranges are
provided under separate headings.
1307
See Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 328-331 on problems
associated with imprecision in dating sherds. This issue will not be
addressed here.

444
Pottery Discussion: A verbal summary of the dates and types

of ceramics that are represented in the combined tract

and site assemblages. The percentages of finds of

specific periods are based on vessel count, rather

than sherd count. The general character of the

pottery (i.e., storage vessels, cooking ware, black

glaze, and plain ware), and what these might mean for

site function, is briefly discussed.1308 Tract and site

assemblages are compared to see if data from tract

collection alone are sufficient to accurately

determine the chronological and functional ranges of

each site.

Site Function: The possible function of the site is

suggested.

Tables of Shapes Represented by Period and Period Ranges:

These data are presented in tabular form for tract and

site assemblages. The shapes represented in each

assemblage and the number of examples from each period

are listed.

The following technical terms and phrases are used in the

Gazetteer of Sites:

1308
The percentage of bricks/tiles is calculated from the total ceramic
assemblage. Percentages of categories of sherds, i.e., black glaze,
cooking ware, storage vessels, are calculated from the total number of
Graeco-Roman sherds minus bricks/tiles.

445
Dogleash sample: A piece of string 1.26 m long that, when

held taut, defines a 5-m sq circle. A dogleash sample

was generally taken from the center of a grid square

on a site.1309

Enchytrismos: Burial in a pithos, transport amphora, or,

rarely, some other type of vessel.

Farmstead: Usually a single-family habitation site. The

typical assemblage found at such sites generally

includes fine tablewares, plain domestic wares,

cooking wares, storage vessels (pithoi and transport

amphoras), and bricks/tiles.1310

Field house: A site with architecture that is smaller than

a farmstead.1311 Field houses were probably used on a

seasonal basis.

Grab Sample: A technique employed during site collection

that consisted of the collection only of diagnostic

artifacts within a defined area, usually a grid square

or quadrant.1312

1309
Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, p. 29; Alcock 1991, pp. 442-
443.
1310
Jones, Sackett, and Graham 1962; Jones, Graham, and Sackett 1973.
See also Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, p. 337; Pettegrew 2001.
1311
Standing or visible architecture is rare in the survey area.
1312
See Wright et al. 1991, pp. 604-608; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani
1991, p. 54; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994, p. 159.

446
Halo: A scatter of artifacts often found around a site that

decreases in density as one moves farther from the

center.1313

Hamlet: A cluster of two or more farmsteads.

Off-Site: Data were collected by field walkers from the

entire area selected for investigation, not just

sites. In the course of off-site survey, discrete

concentrations of artifacts were noted and singled out

for further investigation.1314

Perroi: The Albanian term for ravine.

Revisitation: Reexamination of places with high-density

artifact concentrations. In some cases, a few select

diagnostics were collected.

Site: An area with an anomalously dense concentration of

artifact, usually discrete and well-bounded.1315

Site Collection: Second phase of survey during which a

sample of artifacts was gathered at locations defined

as sites. Sites were usually collected through a

combination of grab and vacuum samples.

1313
See Bintliff and Snodgrass 1985, p. 131, 1988, pp. 510-512;
Snodgrass 1987, pp. 113-117; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Bintliff
2000, pp. 203-204.
1314
See Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 20-28 for a complete
description and the benefits of this survey methodology.
1315
See Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 12, 28, 45-47; Alcock,
Cherry, and Davis 1994, p. 159; Bintliff 2000, pp. 205-207. Terms
other than site have been used by different survey teams to designate
the same conceptual entities, for example, POSI (Place of Special
Interest) was used by Davis et al. 1997, LOCA by Tartaron et al. 2007,
p. 457, table 3.

447
Storage Vessels: Includes pithoi, transport amphoras, and

other large coarse vessels. Transport amphoras are

included in this category on the assumption that,

after their original contents were used, they served a

secondary function of storing agricultural commodities

that were being transported to and from the

hinterland.1316

Tract: A parcel of land defined by a team leader, often

making use of natural boundaries (such as those of a

field), and collected as a separate unit. Each tract

was walked by a team of field walkers, and all

artifacts were counted.1317

Transect: Two perpendicular lines across the site center

that divided the site into four quadrants. In the

case of Zone 1, the term also refers to the courses

walked with guidance from GPS from the acropolis of

Apollonia to the sea.

Vacuum Sample: A technique employed during site collection

that involved the collection of all artifacts larger

than a thumbnail within a given area, usually as

defined by a dogleash.

1316
It is also unlikely that the original contents in the imported
Archaic and Classical transport amphoras found in the hinterland of
Apollonia were actually transported into the rural landscape since
there is no evidence of permanent Greek occupation outside the polis
center at this early date.
1317
Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, p. 22.

448
Visibility: The average estimated percentage of ground that

is visible to walkers in a given tract. Among

numerous factors that affect visibility are the time

of year, ground cover or lack thereof, type of crops,

plowing techniques, and steepness of slope.1318

1318
Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 27, 39-45.

449
Gazetteer of Sites

SITE 001

Name: Mali i Shtyllasit.

Fig. 7.13; Tables 7.2, 7.2.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S001 is located on the Mali

i Shtyllasit ridge midway between highland pastures

and lowland fields. It is represented by a highly

concentrated scatter of sherds isolated primarily in a

single tract (A-013). The site is cut by three

bunkers to the southwest and a modern cart path.

Tiles were concentrated in an area of approximately 40

m2 with a smear of sherds extending another 20 m

downslope. Visibility ranged from 40-60%.

Size: 1.60 ha (0.06).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

450
Associated Tracts: A-013.

Periods Represented: EIA (1); LCL (1); HL (19); M (1).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (2).

Collection Method: 10 x 10 m grid. A grab of diagnostics

was collected from each grid square. Vacuum counts

were recorded, but no artifacts were retained. Tiles

were collected in the field, but only diagnostic

fabrics were brought in.1319 16 grabs, 16 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (67) LHL (1); R (1).

Ranges Represented: A-ECL (1); A-CL (1); A-HL (4); CL-EHL

(1); CL-HL (32); CL-R (2); LCL-EHL (1); LCL-HL (2);

HL-R (1).

Artifact Discussion: The ceramics are primarily Hellenistic

(62%); an additional 45 pieces (32%) might belong to

this period. There are six pieces that could be

Archaic, two of which are no later than Classical.

Two fragments are definitely Classical, and 43 (30%)

additional pieces may be, although 39 of these might

1319
See above for methodology.

451
 instead be Hellenistic. One fragment is from an Early

Iron Age vessel; one piece is Modern. There is one

Roman sherd, and three other pieces that could also be

Roman.

A variety of shapes are present (minimum of 23) in the

assemblage from S001.1320 Most sherds come from

unidentified closed plain and cooking pots. Only

diagnostic tiles with unique fabrics were retained;

therefore the quantity of tiles in the assemblage is

small: 14 fragments (10%); there is no brick. Thirty-

two fragments of transport amphoras were collected

(26% of the vessel assemblage); many of these are

probably 4th century B.C. in date and are of the type

initially termed "local" (only one appears to be

Corinthian). Black glaze sherds account for 16% (20)

of the assemblage and cooking ware for 22% (28). The

largest category is plain ware, which comprises 34% of

the finds. A pithos and modern pipe fragment were

also found.

Also recovered from S001 was a bronze coin with an image of

Artemis on the obverse and a tripod on the reverse;

1320
The term "storage vessels" here includes transport amphoras, pithoi,
and other large coarse ware vessels.

452
 this coin was minted in Apollonia and dates to the

middle of the Hellenistic period, ca. 200 B.C.1321

The tract material is similar in character to the larger

assemblage from site collection. Both bodies of

material suggest a domestic function for the site,

primarily in Hellenistic times, although some earlier

finds are present. The percentage of black glaze

sherds is low in both assemblages: 8% (2) from tract

walking, 16% (18) from site collection. The

percentages of transport amphoras are similar: 21% (5)

from the tract material and 23% (27) from the site

assemblage. The amount of cooking ware, however

diverges greatly: one fragment (4%) in the tract

assemblage, but 27 fragments (23%) from the site

assemblage.

The dates of the tract and site assemblages from S001

differ slightly. A higher percentage of material from

the tract collection is closely dated to the

Hellenistic period (79% vs. 58%). The Archaic and

Roman periods are not represented at all in the tract

assemblage, although the Iron Age is.

1321
See Ceka 1965, p. 40. See also Crawford 1985, p. 225 for the
production and spread of coins from Apollonia and Dyrrachium. He
suggests that the monies that were in use in the 3rd, 2nd and 1st
centuries B.C. (up to 50 B.C.) were probably minted to facilitate the
purchase of slaves from the Danube basin. On coinage in Albania, see
Ceka 1965, 1972; Franke 1976; Papajani 1976a; Poenaru-Bordea 1983;
Gjongecaj 1987, 1998; Konovic 1989; Picard and Gjongecaj 1995;
Gjongecaj and Picard 1999, 2000; Meta 2006.

453
S001 was principally used during the Hellenistic period,

although use might have started in the Archaic period,

and occupation was continuous from the Classical

period. The presence of the non-Greek, Early Iron Age

piece is noteworthy. The assemblage looks domestic in

nature, which is also suggested by the ratios of

cooking, storage, and fine wares. The site does not

appear to have been occupied after the Hellenistic

period.

Site Function: Small Late Classical to Hellenistic

farmstead.

SITE 002

Name: Çuka e Bukur, upper.

Fig. 7.14; Tables 7.4, 7.5.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: Site 002 is located on the

Çuka e Bukur ridge midway between highland pastures

and lowland fields. It is the upper of two adjacent

454
 sites on this ridge; Site 009 is located downslope.

S002 is situated on light-gray, marly soil, and has

been disturbed by bunker trenches and a road that

bisects the site. A bunker trench and a modern wall

cut through possible remains of an ancient wall.

Although the site was larger, time constraints

restricted the collection to Tract A-054. Average

visibility was 70%.

Size: 0.40 ha (0.05).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-053, A-054, A-055, A-098.

Periods Represented: CL (2); HL (14); MHL (1).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); HL-R (1); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: Quadrants. The site was divided into

four quadrants. Vacuums were taken with a dogleash

every 10 m and a grab of diagnostics was made in each

quadrant. Vacuum counts were recorded, but no

artifacts were retained. Bricks/tiles were collected

455
 and sorted in the field, but only diagnostic fabrics

were brought to the museum. Four grabs, five vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); EHL (2); HL (34); LHL (2).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (2); CL-HL (4); LCL-HL (1); HL-R

(1).

Artifact Discussion: The ceramics from S002 are primarily

Hellenistic (53 = 79%), but three pieces (4%) are

Classical and eight (12%) might be Classical or

Hellenistic. There are only two pieces that could be

as late as Roman (3%), and one piece could not be

dated (2%).

The range of shapes from S002 is limited. Most sherds are

from plain unidentifiable closed vessels.

Bricks/tiles are generally underrepresented due to the

collection methodology; 22 tiles were retained, which

account for 33% of the total assemblage. Of the

remaining sherds, 12 are from transport amphoras

(27%), five from black glaze vessels (11%), and five

from cooking pots (11%). The remaining 51% of the

vessel assemblage consists of plain ware sherds.

456
Storage, cooking, and a few fine wares are present in both

tract and site assemblages, and the same conclusions

about site function can be drawn from both. The range

of shapes is broader in the site assemblage, and a

disproportionately large number of transport amphoras

is represented in the tract collection. Both

assemblages are largely Hellenistic in date.

The range of shapes from S002 is consistent with a domestic

assemblage. The large number of transport amphoras

suggests that some type of activity necessitating the

transfer of agricultural products took place at the

site.1322 Since both Early Hellenistic and Late

Hellenistic are represented, it is possible that the

site was used throughout the period. The Classical

finds probably indicate that there was a small,

earlier component.

Site Function: Small Classical field house? Hellenistic

farmstead.

SITE 003

Name: Kryegjata B.

1322
A millstone of unknown date was also collected at the site. See
Gerke et al. 2006.

457
Fig. 7.15.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S003 is situated below the

crest of a low rise overlooking the Seman river

valley.1323 Today the site is cut by a small, dirt

field road that intersects with a larger road running

to the village of Radostina (Fasko); the two form a

“T” junction just north of the main artifact scatter.

There is an extensive concentration of lithics along

the bed of the field road, in the exposed red-beds

beside the road, and in the surrounding fields. The

heaviest concentration of Paleolithic artifacts is

situated in the field road and its scarps. Red

Pleistocene alfisols are between 0.5 and 1 m below the

current ground surface. Kryegjata B is very close to

Kryegjata D, and both may be part of one large site.

Visibility was 85% in the cut field; 15% in the

planted field; and 90% in the road.

Size: 4.00 ha (0.33).

1323
Korkuti et al. 1998, pp. 259-264; Runnels et al. 2004.

458
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998-2000, B.

Associated Tracts: B-058.

Collection Method: Microtracts, 3 x 3 m grid, excavation.

The road in Tract B-058 was vacuumed by team members

walking shoulder to shoulder. In 1999, the road from

the T intersection to 100 m south of it was gridded

with 3 x 3 m squares; each square was fully vacuumed.

Five trenches were subsequently excavated in 2000.

Revisitation; 78 vacuums; five trenches.

Site Function: Open-air Paleolithic-Mesolithic camp or work

station.1324

SITE 004

Name: Kodra e Kripës, settlement.

Fig. 7.16; Tables 7.6, 7.7.

Zone: 2.

1324
No ceramics from S003 were catalogued.

459
Site Location and Description: S004 is a small, dense

concentration of artifacts situated 300 m north of the

Kodra e Kripës tumulus. It is on the southern slope

of the hill below a small knoll and bunker west of the

Kodra e Kripës road. There is a ravine to the south.

S004 appears to be eroding down the slope, and may

continue into and perhaps across the ravine. It rests

on yellow-brown, silty soil that is derived from the

underlying marl, which outcrops nearby along the

ridge. S004 is part of Apollonia's eastern

necropolis. Visibility ranged from 50-70%.

Size: < 1.00 ha (0.33).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, B.

Associated Tracts: B-031, B-032.

Periods Represented: HL (7); PMED (13).

Ranges Represented: O-EM (3); LO-EM (10); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: Quadrants. The site was divided into

four quadrants and grabs of diagnostics were made in

460
 each quadrant. Vacuums with a dogleash were taken

from transects spaced 10 m apart. Bricks/tiles were

counted in vacuums and diagnostics were retained;

numbers were not recorded for grabs. Four grabs, four

vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (30); PMED (36); M (2).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); O-EM (27); O-M (1); LO-EM

(26); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: The material from S004 divides into

two phases, Hellenistic (24%) and Post-Medieval,

principally Late Ottoman to Early Modern (75%).1325

There is one fragment that might be Archaic; it also

could be Classical or Hellenistic. Two fragments are

definitely Modern. Tiles make up 29% of the overall

assemblage.

The Hellenistic material from the site collection consists

principally of tiles (17 = 45%) and sherds from plain

unidentifiable closed shapes (57%). There is also a

hydria fragment, a typical domestic vessel. Nineteen

percent (4) of the fragments are black glaze, 10%

(i.e., two handles) are from cooking pots. Only two

1325
One percent is unknown.

461
 transport amphoras (10%) are represented in the

assemblage; there are no other storage jars.

The range of shapes from the Hellenistic tract and site

assemblages are very similar, although only 17% of the

tract assemblage is tiles, but 52% of the site

material is. The percentage of black glaze is

approximately the same in both assemblages (17% vs.

20%), but there is no cooking ware in the tract

assemblage.

The scarcity of cooking ware and storage vessels in both

assemblages, the presence of black glaze sherds, and

the location of the site help to identify S004 as a

Hellenistic grave (or graves).

Most of the later material from S004 belongs to the late

18th and 19th centuries. The Post-Medieval assemblage

includes slipped, combed, and plain sherds that cannot

be closely dated. A large number of amphora sherds

were collected from two grid squares; amphoras are not

represented in the tract assemblage. The Late

Ottoman-Early Modern vessels are glazed and painted;

the range of shapes is the same in both tract and site

assemblages, but the tract assemblage consists

entirely of glazed pieces with no slip-painted or

underglazed painted pieces.

462
Although cooking wares are notably absent, the shapes and

types of Post-Medieval vessels found at S004 suggest a

domestic context.

Site Function: Hellenistic grave (or graves); Late Ottoman-

Early Modern farmstead.

SITE 005

Name: Kodra e Kripës, tumulus.

Figs. 7.16, 7.17; Tables 7.8, 7.9.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S005 is located downslope

from the road on Kodra e Kripës, just inside the

eastern edge of the main (eastern) necropolis of

Apollonia (i.e., S007; see below). There are marl and

sandstone outcrops along the ridge. The tumulus is

poorly preserved; it has been robbed and is largely

destroyed by military trenches running across the top

of the mound and along the southern flank to the road.

463
 Looters have been active along the west edge of the

tumulus where sarcophagi have been pulled from graves

and broken. Damaged tile graves can be seen along the

road. Artifacts extend downslope well beyond the

limits of the tumulus proper. S005 is part of S007.

Visibility ranged from 50-70%.

Size: 50 m diameter (0.25 ha).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, B.

Associated Tracts: B-035.

Periods Represented: CL (1); LCL (1); HL (1); MHL (1).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tracts J-377, J-378, J-

379.

Periods Represented: LHL (2).1326

1326
The two sherds collected during revisitation are included in the
tract table.

464
Collection Method: Quadrants. The tumulus was divided into

quadrants and grabs were made in each. Only

diagnostic tiles were collected and retained. Four

grabs.

Periods Represented: A (2); CL (1); HL (89); LHL (1); R

(2).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-EHL (1); LA-CL (1); LA-EHL

(2); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (6); LCL-EHL (1); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material from S005

is Hellenistic (81%). Seven (6%) fragments are

definitely earlier; two are Archaic, and three are

Classical; the remaining two are either Archaic or

Classical. Twelve other pieces (10%) could predate

the Hellenistic period; three of these could be

Archaic, but they could also, as with the other nine,

be Classical or Hellenistic. There are two definite

Roman sherds.

Numerous shapes are represented in the assemblage from

S005. Bricks/tiles are underrepresented because of

the collection strategy: they account for only 11% of

the material. Thirty-two percent of the vessel sherds

465
 are from transport amphoras; of these, eight might be

pre-Hellenistic (24%). It is likely that some

fragments belong to the same vessels. The percentage

of plain ware sherds (39 = 38%) is only slightly

higher than transport amphoras. Twenty-two (21%) of

the fragments have black glaze. There is also a

fragment of a banded olpe and a piece with red-figured

decoration. Cooking ware is represented by only seven

(7%) sherds. Imports from both Greece (Corinthian

transport amphoras and an Attic krater) and Italy

(transport amphoras) are present.

The tract finds are sufficient for chronological and

functional identification of the site, even though

only a small, representative sample of sherds was

collected. Only the Archaic period is not represented

in the assemblage. The shapes and quality of the

tract material, as well as the high tile counts, would

be enough to indicate the function of the site.

The ceramic assemblage from S005 reflects the funerary

nature of the site. The large number of fine black

glaze fragments, especially the kraters and red-

figured fragment, are indicative of grave offerings.

The quantity of sherds from transport amphoras

suggests that these vessels were used for

466
 enchytrismoi, perhaps as early as the Late Archaic

period. Although not collected, large quantities of

tiles were noted, which indicate the presence of tile

graves within the tumulus. On the other hand, the

closed forms and cooking wares are unusual in mortuary

contexts, although they could represent offerings or

funerary feasts.

The large number of sherds that are or probably are from

the same vessels is evidence of the recent looting at

the site: for example, seven fragments from a single

Classical black glaze krater were collected. The

presence of pre-Hellenistic finds, i.e., securely

dated Archaic and Classical pieces, points to the

early use of S005 for burials. Additionally, the Late

Hellenistic fragment is evidence for the longevity of

the site, which appears to have continued in use

throughout the Hellenistic period. Although two Roman

sherds are in the assemblage, they should probably be

associated with Site 058, which is located just

downslope and is the only concentration of Roman

material in the necropolis.

Site Function: Burial tumulus.

467
 SITE 006

Name: Kryegjata, tumulus.

Figs. 7.18, 7.19; Tables 7.10, 7.11, 7.12.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S006 is located north of

Kryegjata village near a cluster of derelict army

buildings. There is a north-south electric line

immediately to the east of the site. S006 is a robbed

tumulus with numerous looted tile graves that have

also been severely disturbed by bunkers and army

trenches. The tumulus was probably built on top of a

natural eminence, which exaggerates its size. S006 is

a part of the main Apollonia necropolis (S007).

Average visibility was 20% due to heavy maquis.

Size: 40 m diameter (0.16 ha).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, B.

468
Associated Tracts: B-044, B-045, B-054, B-055.

Periods Represented: LCL (1); HL (18); MHL (1); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (3);

LCL-EHL (2); LCL-HL (1); O-EM (3).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tracts B-044R, B-055R, J-

396, J-397, J-398, J-402.

Periods Represented: CL (1); LCL (4); HL (6).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (2); A-EHL (1); LA-CL (2); LA-EHL

(1); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (13); LCL-EHL (14).

Collection Method: Quadrants. The tumulus was divided into

quadrants and grabs were made in each. Tile were not

counted and only diagnostics were collected. 4 grabs.

Periods Represented: CL (1); LCL (1); HL (36); M (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-HL (19); LCL-EHL (4); LCL-

HL (2).

469
Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material from S006

is Classical/Hellenistic (85%). Thirteen pieces are

definitely pre-Hellenistic; five could be as early as

Archaic, although they could also be Classical. Two

additional pieces could be Archaic, but they could

also be as late as Early Hellenistic. Eight fragments

(6%) are definitely Classical; 60 pieces (42%) could

be Classical, but might also be Hellenistic.

Therefore, 51% of the assemblage could predate the

Hellenistic period. Definite Hellenistic material

comprises 43% of the assemblage. There is one Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age sherd. Five pieces (4%) fall

into the Post-Medieval range.

Tiles account for 20% of the finds from S006 and consist

principally of very large fragments.1327 Over half the

vessel assemblage has black glaze (63 = 55%); two

pieces are banded, and three skyphoi fragments have

red-figured decoration. There is a wide range of

shapes among the black glaze vessels; these include

the askos, bowl, cup, kantharos, krater, lamp,

lekythos, mug, pyxis, and skyphos. There are six

transport amphoras (5%) and two pithoi (2%), all of

which were probably used for enchytrismoi. Only two

fragments of cooking ware were found (2%), both of

1327
Only two bricks were found.

470
 them Hellenistic. Plain ware sherds comprise 36% of

the assemblage; most are from unidentified closed

shapes.

The dates of the assemblages from the three different

collection methods are similar except for the Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age sherd that was picked up in

tract walking. Possible Archaic sherds are present in

the revisitation and site collections, but not in the

tracts. Fifty-nine percent of the tract material is

Hellenistic, as is 55% of the site collection.

However, only 13% of the revisitation assemblage is

Hellenistic; almost all of these finds are or could be

pre-Hellenistic. The revisitation assemblage has the

highest percentage of black glaze pieces (73%),

compared with 44% of the tract assemblage, and 24% of

the site assemblage. The function of the site can be

determined from any of the assemblages: the shapes

represented in the tract assemblage would be

sufficient to identify the funerary nature of the site

and is similar in composition to the revisitation and

site collections.

The abundance of joining and non-joining pieces from the

same vessels points to recent disturbances at the

site; the sherd count is 242, but the vessel count is

471
 142. Seventy fragments of a small open black glaze

vessel of unidentified form were found together, as

were seven pieces of a lagynos. The presence of a

black glaze votive cup suggests the possibility of

ritual at the graveside. Despite some closed shapes

and a mortarium, it is unlikely that S006 had a

domestic component; the quantity of material that can

be associated with graves, including tiles, is

overwhelming. There is only one piece of cooking

ware, making it all the more improbable that the site

was used for habitation. Transport amphora and pithos

fragments suggest the presence of enchytrismoi in this

tumulus, in addition to tile graves and sarcophagus

burials.

Site Function: Burial tumulus.

SITE 007

Name: Apollonia, eastern necropolis.1328

Figs. 7.16, 7.18, 7.20; Tables 7.13, 7.14.

1328
See Praschniker 1922-1924; Mano 1971; Ceka 1982a; Amore 2003-2004,
2005a; Dimo 2004.

472
Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S007 is the large tumulus

cemetery that is associated with the asty of

Apollonia.1329 The necropolis is located east and

slightly north of the acropolis on the ridge that runs

parallel to perroi Vajës between the villages of

Kryegjata and Radostina. Many of the tumuli are

easily identifiable and some are fairly well

preserved. Others have suffered severe erosion, often

caused by goat trails. Army bunkers and trenches have

caused considerable damage, as has a road that runs

along the perroi. Looters are very active in the

cemetery. Natural hilly ridges have been incorporated

into the tumuli to enhance their size and scale.

Average visibility was 20%.

Goals of MRAP included determining the boundaries of the

cemetery, estimating the number of tumuli present,

ascertaining whether diachronic distinctions existed

spatially, and collecting information about the nature

of the material culture used in burials by the people

1329
See Amore 2005c for a thorough treatment of the necropolis and a
summary of all previous work there, including that by MRAP. For a
history of research in the necropolis, see Dimo and Fenet 1999; Lafe
2003, pp. 77-84.

473
 who were interred there. The boundaries have been

somewhat arbitrarily determined.1330 We started with a

limited area, which Galaty and Korkuti mapped with an

EDM (Electronic Distance Measuring instrument).1331 The

"perimeters" were gradually expanded from the

originally mapped area to include other tracts that

contain burials, but not necessarily tumuli.

Additional tumuli are located outside the boundaries

of S007, but no graves associated with the necropolis

are located outside Zone 2.1332

The area of the necropolis was tract walked, but most of it

was not site collected. Two tumuli (S005 and S006)

were collected as separate sites and have been treated

individually. Both of these were identified before

the borders of the necropolis were defined. Both were

being looted and warranted immediate investigation.

S004, S017, and S058 are other sites that fall within

the perimeter of the necropolis, but were individually

numbered; these also are treated in detail under their

site headings and excluded from the counts presented

below. S004 is a Late Ottoman to Early Modern

1330
Praschniker (1922-1924, cols. 51-54) was the first to conduct
scientific excavations in the necropolis. For the excavation of
individual tumuli see also Rey 1932; Mano 1959, 1971, 1975, 1977-1978;
Dimo 1977-1978, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1991; Dimo and Fenet 1999; Dimo,
Fenet, and Mano 2007; Amore 2003-2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c.
1331
See Davis et al. 2003-2004, pp. 311-313; Stocker and Davis 2006.
1332
The watersheds that mark the boundaries between Zone 2 and Zones 3
and 4 form the borders of the Greek necropolis.

474
 settlement with a few underlying Hellenistic graves;

S017 is a Paleolithic site; and S058 is primarily a

Roman habitation site.

Size: Ca. 0.5 km x 1 km.1333

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, 1999, 2000; B, D, and

J.

Associated Tracts: B-001, B-002, B-003, B-004, B-005, B-

006, B-007, B-008, B-009, B-010, B-011, B-012, B-013,

B-014, B-015, B-016, B-017, B-018, B-019, B-020, B-

021, B-022, B-023, B-024, B-025, B-026, B-027, B-028,

B-029, B-030, B-031, B-032, B-033, B-034, B-035, B-

036, B-037, B-038, B-039, B-040, B-041, B-042, B-043,

B-044, B-045, B-046, B-047, B-048, B-049, B-050, B-

051, B-052, B-053, B-054, B-055, B-056, B-057,* B-089,

B-090, B-091, B-092,* B-094, B-095, B-096, B-097, B-

098, B-099, B-100, B-101, B-102, B-103, B-104,* B-

107,* B-148, B-149, B-150, B-151; D-001, D-002, D-003,

D-004, D-005, D-006, D-007, D-008, D-009, D-010, D-

011, D-012, D-013, D-014, D-015, D-016, D-017, D-018,

D-019, D-020, D-021, D-022, D-023, D-024, D-025, D-

1333
N. Ceka (1982a, p. 15) also estimates the size of the necropolis at
ca. 50 ha.

475
 026, D-027, D-028, D-029, D-030, D-031, D-032, D-033,

D-034, D-035,* D-121, D-122, D-123, D-124, D-125, D-

126,* D-134, D-135, D-136, D-137, D-138; J-044, J-

045,* J-297, J-298, J-299, J-300, J-301, J-302, J-303,

J-304, J-305, J-306, J-307, J-308, J-309, J-310, J-

311, J-312, J-313, J-314, J-315, J-316, J-317,* J-336,

J-337, J-338, J-339, J-340, J-341, J-342, J-343, J-

344, J-345, J-346, J-347, J-348, J-349, J-350, J-351,

J-352, J-353, J-354, J-355, J-356,* J-362, J-363, J-

364, J-365, J-366, J-367,* J-375, J-376,* J-380, J-

381, J-382, J-383, J-384, J-385, J-386, J-387, J-388,

J-389, J-390, J-391, J-392, J-393, J-394, J-395,* J-

399, J-400, J-401,* J-403, J-404, J-405, J-406, J-407,

J-408, J-409, J-410, J-411,* J-414, J-415, J-416.1334

Periods Represented: LBA (2); EA (3); A (11); LA (3); ECL

(5); CL (25); LCL (4); EHL (3); HL (207); LHL (1); R

(1); PMED (19); EM (2); M (6).

Ranges Represented: A-ECL (2); A-CL (17); A-EHL (10); A-HL

(11); LA-ECL (7); LA-CL (5); LA-EHL (4); CL-EHL (11);

1334
A "*" is used to indicate a break in the sequence of tract numbers.
Italics have been used for tracts that are part of other sites within
the necropolis; the material from these sites is excluded from the
discussion of S007. On the number of tumuli in the necropolis, see
Dimo 2004, p. 12; Stocker and Davis 2006, p. 60.

476
 CL-HL (47); LCL-EHL (36); EHL-MHL (2); HL-R (1); LHL-

ER (2); LB-EM (1); LO-EM (1); EM-M (5); UNKN (16).

Collection Method: Select revisitation, Tracts B-019R, B-

043R, B-044R, B-055R, B-057R, B-148R, J-415;

overlapping Tracts J-374, J-377, J-378, J-379, J-396,

J-397, J-398, J-402, J-412, J-413.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (11); ER (2).

Ranges Represented: LCL-EHL (2); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: There are two pre-Greek sherds in the

necropolis assemblage, both of which are Late Bronze

Age. Eighty-three pieces (17%) of Greek type are

definitely pre-Hellenistic. Of these, 17 sherds (3%)

are definitely Archaic; 37 (7%) are definitely

Classical; the other 31 (6%) are either Archaic or

Classical.

Of the Archaic pieces from S007, three are Early Archaic,

11 are Archaic, and three are Late Archaic. Two of

the Early Archaic sherds predate the traditional

foundation date of the colony.1335 In addition to the

1335
All three Early Archaic sherds are from Corinthian Type A transport
amphoras (AS2, AS22, and AS66; see the amphora catalogue in Chapter 6).

477
 31 pieces that are Archaic-Classical, 25 other pieces

might be Archaic; these could also be Classical or

Hellenistic. The total number of the sherds that are

or could be Archaic is 79 (16%).

Of the 35 sherds that are definitely Classical, five are

Early Classical, 26 are Classical, and four are Late

Classical. In addition to the above-mentioned

Archaic-Classical and Archaic-Hellenistic sherds, 96

fragments (20%) are either Classical or Hellenistic.

The total of definite and possible Classical pieces is

187 (38%).

Most of the ceramics from the necropolis date to the

Hellenistic period. There are 224 sherds that are

definitely Hellenistic (46%), and 124 (25%) that could

be; three of the latter are Hellenistic or Roman, 96

are either Classical or Hellenistic, and 25 are

Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic. The total of

possible Hellenistic sherds is 348 (71%).

A large number of tiles were recorded during tract walking,

but most were not retained. Tiles (53) account for

only 11% of the assemblage, which is a vast under-

representation of the quantity present in the

See also Stocker and Davis 2006, pp. 60-62; Davis et al. 2004, p. 310.
The earliest Greek sherds from excavations come from Tumulus 7; they
are Corinthian imports from the last quarter of the 7th century B.C.
(Dimo 1988). See Amore 2005a for Early Archaic finds from the
necropolis.

478
 necropolis. The majority of the tiles are Hellenistic

(68%). Five (9%), however, are definitely earlier,

among which two have black glaze surfaces; these are

either Archaic or Classical. Four others (8%) might

possibly be pre-Hellenistic, and two might be as late

as Roman. Six tiles (11%) are of Modern or unknown

date. Most of the tiles are probably from tile

graves, one of the principal types of burial used in

the necropolis.

The assemblage from S007 has the greatest variety in vessel

shapes of any site in the survey region. Thirty

percent of the sherds (132) are black glaze; 19 shapes

were identified.1336 An additional 41 sherds (9%) come

from unidentifiable closed and open vessels. The

percentage of black glaze fragments (39%) is higher

here than at any other site outside of the necropolis.

This is, of course, due in part to the size of the

area under consideration, but also to the variety of

ceramic types that were used as grave offerings.1337

Ten pre-Roman sherds (2%) have either red- or black-

figured decoration. The skyphos is the best

represented shape. There is one sherd from a

1336
The black glaze shapes represented are the amphora, askos, bowl,
chous, cup, hydria, kantharos, krater, kylix, lamp, lekythos, lykinic,
mug, olpe, plate, pyxis, salt cellar, skyphos, and unguentarium. See
S007 tables.
1337
See Amore 2005c.

479
 miniature votive, but most of the vases from the

cemetery are standard household items; there are few

specifically funerary shapes.

Plain wares, especially closed shapes, are also well

represented (137 = 32%). The number of cooking ware

sherds, on the other hand, is low (16) and accounts

for only 4% of the assemblage.1338 Two pieces are

Archaic or Classical, two are Classical or

Hellenistic, 10 are Hellenistic, and two are of

unknown date. This paucity of cooking ware sherds is

to be expected since it is unlikely that any part of

the necropolis was used for domestic purposes during

the Classical and Hellenistic periods. The presence

of some cooking ware, though, is not problematic since

other limited activities besides burial are likely to

have taken place in the cemetery.

The quantity of sherds (73) from transport amphoras is high

in the necropolis, although they only account for 17%

of the total assemblage. Two transport amphoras are

decorated with black glaze; one dates to the Archaic

period, the other is Archaic to Hellenistic. The

large number of transport amphoras is in part due to

the durability of these vessels, but also to the

secondary use of many for burials. Pithoi, also used

1338
Nine of the sherds are from tracts on the border of the necropolis.

480
 for burials, represent only 2% (11 pieces) of the

sherd material.1339 Most of the pithoi are imports,

probably from Corinth; pithoi are rarer than transport

amphoras, perhaps because of their bulk and the

difficulty involved in their transportation.

Tile and pit graves are the most common forms of burial in

the necropolis. Tile graves were used in all periods,

but are the principal form of burial during the

Hellenistic period; the survey finds confirm this

chronological distinction. Amore notes that the

burial methods are more elaborate in the Archaic and

Classical periods; in contrast, during the Hellenistic

period the graves are simpler, but the types of grave

goods deposited with the deceased are more

elaborate.1340

S007 was not used as a burial ground during the Roman

period,1341 and a new cemetery to the west of Apollonia

was established at this time.1342 The eastern

necropolis probably went out of use before 44 B.C.;

very little securely dated Late Hellenistic material

was found. It is possible that the Hellenic form of

burial in tumuli became obsolete after Apollonia was

1339
The other 4% is Post-Medieval vessels.
1340
Amore 2005b, p. 310.
1341
Mano 1973. Tumulus 9, however, went out of use at the end of the
4th century B.C. See Amore 2005b, p. 310.
1342
Mano 1975, 1977-1978, pp. 75-77; Dimo, Fenet, and Mano 2007, p. 305.

481
 incorporated into the province of Macedonia in 149

B.C., that people wished to express a reorientation in

their allegiance, and that they did so through a shift

in burial place and rituals.

There are only three definite and three possible Roman

sherds in the S007 assemblage. Most of these come

from two contiguous tracts that are associated with

S058, a Roman habitation site found within the area of

the necropolis. This body of material is in keeping

with a domestic context; the assemblage includes a

plain closed shape, a table amphora, and tiles. It

appears that a small Roman household was established

in this restricted area after the necropolis had

ceased to be used as a burial ground. Two other

sherds, one definite and one possibly Roman, are from

Tract J-341 which is on the southwest edge of the

necropolis boundary; no other material was collected

in this tract.

Post-Roman finds account for 7% of the total assemblage

from S007 (34 pieces). In addition to single sherds

in two tracts, the Post-Medieval-Modern material falls

into four distinct clumps. Much of the later material

comes from tracts that are contiguous to the Early

Modern site at Kodra e Kripës (S004) or tracts

482
 immediately contiguous to that site's borders. A few

other fragments were found in the vicinity of S006.

Two other areas with some post-Roman sherds are

located in the southwestern corner of the necropolis.

In most cases the Post-Medieval ceramics are in tracts

with Early Modern or Modern sherds.

Because revisitation was spotty across the area of the

necropolis, the Archaic component is not well

represented in the revisitation assemblage, and the

Roman and post-antique components are completely

absent. The shapes in the tract and revisitation

assemblages are basically the same; those that are

best represented in the tract collection are also

present in the revisitation assemblage.

The large number of transport amphoras and pithoi, the high

tile counts, the quantity and quality of the black

glaze fragments, the number of imports, and the lack

of cooking ware point most clearly to the funerary,

rather than domestic, context of the area in the

Archaic to Hellenistic periods.

Site Function: Archaic-Hellenistic necropolis; Roman house.

483
 SITE 008

Name: Apollonia, settlement and fortifications.1343

Figs. 7.21, 7.22, 7.23; Table 7.15.

Zone: Zone 1, eastern third in Zone 2.

Site Location and Description: S008 is located on the ridge

and slopes above and leading down into the flood

plain. It comprises the asty of Apollonia and

consists of the parts of the ancient city-state that

are located within the city walls.1344 Explorations of

the fortification walls around Apollonia have been

conducted since the time of Pouqueville, and various

parts of the circuit have been excavated.1345 Although

the city was founded in the Archaic period, the

monuments that are visible today date principally to

1343
See Cabanes 1994, pp. 521-523 and Dimo, Quantin, and Vrekaj 2007 for
a history of prior scholarship.
1344
See Cabanes and Drini 1995, pp. 28-47; Mano 2003-2004; Vrekaj 2004;
Bonnet and Ferriés 2007; Cabanes 2007b for a discussion of ancient
sources related to the history of the polis.
1345
Pouqueville 1820, p. 357. The wall itself stretches ca. 4.5 km and
encloses nearly 100 ha. See Gillieron 1877, p. 14; Praschniker and
Schober 1919, pp. 70-71; Pollo and Puto 1981, p. 7; Dimo 1984, pp. 199-
213; Amore et al. 1995, pp. 763-778; Balandier et al. 1996, pp. 977-
985; Cabanes et al. 1997, pp. 857-860; Cabanes et al. 1999, pp. 576-
580; Cabanes, Lamboley, and Vrekaj 2000, pp. 621-624, 2001, pp. 713-
715. See especially Balandier and Koço 1999, pp. 205-216 and
Balandier, Koço, and Lenhardt 2007 for recent, detailed discussions of
the walls. Parts of the Archaic wall were excavated near the retaining
wall of the monastery in 1987 by Koça (1987, p. 246).

484
 the Roman period.1346 Visibility within the city walls

ranged from 20-75%.

Size: Ca. 130 ha.1347

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, P.

Associated Tracts: P-001–P-011; P-089–P-101; P-135–P-183.

Periods Represented: A (2); ECL (1); CL (4); LCL (1); HL

(171); LHL (4); R (6); MR (7); LR (6); PMED (6); M

(2).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (7); LCL-

EHL (1); EHL-MHL (1); HL-ER (6); HL-MR (5); HL-R (3);

LHL-R (1); ER-MR (18); MR-LR (5); UNKN (6).

Collection Method: Transects. Four transects divided into

50 m segments running N-S and E-W were walked across

1346
For a discussion of the monuments at Apollonia, see Rey 1928a, pp.
13-18, 1939; Masci 1943; N. Ceka 1982a; Dimo et al. 2007; Lamboley
2007. For recent excavations by the Albanian-French team, see Koço
1987; Cabanes 1994; Amore et al. 1995; Balandier et al. 1996; Cabanes
et al. 1997, 1999; Cabanes, Lamboley, and Vrekaj 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003; Lamboley and Vrekaj 2003-2004; Mano 2003-2004; Dimo 2004; Delouis
et al. 2007; Dimo et al. 2007; for a bibliography, see Fenet et al.
2007. It now appears that the Archaic city was organized on a grid
plan. See Verger et al. 2007, pp. 231-237 for recent excavations at
Apollonia and di Vita 1990 for town planning in colonies.
1347
N. Ceka (1982a, p. 15) estimates the size of the polis at its height
as ca. 130 ha.

485
 the site. One transect to the west continued to the

sea; the other was terminated when artifact density

dropped to zero ca. 800 m into the plain.

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material (66%)

from S008 is from the Hellenistic period. Very little

Archaic material was found, and surprisingly little

Classical pottery as well. Definite pre-Hellenistic

sherds (8) account for only 3% of the assemblage, with

an additional 10 pieces (4%) that might be; there are

only two definite Archaic pieces. This lack of

earlier finds is probably related to the parts of the

site that were collected: we now know that the Archaic

material is centered in the plateau, between the lower

and upper acropoleis, an area which was not tract

walked.1348 There are no indigenous finds from S008.

The Roman period, on the other hand, is well

represented (16% definite, with another 6% that might

be).1349 The percentage of post-antique sherds,

specifically Late Ottoman-Early Modern, collected at

the site is much smaller than in the necropolis (14

pieces = 5%).

1348
Bereti et al. 2007, pp. 129-133; Verger et al. 2007.
1349
A large number of the amphora sherds cannot be more closely dated
than Hellenistic-Roman.

486
The Classical-Hellenistic shapes in the assemblage from

S008 differ from the necropolis assemblage. Shapes

that are absent include the lamp, lekythos, olpe,

pithos, pyxis, salt celler, unguentarium, and, most

noticeably, the skyphos.1350 The only skyphos and

krater fragments found (one each) date to the Archaic

period and are the only two definite Archaic pieces.

Shapes found in the asty assemblage, but not in the

necropolis, include the chytra, kantharos, lekane,

pitcher, and plate. There are more cooking (26 = 12%)

and plain ware sherds (85 = 38%) from S008 than from

S007; these account for half of the vessel fragments.

Moreover, there are fewer fine black glaze pieces (35

= 15%, including 10 banded pieces); there is only one

sherd with black-figured decoration. Although the

percentage of transport amphoras is higher (31% vs.

17%), the number of imported Corinthian amphoras is

lower (4% vs. 22%). Most of the transport amphoras

from the necropolis are Archaic-Hellenistic, whereas

most from S008 are Hellenistic and could date as late

as the Roman period. Unlike the necropolis, where

many sherds often belong to the same vessel, there is

1350
The total number of lekythoi from the MRAP survey area is 21; 14 of
these are from Zone 2 (13 from the necropolis [S006/S007] and one from
S016). Only four are not from a site, and two of these are in a tract
located immediately outside the lower town of Margelliç, between S044
and S055.

487
 only one join among these finds, suggesting a much

greater degree of long-term surface disturbance here.

Site Function: Archaic-Roman asty.

SITE 009

Name: Çuka e Bukur, lower.

Fig. 7.24; Tables 7.16, 7.17.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S009 is situated between

highland pastures and lowland fields on the Çuka e

Bukur ridge, midway along the ridge near a small

bunker complex. It is the lower of two sites on the

ridge; S002 sits above it, closer to the ridge-top.

The northern half of the site has been damaged by

bunker excavations. The southwestern scarp of the

knoll is carpeted with shells. Average visibility was

60%.

488
Size: 0.60 ha (0.07).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-047, A-048.

Periods Represented: HL (5); M (1).

Ranges Represented: UNKN (1).

Collection Method (G): Transects. Vacuums with a dogleash

were taken along transects at 10 m intervals; very

little material was collected and none retained. The

site was then divided into quadrants and grabs for

diagnostics were taken from each. Very few tiles were

collected. 4 grabs, 6 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (31); R (1).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); LA-EHL (1).

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material from S009

is Hellenistic (86%). There are two pieces that could

be as early as Archaic, but they could also be

489
 Classical or Hellenistic. One Classical pithos

fragment is the only definite pre-Hellenistic sherd

from the site. There is one piece of a Roman cooking

jug and one piece of Modern tile.

Thirty-one percent of the Hellenistic sherds are

bricks/tiles. Most of the vessel fragments are either

plain (38%) or cooking ware (42%) from a variety of

open and closed domestic shapes. Four transport

amphoras were collected, all Hellenistic, except one

that is Archaic-Hellenistic. There is a noticeable

lack of fine wares; only one fragment of black glaze

was found. Small finds from the site include an

Archaic-Hellenistic loomweight.

Material was recorded during tract walking that was not

brought in for analysis, including at least five

Hellenistic amphora sherds and a large quantity of

tiles. Cooking wares are not represented in the tract

assemblage, although they are an important component

of the site; for this reason alone, the tract

collection is not representative of S009. Nor does it

reflect the potentially earlier and later components;

the Archaic-Classical and Roman periods are

represented only in the site collection. This is not

490
 surprising, however, given the scarcity of both pre-

and post-Hellenistic finds from the site.

The amount of cooking ware, the number of storage jars, and

the open and closed plain shapes, suggest S009 was

used for domestic purposes. The loomweight

strengthens this identification. It is likely that

the site was a small farmstead in the Hellenistic

period. If there were earlier or later components,

they are very ephemeral, suggesting the site was used

on a temporary basis.

Site Function: Small Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 010

Name: Shtyllas, spring.

Fig. 7.25; Tables 7.18, 7.19.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S010 is located at the St.

Ilias spring on the south side of the Shtyllas valley,

491
 just below Mali i Shtyllasit. The site is east of,

and downslope from, S001. S010 is in a broad grassy

field around several modern 1 m sq quadrangle holes

that have been dug to collect water. The bedrock is

shelly conglomerate. Average visibility was 50%.

Size: 0.20 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-076.

Periods Represented: HL (11).

Ranges Represented: LCL-EHL (2); LCL-HL (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation with grab of diagnostic

sherds in vicinity.

Periods Represented: HL (6).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (24); UNKN (4).

492
Artifact Discussion: Almost all the material from S010 from

both tract walking and revisitation could be

Hellenistic (92%; the other 8% consists of undated

sherds). Of this, 39% is definitely Hellenistic, and

61% could be, but it could also Classical.

No tiles are present in the assemblage (four fragments were

reported, but not collected). Most of the sherds are

from plain water vessels or other unidentifiable

closed shapes (55%). Twenty-five percent of the

sherds are black glaze, including one banded table

amphora. Five fragments (11%) are cooking ware.1351

There are three storage vessels (one pithos and two

transport amphoras). There is also an unidentified

Hellenistic sherd with red slip.

There is a higher percentage of black glaze from tract

collection than site revisitation (50% vs. 13%). More

cooking ware, on the other hand, is present in the

revisitation assemblage (22% vs. 7%), and the variety

of shapes is greater.

The high percentage and the quality of black glaze

fragments, some of which are imports, is unusual for

sites in the hinterland of Apollonia. The

concentration of fine wares might suggest ritual at

the site. Also of note is the absence of tiles. The

1351
The four unidentifiable sherds are also cooking ware.

493
 shapes represented in the assemblage are primarily

vessels associated with drinking, i.e., amphoras,

kantharoi, and skyphoi; these are the types of pots

one would expect to find at a spring.1352 The storage

vessels and the cooking pots, however, point to a

domestic component. The quantity of possible

Classical material suggests there might be a pre-

Hellenistic component to S010.

It is interesting to note that two pre-Greek sherds were

recovered in an adjacent tract, A-080; one is Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age, the other Early Iron Age. The

presence of pre-Greek material in close proximity, as

well as a small concentration higher up at S026,

suggests that native inhabitants were using the spring

and the area around Shtyllas before the arrival of the

Greeks.

Site Function: Spring. Illyrian?; Classical?; Hellenistic,

perhaps sacred?

SITE 011

1352
The small quantity of broken plain ware sherds associated with water
collection is perhaps due to modern disturbance at the site and lack of
formal, intensive site collection.

494
Name: Pyll i Shtyllasit, upper.

Figs. 7.26, 7.27; Tables 7.20, 7.21.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S011 is situated in the

scarps of a bluff north of a road that once ran out of

Radostina towards Çuka e Bukur. It is on the east

side of the Shtyllas valley, immediately west of an

agricultural road. The site was identified on the

basis of high tile counts recorded during tract

walking. It is poorly preserved and has been

disturbed by military excavations, bunkers, and a

modern road. S011 is associated with a series of

large gun emplacements that have been converted into

animal pens. S012 is located directly downslope from

S011. Dark red alfisols are visible in a section of

the road scarp. Average visibility was 30%.

Size: 0.16 ha (0.27).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, 1999, A.

495
Associated Tracts: A-104.

Periods Represented: HL (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. Axes were N-S and E-W.

Each square was vacuumed. Artifacts were counted in

the field and diagnostics were brought in for

processing. 16 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (96); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); CL-HL (5).

Artifact Discussion: The bulk of the material from S011 is

Hellenistic (93%). There is nothing that is

definitely pre-Hellenistic, although one piece could

be as early as Archaic, and five pieces could be

Classical. One tile is definitely Post-Medieval.

Tiles comprise 28% of the assemblage. The vessel sherds

are primarily from closed shapes, in both cooking

(17%) and plain wares (60%). There are only two black

glaze fragments. Storage vessels include two pithoi

and 13 (17%) transport amphora. Many of the tiles and

496
 transport amphoras are represented by unusually large

fragments.

The tract assemblage does not accurately reflect site

function since only one sherd was retained from the

initial investigation.

S011 appears to have been used primarily in the Hellenistic

period; 2/3 of the sherds that could be earlier are

from large storage vessels. The quantity of cooking

ware and closed vessels suggest a domestic function.

Noteworthy is the large number of transport amphoras,

which suggests the site was used for storage, perhaps

of agricultural products.

Site Function: Small Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 012

Name: Pyll i Shtyllasit, lower.

Figs. 7.28, 7.29; Tables 7.22; 7.23.

Zone: 4.

497
Site Location and Description: S012 is located on the south

side of the Shtyllas valley on a tongue of maquis-

covered land between two larger ridges. It is 200 m

south and downslope of S011. The edges of the site

are defined by a number of erosion gullies that have

exposed red soil in their scarps. There are well-

defined sheep and goat paths across and around the

hill. The tract through site center has one stone

that is possibly cut and many that are not. These

were originally interpreted as a wall. Average

visibility was 20%.

Size: 0.24 ha (0.33).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, 1999, A.

Associated Tracts: A-107, A-108.

Periods Represented: HL (6); R (4); MR (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. Axes were N-S and E-W.

Each square was vacuumed. Artifacts were counted in

the field and diagnostics were brought in for

processing. 25 vacuums.

498
Periods Represented: HL (22); LHL (7); R (1); MR (72); LR

(1).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); HL-R (1); UNKN (23).

Artifact Discussion: Thirty-five percent of the material

from S012 is Hellenistic. Two other pieces might be,

but one could also be Classical, the other Roman. The

former, a possible imitation of a Corinthian Type A

transport amphora, is the earliest piece from the

site. Tiles comprise 56% of the total site

assemblage. Over half of the material is Roman (57%),

of which 63% is tiles. Seventeen percent of the

sherds could not be dated.

Black glaze is rare; there is only one sherd. There are 17

(28%) cooking ware fragments, but the highest

percentage of sherds is from plain closed shapes

(46%). Eleven sherds (18%) are from storage jars:

three from pithoi, eight from transport amphoras.

The dates of the sherds in the tract collection differ from

those in the site assemblage, with over half of the

tract finds dating to the Hellenistic period, while

60% of the site assemblage is Roman.

499
The types of Roman vessels present reflect the domestic

function of S012. The small number of ceramics (24%)

vs. tiles (76%) also suggests a domestic context,

especially given the unusually large percentage of

cooking ware. The Hellenistic sherds probably

represent a component of this date, perhaps with

architecture, but of unknown function. Most of the

storage vessels are Roman, so it is possible that the

site was occupied by a small farmstead during this

period.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house?; Roman farmstead.

SITE 013

Name: Shëndëlli church.

Fig. 7.30; Tables 7.24, 7.25.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S013, a church of St. Ilias,

is situated just south of the Radostina-Shtyllas road

500
 on a small hill approximately 500 m from the edge of

Shtyllas village. A path up to the site is lined with

small cypresses. The church was destroyed in 1967.

Foundations were visible in 1998-2000. An elaborately

decorated masonry block, used as an altar in the

church and probably a spolium brought from the

bouleuterion at Apollonia, and a metal safe had been

dragged to what would have been the center of the

building. The church had been completely rebuilt by

2005. Average visibility was 80% on top of the mound,

30% on overgrown sides.1353

Size: 2.00 ha (0.12).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-030, A-031, A-032, A-033.

Periods Represented: HL (1); R (1); EO (4).

Collection Method: Quadrants. The site was divided into

quadrants. Grabs were made in each quadrant, only

ceramics were collected. 4 grabs.

1353
See Galaty, Stocker, and Watkinson 1999.

501
Periods Represented: HL (1); LR (1); O (1); PMED (4).

Ranges Represented: EM-M (7); UNKN (3).

Artifact Discussion: S013 was identified on the basis of

high tile densities recorded in tract walking and

actual architectural remains at the location. Only

two tiles were collected, however, and these are both

Hellenistic. Two Roman fragments (a brick and a

slipped table amphora sherd), one of which is

specifically Late Roman, were also found; one during

site collection, the other in tract walking.

The tract material can be more closely dated than the finds

from the site collection. There are no specifically

Early Ottoman sherds in the site collection, although

the shapes are similar in both assemblages, and most

of the material in the site assemblage is Early

Modern-Modern. The few pieces of ancient material

from the combined site and tract assemblages (two

Hellenistic, one Roman, one Late Roman) might

represent background scatter rather than actual site

use in antiquity. The tract material closely mirrors

the site collection; one piece of Hellenistic and one

502
 of Roman are in each assemblage, as are Ottoman

pieces.

Most of the Post-Medieval glazed shapes from S013 are open;

the plain and slipped pieces are closed. Coarse and

cooking ware sherds are absent. The function of the

site before the construction of the church in the

Early Modern period is unclear.

Site Function: Early Modern-Modern Church.

SITE 014

Name: Shtyllas, head of valley.

Fig. 7.31; Tables 7.26, 7.27.

Zone: Primarily in 4, but a small part at the crest of the

knoll is in Zone 3.

Site Location and Description: S014 is on the west side of

a knoll at the east end of the Shtyllas valley. It

sits in a pass leading to Radostina on a ridge midway

between highland pastures and lowland fields. The

503
 site is located where the roads to Shtyllas and Mali i

Portës split, and commands an impressive view over

both the Fier plain and the Shtyllas valley. Site 014

is the largest Hellenistic site located by MRAP in the

Shtyllas Valley. Large quantities of material on the

terraces are visible from the Shtyllas road. The site

had multiple centers. Two human skeletons are eroding

from the scarps of a terrace near the bottom of the

slope in S014-019G. The site is terraced and bunkers

have been cut into the top. Average visibility was

10% on the lowest terraces, 50% on the upper.

Size: 2.00 ha (1.4).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-192, A-193, A-194, A-195, A-196.1354

Periods Represented: HL (47).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (3); LCL-EHL (1); HL-R (1); MHL

(1).

1354
The site might include Tracts A-181–A-196.

504
Collection Method: The summit of the hill was divided into

quadrants, and the lower terraced slopes into three

sectors. Each third of a terrace and quarter of the

summit was defined as a collection unit. Vacuums with

a dogleash and grabs of diagnostics were taken from

each unit. 32 grabs, 32 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (436); R (6); M (15).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-EHL (1); LCL-HL (12); HL-R

(1); HL-EM (2); UNKN (2).

Artifact Discussion: The vast majority of the material from

S014 is Hellenistic (91%). There is one transport

amphora fragment that is earlier; it is either Archaic

or Classical. Seventeen other pieces (3%), mostly

transport amphoras, could be Classical, but they could

also be Hellenistic. There is a small scatter of

Roman tiles (6 = 1%), and two other pieces might be

Roman, but could also be Hellenistic. Fifteen pieces

of Modern bricks/tiles were collected, one

unidentifiable piece, and two sherds that are no more

closely dated than Hellenistic-Early Modern (3%).

505
Tiles (336) comprise 64% of the assemblage from S014. One

large fragment of a Middle Hellenistic pan tile was

found that bears the stamp "IT."1355

The largest percentage of pottery sherds is from plain

closed vessels of Hellenistic date (66%). Thirty-two

storage vessels (18%) were found: 31 transport

amphoras and one pithos. Almost all of these could be

Hellenistic, but one is definitely earlier. There is

a noticeable lack of black glaze (4%); only three

sherds were picked up in site collection and five in

tract walking. Cooking ware sherds are better

represented at S014; they account for 12% of the

assemblage. Most of the plain and cooking ware

fragments come from closed vessels, and the number of

open shapes is small.

Small finds from S014 consist of four prehistoric lithics

and two unidentified and undated scraps of metal.

Human bones of unknown date were found in the scarp in

A-195/S014-019. The material from these units is

predominately tiles, which suggests the presence of

one or more tile graves. There are also several

transport amphora fragments and some plain closed

vessel fragments. No identifiable grave offerings are

1355
Mano (1965, p. 72; 2006, pp. 607, 615) has identified this stamp on
tiles from Apollonia, which she dates to the 3rd-2nd century B.C.

506
 present in the assemblage, though, and the lack of

black glaze sherds is unusual in comparison to the

quantity that was recovered in the necropolis.

Although they comprised the largest percentage of the finds

in both assemblages, plain ware vessels from site

collection are much more dominant than from tract

walking (71% vs. 49%). Cooking ware, black glaze, and

storage vessels are present in equal proportions in

the tract assemblage (17% ea.). The percentage of

storage vessels in the site collection is also 17%,

but the percentage of black glaze is much smaller; it

accounts for only 2% of the assemblage. Shapes from

tract collection that are not represented in the site

assemblage are the bowl, chytra, mortarium, and olpe.

Modern and Roman sherds are present in the site

collection assemblage, but are absent from the tract

collection. The quantity of tiles is somewhat higher

in the site assemblage (66%) than the tract (43%), but

this is to be expected given the different collection

techniques.

The nature of the assemblage from S014 is in keeping with a

domestic context. The presence of human bones,

however, points to the existence of one or more

graves.

507
Site Function: Hellenistic hamlet and cemetery.

SITE 015

Name: Shtyllas, farmyard.

Figs. 7.32, 7.33; Tables 7.28, 7.29.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S015 is located on a farm at

Shullëri, near a modern reservoir and pumping station.

The site is on a ridge midway between highland

pastures and lowland fields, above the road that runs

through the Shtyllas valley. Artifacts were spread

out on the slopes of a low knoll, scattered throughout

the vegetable fields of a modern farmstead. The area

is intensively farmed. Remains of ancient walls were

found on top of the knoll in unit S015-009. Farmers

are robbing stones from these walls for use in modern

constructions. Visibility was 20% in maquis, 80% in

farmyard and fields.

508
Size: 2.00 ha (0.60).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, A.

Associated Tracts: A-121, A-122, A-125, A-205, A-206, A-

207.

Periods Represented: HL (13); R (5); MR (1); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); UNKN (2).

Collection Method: Collection units were defined by natural

landscape boundaries; diagnostic grabs were made in

each unit. 11 grabs.

Periods Represented: IA (1); HL (190); LHL (1); ER (2); R

(23); M (7).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (2); EHL-MHL (2); HL-

R (1); MHL-LHL (1).

Artifact Discussion: One Iron Age sherd was found at S015.

The vast majority of the material, however, is

509
 Hellenistic; material of this date accounts for 81% of

the assemblage. Five other pieces might be

Hellenistic, too, although four could also be

Classical, and the fifth could be Roman. There is a

small Roman component to the site; 12% of the

assemblage is of this date. Seven sherds, four from a

single pipe, are Modern.

Eighty-nine tile fragments were collected, which comprise

35% of the assemblage. The largest percentage of

sherds, however, is from plain vessels (57%),

primarily closed shapes. Cooking ware makes up 21% of

the vessel assemblage, and storage vessels only 5%.

The Roman component is smaller than the Hellenistic.

Nevertheless, the assemblage from S015 represents the

most significant concentration of Roman material in

the Shtyllas valley. Finds include tiles, cooking

vessels, plain wares, and one fragment of Terra

Sigillata.

Small finds include a Hellenistic bronze coin and a Roman

millstone. The coin has an image of Artemis on the

obverse and a spearhead on the reverse; it was minted

by the Koinon of Epirus in the Middle Hellenistic

period, ca. 234-168 B.C.1356

1356
See Meta 2006.

510
The tract assemblage is an accurate reflection of the site

assemblage, although the percentages of Hellenistic

and Roman are different. There is more Hellenistic

from site collection (84% vs. 57%), but this is a

result of collection methodology. There are twice as

many Roman sherds in the tract assemblage (26% vs.

11%). On the other hand, Iron Age and Modern sherds

are not present among the tract finds. There is a

much greater variety of shapes in the site assemblage,

but the quantity of plain vessels comprises the

largest group of finds in both assemblages.

The presence of Hellenistic and Roman tablewares, cooking

vessels, and storage containers suggests that S015 was

a domestic site in both periods. The few black glaze

shapes are standard household equipment. It is

unclear whether there is continuity in site use

between the Hellenistic and Roman periods; the

presence of both Late Hellenistic and Early Roman

sherds, however, suggests this possibility. The site

was probably the location of small Hellenistic and

Roman farmsteads.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; Roman farmstead.

511
 SITE 016

Name: Kodra Ullirit ("Hill of Olives").

Fig. 7.34; Tables 7.30, 7.31.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S016 is in a grove of olive

trees at the southwestern end of Kodra Ullirit, ca.

1.4 km from Apollonia. The site is located just

outside the boundaries of the necropolis (S007). S016

is well preserved, and there is little evidence of

erosion at the site; the olives appear to have

stabilized the area. There are several bunkers at the

edge of the site, but not in the center. The recent

planting of young olives probably uncovered artifacts

that were then dumped, with the soil, into nearby corn

fields. An ancient building may have stood in grid

square S016-003G in the northeast quadrant of the

site, where substantial concentrations of tiles and

stones were found. Visibility ranged from 60-70%.

512
Size: Ca. 1.00 ha (0.60).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, B.

Associated Tracts: B-085, B-086, B-087, B-088.

Periods Represented: CL (3); LCL (1); HL (38); ER (1).

Ranges Represented: LCL-EHL (1); UNKN (2).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tracts J-042, J-043.1357

Periods Represented: HL (4).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1).

Collection Method: Grabs were made in naturally bounded

garden plots. Vacuums with a dogleash were taken

along transects at 10 m intervals. 12 grabs, 4

vacuums.

Periods Represented: EA (1); LCL (1); HL (80); LR (6); R

(1); PMED (1).

1357
Five sherds from revisitation are included in the tract table.

513
Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-EHL (1); A-HL (1); LA-EHL

(3); CL-EHL (4); CL-HL (4); LCL-EHL (2); HL-R (1);

MHL-LHL (1); O-EM (3).

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the ceramics from S016

date to the Hellenistic period (76%). Seven pieces

(4%) are definitely earlier; one is Early Archaic, one

is Archaic or Classical, three are Classical, and one

is Late Classical. Seventeen other pieces (11%) might

also be earlier; five of these could be Archaic.

There are five sherds (3%) that are definitely Roman,

and one additional piece (1%) that is either

Hellenistic or Roman. Six fragments (4%) are Post-

Medieval or unknown.

Thirty percent of the sherds are tiles; 43 pieces (90%) are

Hellenistic, and another could be. Plain ware makes

up the largest group of vessel sherds, comprising

almost 1/2 of the assemblage (48%). Transport

amphoras are the second largest category of finds;

they make up 25% of the total. All of the definite

and most of the possible sherds that predate the

Hellenistic period are from transport amphoras, most

of which are imports or imitations of Corinthian

514
 types. The percentage of black glaze (16) tallies

well with that from other sites in the vicinity, as

does that of cooking ware (11%).

The dates of shreds from tract collection accurately

reflect the larger body of finds from site collection.

Archaic is the only period that is not represented in

the tract assemblage. The quantity of Roman sherds in

both groups is small. Most of sherds in both the

tract and site assemblages are tiles (82% and 72%).

The percentages of cooking ware (15% and 19%) and

black glaze (12% and 10%) are also similar; this is

true, too, for the number of sherds from plain vessels

(59% and 41%). A wide variety of shapes are

represented in both assemblages.

The possible Classical material consists primarily of fine

wares and transport amphoras, some of which are

imports or imitations. There is a piece of imported

Classical Attic black glaze, an Attic black glaze

krater, and "local" Classical black glaze. Only two

fragments of Classical cooking ware were found. Most

of the finds are in keeping with a domestic

assemblage, but the krater and lekythos might point to

the presence of a disturbed Classical grave.

515
S016 appears to be the only Classical habitation site found

by MRAP outside the asty of Apollonia. Although it is

located near the boundary of the necropolis, it is

outside the perimeter of the cemetery. The presence

of cooking ware sherds strengthens its identification

as a domestic site, but the black glaze sherd and

transport amphora raise the possibility of a Classical

burial.

The Hellenistic shapes are typical of a domestic

assemblage. There are black glaze drinking and

pouring vessels, cooking pots, and storage jars. The

only pithos fragment was collected during tract

walking, but there are numerous transport amphoras

from site collection.1358 The quantity of, and variety

in, black glaze sherds suggests that this assemblage

is from a wealthy household.

The Roman assemblage is also in keeping with a domestic

context, but on a smaller scale. In addition to

cooking vessels there are several Late Roman table

amphora fragments that are coated on the interior with

bitumen.

1358
S016 has the largest quantity of amphoras collected at any site (23,
five of which were exported for analysis); these include examples of
Corinthian Types A and A', as well as imitations of Corinthian Type A.
One of the earliest Type A amphoras, which predates the traditional
foundation date, comes from S016.

516
Site Function: Classical grave or habitation site?;

Hellenistic farmstead; small Roman farmstead.

SITE 017

Name: Kryegjata A.

Table 7.32.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S017 is located northwest of

the military base at Kryegjata, in the gravel road

below and to the south of the ridge of the eastern

necropolis of Apollonia. The site consists of a

concentration of lithics that were found in the

roadbed. The site is part of the necropolis of

Apollonia. Visibility was 80% on road, 20% in maquis.

Size: 0.60 ha?

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, B.

517
Associated Tracts: B-027.

Periods Represented: HL (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (2); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: Microtracts and Revisitation. The road

in B-027 was re-walked with team members spaced

shoulder to shoulder. The site was also revisited in

subsequent years (1999-2001) and diagnostic stray

finds were collected.

Periods Represented: HL (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (2).

Artifact Discussion: The small number of Archaic-Classical

artifacts would be in keeping with Greek burial

activity in the area, given that the site is located

in the middle of the necropolis of Apollonia.

Site Function: Middle Paleolithic station.

518
 SITE 018

Name: Vadhiza, farmyard.

Fig. 7.35; Tables 7.33, 7.34.

Zone: 3.

Site Location and Description: S018 is located in the

bottom of a small valley between the first two hills

east of Radostina on the way to Vadhiza, in the yard

and fields of the Saliaj family. There is a water

source nearby. The site center has been

systematically plowed and cultivated, but is fairly

well preserved. A channel cut around the field may

have disturbed the periphery of the site. Visibility

was 50% in field, 30% in remainder of the site.

Size: 1.20 ha (1.30).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, D.

Associated Tracts: D-095, D-096, D-097, D-098.

519
Periods Represented: LB (1); LO (10); PMED (25).

Ranges Represented: LO-EM (3); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. The site center was

identified and collected first. Two axes, N-S and E-

W, were laid out, dividing the area into four

transects. Vacuums with a dogleash were taken at 10 m

intervals along the four transects (T1-4) until

artifact densities dropped off. Once the extent of

the site was determined, the area was covered with a

grid and each square was grabbed for diagnostics. 54

grabs, 30 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (100); R (3); MR (1); MED

(1); PMED (1024); EO (4); O (14); LO (225); M (7).

Ranges Represented: O-EM (1392); LO-EM (21); UNKN (10).

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material from S018

is Post-Medieval, specifically Ottoman/Late Ottoman to

Early Modern, and many of the Ottoman-Early Modern

sherds are tiles. Most of the ceramics can be dated

no more closely than Post-Medieval. There is great

520
 variety in the repertoire of shapes represented in the

assemblage. It is likely that the Ottoman/Late

Ottoman-Early Modern and the Post-Medieval finds are

from the same occupation episode.

There is a small amount of Hellenistic material mixed in

with the post-Roman finds; 85% of this is

bricks/tiles, the rest is from plain closed vessels.

There is one imported transport amphora sherd that is

either a Corinthian Type A' or an imitation. Four

Roman sherds were also found, one of which is a Middle

Roman transport amphora.

Cooking, plain, glazed, and underglazed vessels are present

in the Post-Medieval assemblage; these are consistent

with a domestic character. The quantity of

Hellenistic tiles suggests the possibility that there

was a small structure on the site during this period.

Hellenistic and Roman sherds are absent in the tract

assemblage, as are specifically Early Ottoman and

Ottoman finds. The post-Roman range of shapes is

similar in both assemblages, although there is wider

variety in the site collection.

Most of the Graeco-Roman sherds from S018 are bricks/tiles.

It is unlikely that S018 was permanently inhabited

during the Hellenistic period in view of the small

521
 number of vessel sherds of this date. It is possible,

however, that the site was used on a temporary basis,

perhaps as a field house or storage shed.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house; Post-Medieval

hamlet.

SITE 019

Name: Radostina.

Fig. 7.36; Tables 7.35, 7.36.

Zone: 3.

Site Location and Description: S019 is located on the slope

of a hill southeast of Radostina on the Radostina-

Shtyllas road. The site faces the valley to the

southeast of Radostina. Site preservation appears to

be good, although a cut for a nearby field road

probably disturbed a few parts of the site.

Visibility was 60% in vineyard, 30% in grassy area,

and 10% in overgrown olives.

522
Size: 0.65 ha (2.40).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, D.

Associated Tracts: D-064, D-065, D-066, D-067, D-068, D-

072, D-073, D-074.

Periods Represented: HL (13); R (2); LR (11); PMED (3); LO

(2); M (2).

Ranges Represented: HL-R (2); MR-LR (1); O-EM (4); EM-M

(1); UNKN (5).

Collection Method: Microtracts. Microtracts of similar

size and vegetation were defined in the original

tracts. Vacuums with a dogleash were collected from

the center of each microtract, and grabs for

diagnostics were made. 38 grabs, 38 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (7); HL (1194); R (1); MR (2); LR

(29); B (2); PMED (37); O (3); EM (2); M (438).

523
Ranges Represented: LBA (1); IA (1); A-HL (1); A-CL (1);

CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (1); ER-MR (12); LR-EB (1); LO-EM

(4); UNKN (4).

Artifact Discussion: Pre-Medieval sherds account for 72% of

the total site assemblage. Of these, 68% are

Hellenistic. There are two indigenous fragments, one

Late Bronze Age, the other Iron Age. Eight pieces are

definitely pre-Hellenistic; one of these could be

Archaic. Three other sherds could be earlier than the

Hellenistic period; one could be as early as Archaic,

the others could be Classical. The Roman period is

fairly well represented with 58 pieces, although this

is only 3% of the total. Most of the post-antique

material is Modern (87%). Ninety-nine percent of this

is tiles.

Seventy-six percent of the finds from S019 are

bricks/tiles. Of these, 89% are Hellenistic. Of the

pre-Medieval pieces, 71% are tiles. The majority of

the pre-Medieval vessel sherds are from plain vessels

(68%). Most of these are unidentifiable closed

shapes. Cooking pots account for 24% of the

assemblage, and black glaze for only 1%. There are 24

storage vessels (6%). There is also one piece of

524
 Terra Sigillata, and three unidentified Hellenistic

glazed sherds.

The tract material and the site assemblage are the same

only in the fact that both are composed of two groups

of finds; Hellenistic and Post-Medieval. Only 30% of

the material from tract walking is tiles (vs. 77% from

site collection). The percentages of the vessel types

represented are similar; although there are more

storage and plain ware vessels from site collection;

the amount of cooking ware is higher in the tract

assemblage. The sole piece of Terra Sigillata came

from a tract.

The site collection provides evidence for more periods of

use. No indigenous sherds were found by tract

walkers. Moreover, there are no finds whatsoever that

predate the Hellenistic period. The percentage of

Roman sherds from tracts is much higher than from site

collection (30% vs. 3%), however; this quantity

difference is made even more significant by the fact

that most of the site material is tiles, while only

one tile fragment was collected in tract walking.

Additionally, the Post-Medieval component of the site

is more pronounced in the tract assemblage, where it

comprises 37% of the finds.

525
The tract assemblage is, however, sufficient to identify

the function of S019. The material from both

collections is in keeping with domestic use. All the

basic household shapes are present, including large

quantities of cooking ware. Almost all of the earlier

sherds are from large storage jars, and several of the

transport amphoras appear to be Corinthian imports.

This suggests that the site might have been used for

agricultural storage prior to the Hellenistic period.

The paucity of fine vessels of Hellenistic date,

however, suggests a rather poor household.

Site Function: Hellenistic hamlet; Roman farmstead?; Post-

Medieval farmstead.

SITE 020

Name: Vadhiza, upper.

Fig. 7.37; Tables 7.37, 7.38.

Zone: 3.

526
Site Location and Description: S020 is situated in a small

fenced field next to the Radostina-Mali i Portës road.

The site is positioned so that it commands a view of

the entire Vadhiza valley, as well as the ridges of

Çuka e Bukur and Mali i Portës. Deep plowing, which

has caused considerable damage to the site, has

brought to the surface numerous artifacts and sandy

stone blocks of various sizes. These blocks are

probably parts of buried structures. Large quantities

of building material were present. Average visibility

was 60%.

Size: 0.25 ha (0.30).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, D.

Associated Tracts: D-199, D-200.

Periods Represented: HL (14); LHL (1).

Collection Method: Quadrants. The field was divided into

quadrants and diagnostics were grabbed from each. 4

grabs.

527
Periods Represented: HL (74); M (1).

Artifact Discussion: All of the material from S020 is

Hellenistic except for one Modern brick fragment.

Most of the assemblage consists of tiles (77%). The

percentages of plain vessels and storage jars are

roughly equal (48% and 52%). The few shapes that are

present are all plain, principally closed tablewares.

No black glaze or cooking ware sherds were found.

The site and tract assemblages differ in percentages

because only four pieces from the tract assemblage are

not tiles; three of these are transport amphoras.

Seven fragments of similar vessels are in the site

assemblage, but account for only 41% of the vessel

assemblage. The rest consists of plain vessels. Both

assemblages clearly indicate that S020 was a single-

period site, and probably not permanent.

The lack of cooking and fine wares makes it unlikely that

S020 was a habitation site. Rather than a farmstead,

therefore, the site was probably used as a field house

for the storage and/or processing of local

agricultural products.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house.

528
 SITE 021

Name: Shtyllas-Levan road.

Fig. 7.38; Tables 7.39, 7.40.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S021 is located south of

Shtyllas village on the low ridge immediately east of,

and parallel to, the Shtyllas-Levan road. The site is

just above the Myzeqe plain. Site preservation is

good although a few bunkers have caused disturbances.

Large cobbles of limestone, quartz, quartzite, and

chert are eroding out of the conglomerate bedrock and

lie on the surface. Average visibility was 70%.

Size: 1.20 ha. (1.80).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, C.

529
Associated Tracts: C-021, C-022, C-023, C-025, C-026, C-

031, C-032, C-033.

Periods Represented: HL (18); R (2); MR (1); LR (8).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1); HL-R (1).

Collection Method: A long N-S axis was laid out along the

ridge, and two perpendicular E-W axes were laid out

across this, thus creating a framework of six

transects that were numbered T1-T6 (clockwise from the

north). Vacuums with a dogleash were spaced at 10 m

intervals along each of the six transects. Grab

samples of diagnostics were taken from the sector

between transects. 6 grabs, 61 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (843); R (36); M (5).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); HL-R (3); UNKN (23).

Artifact Discussion: The material from S021 divides neatly

into two periods, Hellenistic and Roman; the

Hellenistic is the largest component (93%). There are

only two pieces that could be earlier, i.e.,

530
 Classical, but they could also be Hellenistic. The

body of Roman material is much smaller; it comprises

only 4% of the total assemblage. The other 3% is made

up of fragments of unidentifiable plain vessels and

Modern tiles.

The majority of the assemblage is tiles (83% of the total,

87% of the Hellenistic material). There is only one

piece of black glaze; this is from an unidentifiable

closed shape. The vast majority of the vessel sherds

are from plain, closed shapes (84%). Cooking ware

accounts for 6% of the vessels, and storage vessels

for 8%. The Roman assemblage is similar to the

Hellenistic; most are also tiles, with a few plain

closed vessels, transport amphoras, and cooking ware

sherds.

The dates and types of sherds from both tract walking and

site collection are similar, although Modern is not

present in the tract collection. It is possible to

get an accurate picture of site date and function from

the tract material alone. As expected, the proportion

of tiles is higher in the site assemblage, but it is

also clear in the tract assemblage that this is the

largest category of finds at the site. Although

Hellenistic cooking ware is underrepresented in the

531
 tract assemblage, and the percentage of Roman pieces

is a bit higher, it is, nevertheless, possible to

assess site use fairly accurately from either body of

finds.

The finds from both the Hellenistic and Roman periods are

indicative of the domestic function of S021. A

loomweight was also found, strengthening this

identification. Cooking ware, plain closed shapes,

and storage vessels are all represented; the category

that is most underrepresented is black glaze. The

vast quantity of tiles suggests that some type of

architectural structure (or structures) was associated

with the site. The size of S021 might indicate that

the site was composed of more than one household. A

few Paleolithic lithics were also collected,

suggesting prehistoric visitation.

Site Function: Hellenistic hamlet; smaller Roman component

of undetermined type.

SITE 022

Name: Shtyllas Jaroi, upper.

532
Fig. 7.39; Tables 7.41, 7.42.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S022 is located on the

southwest spur of Mali i Shtyllasit, just to the west

of a track leading from Shtyllas-Jaroi village towards

Çuka e Bukur. A modern rock quarry is located nearby.

Military installations, including bunkers, terraces,

and a modern track have caused considerable damage to

the site. Average visibility was 70%.

Size: 0.20 ha (0.30).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, C.

Associated Tracts: C-048, C-049, C-050, C-51.

Periods Represented: LCL (1); HL (30); LR (1); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (5);

EHL-MHL (1); HL-LR (1); UNKN (2).

533
Collection Method: A long axis was laid out along the ridge

parallel to the tract. Two perpendicular axes were

laid out across this, creating a framework for six

transects which were numbered T1-T6 (clockwise from

the north). Vacuums with a dogleash were spaced at 10

m along each of the six transects. Grab samples of

diagnostics were taken from the sector between

transects. 6 grabs, 32 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (261); M (3).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); LCL-HL (1).

Artifact Discussion: The vast majority of the finds from

S022 are Hellenistic (94%), suggesting a single period

of occupation. There is only one piece that is

definitely earlier: a Late Classical cup fragment.

Eight additional pieces might be Classical or Late

Classical, but they could also be Hellenistic. There

is one non-Greek sherd, Late Bronze-Early Iron Age in

date. A very small amount of post-Hellenistic

material is present: one Late Roman piece, one Post-

Medieval piece, three Modern pipe fragments, and two

534
 fragments of unknown date. It is likely that these

are not indications of occupation.

Only 32% of the Hellenistic assemblage from S022 is tiles.

Sixty-six percent of the remaining Hellenistic sherds

are from plain unidentified closed vessels (70% of the

vessel fragments). The percentage of black glaze is

low (5%), and half the pieces could be or are earlier;

one piece is definitely Late Classical and four others

could be. Although the quantity of black glaze

fragments is low, there is unusual variety in the

shapes represented; the pieces are all from different

vessels. Thirteen percent of the sherds come from

cooking vessels and 12% from storage vessels (20 from

transport amphoras, one pithos); three of these could

be Classical.

Although one indigenous sherd was collected from S022

during tract walking, this period was not represented

in the site collection. All of the black glaze sherds

from the tract assemblage might, but do not need to,

predate the Hellenistic period; there are no fine

wares that are securely Hellenistic in date. On the

other hand, the quantity of black glaze from the site

collection is very low (3%). Nevertheless, both

535
 assemblages reflect the same date and function of the

site.

The quantity of tiles at S022 suggests the presence of a

structure. Cooking wares, storage vessels, and plain

closed shapes all point to a domestic function. The

variety of black glaze shapes in the assemblage is

suggestive of a wealthy household. The uniformity of

date in the finds from S022 is indicative of a single-

period site.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 023

Name: Vadhiza, lower 1.

Fig. 7.40; Tables 7.43, 7.44.

Zone: 3.

Site Location and Description: S023 is located on a slope

facing the Vadhiza valley, near the village of

Vadhiza. The site extends along the same slope of the

536
 ridge as S020, although it is at a higher elevation.

Most of the finds were concentrated around two

rectangular features, probably recent constructions.

The site is poorly preserved because of deep,

extensive erosion and lack of ground cover along the

ridge. Visibility was 80% in lower part, 30% in

upper.

Size: 0.15 ha (1.50).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, D.

Associated Tracts: D-190, D-191.

Periods Represented: HL (11); R (4); MR (2); O (4); LO (1).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1); HL? (2); MHL-LHL (1); HL-R

(1); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: A transect oriented 300° was laid out on

the ridge. Vacuums with a dogleash were taken every

20 m until artifact densities dropped off. Two

additional horizontal transects were laid out and

dogleashes were taken along them to determine the

537
 extent of the site. Grab samples were taken from each

quadrant. The two rectangular features were grabbed

separately. 8 grabs, 19 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (155); R (19); LR (17); PMED (6); O

(2); M (3).

Ranges Represented: O-EM (10); UNKN (3).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S023 belongs

to the Hellenistic period (70%). There is only one

piece that could be earlier, i.e., Classical. Another

piece might be Roman. Definite Roman material

accounts for 17% of the assemblage. There is also a

small Post-Medieval/unidentifiable (12%) component to

the site.

Of the Hellenistic material, 72% is bricks/tiles; 23 other

fragments are Roman. Fifty-six percent of the pre-

Medieval assemblage consists of plain, primarily

closed, vessels. The table amphora is the best

represented identifiable closed vessel form; there is

also one fragment from a Late Roman combed table

amphora. Only one piece of black glaze was found on

the site. Cooking ware (13%) and storage vessels

538
 (28%), both pithoi (2) and transport amphoras (7), are

also present.

The tract and site assemblages from S023 are similar in

both date and vessel types, although there are fewer

fragments of cooking ware and storage vessels from the

tract collection. The Roman component is evident in

both bodies of material, but in the tract assemblage

some of the finds were identified as Middle Roman,

while in the site assemblage the closely datable

pieces are Late Roman.

The Hellenistic finds point to the presence of a small

domestic structure. The scarcity of black glaze

suggests it was fairly impoverished. The Roman

material, which consists of cooking pots, closed

shapes, table amphoras, and tiles, is also consistent

with domestic use. It is not clear if there was site

continuity between the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

Site Function: Small Hellenistic farmstead; small Roman

farmstead.

SITE 024

539
Name: Kryegjata C.

Fig. 7.41.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S024 is a Paleolithic site

that is located along a small field road running up

the ridge from Radostina along the border between

survey Areas B and D. Artifacts are eroding down hill

from the roadbed; it is possible that undisturbed

portions of the site are preserved upslope.

Visibility was good in the road cut, but poor in the

surrounding fields.

Size: Ca. 200 m in road.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, 2000-2001, B and D.

Associated Tracts: B-137.

Collection Method: Revisitation. The site was revisited

twice with grabs for diagnostics. The site was not

collected.

540
Site Function: Paleolithic site.

SITE 025

Name: Shtyllas Jaroi, modern village. Ethnographic

interviews were conducted in the village, but no

material was collected.

Fig. 7.42.

Zone: 5.

Site Location and Description: S025 is used to designate

the modern village of Shtyllas-Jaroi on the main

asphalt road from Shtyllas towards Levan. Interviews

with villagers conducted by Thurstan Robinson, Blerina

Dode, and Ols Lafe determined that the current village

dates to 1956.

Size: Not available.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, 2003, C.

541
Collection Method: Not collected.

Site Function: Modern communist period village.

SITE 026

Name: Shtyllas, pumping station.

Figs. 7.43, 7.44; Tables 7.45, 7.46.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S026 is located on a steep

hill 400 m southeast of Shtyllas; there is also a

water pumping station on the same slope. The site is

poorly preserved; the hilltop has been heavily

disturbed by bunker placement and a modern water

pumping station. Average visibility was 75%.

Size: 0.25 ha (0.70).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, 2002, C.

542
Associated Tracts: A-025, C-006, C-007, C-008, C-009, C-

010, C-011.

Periods Represented: PH (1); HL (25); M (3).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); A-EHL (1); A-HL (1); CL-

EHL (1); LCL-EHL (2); HL-R (1); UNKN (3).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract C-011R.1359

Periods Represented: LBA (1); EIA (1).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation. 20 x 20 m grid. Grid

squares were grabbed and vacuums with a dogleash were

collected from the center of each square. 20 grabs,

20 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (152); PMED (1); O (1); M (2).

1359
The three sherds from the revisitation are included in the tract
table.

543
Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (2); HL? (1); HL-R? (1); UNKN

(2).

Artifact Discussion: S026 is one of the rare sites in the

Shtyllas area where a concentration of indigenous

sherds was collected. There is one Late Bronze Age

fragment, one Early Iron Age piece, and three that

could belong to either period; one other sherd could

be no more closely dated than Prehistoric. In

addition to these, two Late Bronze Age fragments were

collected during tract walking in Tract A-022, which

is immediately adjacent to the site. The non-Greek

material probably points to a small Late Bronze Age-

Early Iron Age site, either here or in the vicinity.

Almost all of the other finds from S026 are Hellenistic

(88%). There is no definite pre-Hellenistic Greek

material; two fragments could be, but do not need to

be, Archaic, and four pieces could be Classical (three

Late Classical); all of these could also be

Hellenistic. One other pre-Medieval sherd could be

Roman or Hellenistic. One Post-Medieval and two

Ottoman pieces were found, and five pieces of Modern

pipe/tile. Five sherds could not be identified.

544
Tiles comprise 62% of the potential Hellenistic assemblage

from S026. Most of the fragments are from

unidentifiable plain closed vessels (55%) or transport

amphoras (29%). There are only four pieces of cooking

ware (6%), and three fragments of black glaze (4%).

Four pieces of Hellenistic pipe were also collected

from the site.

Most of the sherds in the tract and site assemblages are

Hellenistic in date and are primarily from tiles or

transport amphoras. The percentage of tiles is lower

in the tract collection, with a resultant increase in

the percentages of other finds. Transport amphoras,

however, account for 53% of the tract finds, which is

extraordinarily high. The absence of prehistoric

material from the site assemblage is striking since

five pieces were found in tract walking. All of these

sherds are from the same tract; three were found

during the site revisitation. The tract material,

therefore, offers a more diachronically diverse

picture of the site. The function of the site during

the Hellenistic period can also be ascertained from

the tract assemblage.

The presence of cooking ware and plain vessels suggests a

domestic function for S026 during the Hellenistic

545
 period. The large quantity of transport amphoras

indicates that the site might have been used for the

storage or processing of agricultural products; this

is in keeping with normal activities associated with

farmsteads. The post-Hellenistic material does not

appear to be indicative of occupation. On the other

hand, the quantity of prehistoric material, although

low, is likely to indicate site use during the Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age, given the rarity of pre-Greek

material throughout the survey area.

Site Function: Prehistoric occupation?; small Hellenistic

farmstead.

SITE 027

Name: Shaban.

Fig. 7.45; Tables 7.47, 7.48.

Zone: 6.

546
Site Location and Description: S027 is located east of the

main Shtyllas-Levan road, about 500 m north of Shaban

village. The site is on a gradual incline between

uncultivated terraces and the road. The terraces are

unlikely to be susceptible to erosion; except for

bunker and modern road disturbance in the western

part, S027 is fairly well preserved. Average

visibility was 40%.

Size: 0.50 ha (0.40); probably larger before modern

disturbances.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, C.

Associated Tracts: C-239, C-240, C-241, C-242.

Periods Represented: HL (3); R (2); MED (1); M (1).

Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (1); O-EM (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. A 3 x 5 m grid was

arranged E-W by N-S and subsidiary squares were laid

out at the north and south ends. Each square was

grabbed and a vacuum with a dogleash was taken from

547
 the center of each. The northern and southern

boundaries of the site were well defined, but the

eastern and western boundaries were more problematic.

Grid squares north of 411 and 111 on the terraced

eastern slope would need to be installed and

considerably more squares west of 322, 312, 212, and

222 are necessary for adequate spatial resolution, but

impenetrable brambles and a modern road made more

squares in this direction impractical; future research

on the other side of the paved road in the flat area

next to the Fier-Levan canal might prove useful. 21

grabs, 21 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (467); LHL (19); ER (1); MR

(22); LR (7); M (13).

Ranges Represented: HL-R (3); LHL-ER (1); ER-MR (17); MED?

(1); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: S027 has both a Hellenistic and a

Roman component. The Hellenistic is largest. There

is only one piece that is definitely Classical, and

another that might be. Hellenistic finds account for

87% of the assemblage, Roman for 9%; four other sherds

548
 are either Hellenistic or Roman. Later material (3%)

includes one piece that is, and one piece that might

be, Medieval, and one tile that is Ottoman-Early

Modern. There are 14 Modern fragments and one

unidentifiable piece.

Tiles is the largest category of material from S027 (87%).

Tiles also account for 87% of the Hellenistic

assemblage and 89% of the pre-Medieval assemblage.

The rest of the Hellenistic sherds come principally

from plain closed vessels (52%) and storage vessels

(34%). There is only one fragment of black glaze

(>1%) and nine pieces of cooking ware (13%).

The Roman material also consists primarily of tiles (94%).

Two table amphora fragments and one cooking jug are

the only sherds from vessels. The Ottoman through

Modern material consists of 14 tile fragments and one

flowerpot.

The tract assemblage from S027 is sufficient for

chronological identification. The broad periods that

are found in the site collection are represented in

the tract assemblage, but the dates are more refined

for the site material. The tract assemblage is not

adequate to determine site function. Only Hellenistic

tile and Roman vessel fragments were collected in

549
 tract walking. On the other hand, with one exception,

there are only Roman tiles in the site collection and

many Hellenistic vessel fragments. The variety of

shapes found during tract walking is representative of

the whole, except for the Hellenistic period, which is

represented only by tiles and one transport amphora.

No black glaze was found by tract walkers; the

percentage from the site collection is also very low

(1%).

The presence of bricks/tiles, plain ware vessels, cooking

ware, and storage vessels suggests S027 had a domestic

function in the Hellenistic period and was probably a

small farmstead. Use of the site for storing

agricultural produce is suggested by the large

quantity of pithoi and transport amphoras; the number

of tiles indicates that there was a structure on the

site. The Roman tiles are also indicative of a small

structure of this date; the paucity of vessels,

however, suggests that it was not used for habitation.

Because both Late Hellenistic and Early Roman tiles

are present in the assemblage, it is possible that the

site spanned the transition, and continued to be used,

although on a reduced scale, through the Roman period.

550
 Given the paucity of post-antique material, it is

unlikely that S027 was used after the Roman period.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; Roman field house.

SITE 028

Name: Shtyllas Jaroi.

Fig. 7.46; Tables 7.49, 7.50.

Zone: 5.

Site Location and Description: S028 is located in the

middle of the Shtyllas-Jaroi valley, about 1 km east

of the main Levan-Shtyllas road junction. The site is

on a low hill, bounded by maquis and surrounded by

fields of straw. Erosion appears to be minimal and

the site is well preserved. Visibility was 40% in

straw field, 30% in maquis.

Size: 0.50 ha (0.60).

551
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, C.

Associated Tracts: C-094, C-095, C-096, C-097, C-098, C-

099, C-150.

Periods Represented: HL (20).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1); LCL-EHL (1); M? (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. A primary 3 x 4 grid

oriented E-W by N-S was established across the top of

the slope and downslope to the west. Vacuums with a

dogleash were taken from the center of each grid

square and a diagnostic grab sample was taken from the

whole square. Five additional squares were added

along the west end and at the northeast corner of the

site in order to improve spatial resolution and find

artifact distribution drop-off points. Time

constraints did not allow enough squares on the

eastern side of the site to be collected to define the

boundary in this direction, but tract walking did not

generate large counts in this area. On the other

hand, since significant concentrations of artifacts

were recovered from Tract C-150, this might suggest

552
 that the site extended farther east, and that the deep

ravine 30-40 m east of the gridded area is the result

of very recent erosion. 17 grabs, 17 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (222); R (20).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S028 dates

to the Hellenistic period (91%). There are three

pieces that might be earlier; they could be Classical.

There are also 20 pieces of Roman tiles (8%) and one

possible Modern tile.

Eighty-three percent of the Graeco-Roman assemblage is

comprised of tile fragments. All of the Roman finds

are tiles, as are 87% of the Hellenistic sherds. Very

few vessel shapes could be identified; most of the

sherds are from plain closed shapes (72%). There are

two pieces of cooking ware (5%), and two of black

glaze (5%). Storage vessels (a pithos and transport

amphoras) account for the remaining 18% of the vessel

fragments. A tile with black glaze is an unusual

element in the assemblage.

553
Roman finds are completely missing from the tract

assemblage, but are present in the site assemblage.

The composition of the tract assemblage is also

different; there are fewer tiles, but more black

glaze. The percentage of storage vessels is roughly

equivalent in both bodies of material.

The presence of storage vessels and the quantity of tiles,

as well as the absence of tablewares, suggest that

S028 was used in the Hellenistic period for

agricultural purposes rather than as a habitation

site.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house; Roman field house.

SITE 029

Name: Vadhiza, lower 2.

Figs. 7.47, 7.48; Tables 7.51, 7.52.

Zone: 3.

554
Site Location and Description: S029 is located northwest of

Vadhiza, at the foot of the cemetery hill. The site

is located on marly ground and is poorly preserved.

Visibility ranged from 50-70%.

Size: ca. 1.80 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, D.

Associated Tracts: D-183, D-184, D-185, D-186, D-187.

Periods Represented: HL (25); R (27).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (2); HL-R (1); LO-EM

(1); EM-M (2); UNKN (6).

Collection Method: Microtracts. The original tracts were

divided into microtracts. Vacuums with a dogleash and

grabs of diagnostics were made in each microtract. 12

grabs, 12 vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (105); R (26); MR (66); PMED (1); M

(1).

555
Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (2); MR-LR (4); O-EM (1).

Artifact Discussion: Hellenistic (51%) and Roman (41%)

sherds predominate at S029. There are five sherds

that might be, but do not have to be earlier, i.e.,

Classical, and six fragments that are later, i.e.,

Ottoman to Modern. Six other sherds cannot be

identified.

Forty percent of the finds are tiles; 68% of the

Hellenistic sherds are tiles, but only 21% of the

Roman are. The majority of the remaining sherds are

from plain closed vessels (77%). There are 22

fragments of cooking ware, one of which could be

Classical. Only two fragments of black glaze were

found, one of which could also be Classical and thus

earlier than Hellenistic. There are seven fragments

of storage vessels (six transport amphoras and one

pithos); two of these might be, but do not need to be,

pre-Hellenistic. Most of the Roman vessel sherds also

come from plain closed shapes, primarily table

amphoras. More pieces of cooking ware are present in

the Roman assemblage. There are also two fragments of

Terra Sigillata, one glazed piece, and one slipped

556
 piece. Interesting among the Roman sherds are several

Epirote amphora fragments covered with bitumen.

The tract and site assemblages from S029 are similar except

that no black glaze was found during site collection.

The quantity of tiles is much higher in the site

assemblage, but there is a representative sample of

both Hellenistic and Roman pieces in each group.

The finds from both periods suggest domestic contexts. It

is likely that S029 was a small farmstead in both the

Hellenistic and Roman periods. The quantity of Roman

finds is higher here than normal, and the presence of

imported amphoras and Terra Sigillata fragments

suggests that the site was used on a more permanent

basis than other Roman sites in the area. The

exitmate of site size has probably been affected by

deep plowing, which has spread artifacts over a large

area.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; Roman farmstead.

SITE 030

Name: Kryegjata D.

557
Fig. 7.49.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S030 is a Paleolithic site

located just before the crest of the ridge immediately

east of S003 on the terraces on the south side of the

road. The densest concentration of artifacts was

found in a shallow gully at the junction of Tracts J-

076 and J-077, on the second terrace down from the

bunkers. Three cultivated terraces run northeast-

southwest above the gully on the east side of the

ridge and a string of bunkers runs along the top. The

site has been heavily damaged by military activities.

Average visibility was 90%.

Size: Unknown.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, J.

Associated Tracts: J-076, J-077.

558
Collection Method: Revisitation. The site was revisited

and diagnostics were brought in, but it was not

collected.

Site Function: Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunting camp?

SITE 031

Name: Dushku i Kuq, upper.

Figs. 7.50, 7.51; Tables 7.53, 7.54.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S031 is located near an

olive grove 150 m southeast of Dushku i Kuq, on the

ridge road from Radostina to Mali i Portës. The site

has been substantially disturbed by the road and

bunker construction. Average visibility was 50%.

Size: > 1.00 ha (0.80).

Associated Tracts: A-166, A-167, A-168, D-275.

559
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, A and D.

Periods Represented: HL (16); LHL (1); MR (1).

Ranges Represented: LCL-EHL (2); UNKN (2).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid, oriented N-S and E-W.

Vacuums with a dogleash were made in the center of

each square. Grabs of all artifacts in the squares

were made; counts of pottery and tiles were made on

site with only diagnostics from each grab brought in.

28 grabs, 28 vacuums.

Periods Represented: A (1); HL (286); LHL (1); MR (1); LR

(27); LB (1); PMED (2); O (1); M (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-HL (3); CL-EHL (1); LCL-HL

(1); UNKN (3).

Artifact Discussion: The majority of the material from S031

dates to the Hellenistic period (87%). Archaic is the

earliest period found at the site; it is definitively

represented by one fragment. Four other pieces might

560
 be of the same period; one of these is definitely pre-

Hellenistic (Archaic or Classical), and the other

three could be Archaic, Classical, or Hellenistic.

There are four additional fragments that might be, but

do not need to be, Classical; three of these are no

later than Early Hellenistic. Twenty-nine sherds (8%)

date to the Roman period; two are Middle Roman and 27

are Late Roman. Of the remaining 3% of the material,

half is post-Roman and half is of unknown date.

The majority of the pre-Medieval sherds are tiles (55%).

Most of the vessel sherds are from plain closed shapes

(50%) or cooking pots (30%). The quantity of storage

vessels is high (18%); 19 fragments are from transport

amphoras, seven of which might be earlier in date than

the Hellenistic period, and eight fragments are from

pithoi. There is only one piece of black glaze.

Thirty-eight percent of the Roman material consists of

Late Roman tile fragments. The Roman vessel

assemblage is composed largely of cooking ware

pitchers. Two fragments are from Late Roman storage

vessels: one from a transport amphora, and the other

from a pithos. There is one piece of Terra Sigillata

from a Middle Roman plate.

561
The tract assemblage is an accurate reflection of the site

assemblage in the percentages of vessel categories,

but, because it is so small, the tract material is not

really sufficient to identify site function. Possible

pre-Hellenistic sherds are underrepresented in the

tract assemblage, although the single piece does

suggest its presence. The Roman period is also poorly

represented in the tract assemblage, and post-Roman

finds are totally absent. Since the only Roman sherd

from tract collection is from a Middle Roman cooking

vessel, the Late Roman component is unrecognizable in

the tract assemblage. The variety of shapes present

at the site is evident only in the larger body of

finds.

The Hellenistic cooking wares, storage vessels, and closed

shapes suggest that S031 was used for domestic

purposes in the Hellenistic period. The lack of fine

tablewares probably indicates it was a poor farmstead.

The type of Roman material found also points to

domestic use; the quantity of Roman sherds suggests

that the site was small.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; Roman farmstead.

562
 SITE 032

Name: Mali i Portës.

Figs. 7.52, 7.53; Tables 7.55, 7.56.

Zone: 6 (4).

Site Location and Description: S032 is located on the south

side of the Mali i Portës ridge, to the east of, and

below, the road along the ridge from Radostina to Çuka

e Bukur. The site is in both Zones 4 and 6, and is

discussed with Zone 6. S032 sits on stable terraces

with no obviously eroded or redeposited artifacts.

Average visibility was 70%.

Size: ca. 0.30 ha (1.80).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, 2000-2001, A, D, and

K.

Associated Tracts: A-202, D-329, K-110, K-115.

563
Periods Represented: HL (22); LHL (1); R (2).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); CL-HL (2).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract K-109.1360

Periods Represented: HL (3).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1).

Collection Method: A 150° flag line was installed down the

spine of the interfluve, dividing it into two parts.

The site was collected only on the southwest side of

the flag line, in an area that was not tract-walked

prior to site collection since artifact distributions

were low in density to the northeast. Another flag

line was installed at 150°, bisecting the upper six

terraces, and a third flag line bisecting the lower

four terraces at 180°. Vacuums with a dogleash were

taken from the approximate center of each unit; all

artifacts were collected. Pairs of walkers then

grabbed each unit, counting all artifacts and

1360
The four sherds from the revisitation are included in the tract
table.

564
 collecting all diagnostics. Only half of the site was

collected. 21 grabs, 21 vacuums.

Periods Represented: A (1); HL (57); LR (4); M (6).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-EHL (4); A-HL (1); CL-EHL

(2); CL-HL (1); LCL-HL (1); EHL-MHL (1).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S032 dates

to the Hellenistic period (75%). Two pieces are

definitely earlier; one is Archaic, and the other is

Archaic or Classical. Ten other sherds have a date

range of Archaic to Hellenistic, so they might or

might not be pre-Hellenistic; all of these are from

transport amphoras. No certain Classical material was

found, although six of the above mentioned fragments

could be. Nine pieces (8%) are Roman; the other six

fragments (6%) are Modern.

Forty-five percent of the pre-Medieval assemblage is tiles;

89% of these are Hellenistic, 11%, Roman. Half of the

Hellenistic finds are tiles, as are 56% of the Roman.

All of the sherds that are, or might be, pre-

Hellenistic are from transport amphoras. A total of

17 fragments of this vessel type were collected from

565
 the site, some of which appear to be imitations of

Corinthian Type A or A'. It is possible that a few of

these sherds are from the same vessel, but the date

ranges and fabric types suggest that this is not the

case for most. Many of the other vessel sherds are

from plain closed shapes (49%). Only four fragments

(7%) of black glaze and five (9%) of cooking ware were

found. The post-Hellenistic assemblage is comprised

solely of bricks/tiles.

Although the tract and site assemblages are similar in some

respects, they differ in others. The percentage of

Hellenistic sherds is much higher in the tract

collection, and the number of potentially pre-

Hellenistic sherds is underrepresented. There is more

Roman and a greater variety of shapes. Additionally,

tract walking produced no Modern finds. The tract and

site assemblages are similar in the percentages of

storage vessels and black glaze fragments, but there

is no cooking ware in the tract assemblage.

Furthermore, all of the Roman finds from the site

collection are tiles. So, although the small Roman

component is present in both assemblages, nothing can

be determined about site function from the site

assemblage alone.

566
The presence of fine tablewares, cooking vessels, and

numerous fine and coarse plain wares suggests that the

site had a domestic function in the Hellenistic

period. The large quantity of pre-Hellenistic

transport amphoras might indicate that S032 was first

used as a field house and that some type of

agricultural crop was collected, processed, and/or

stored at the site.

Site Function: Archaic-Classical field house; Hellenistic

farmstead or farmsteads (hamlet?); small Late Roman

structure.

SITE 033

Name: Vadhiza, south ridge.

Zone: 3.

Fig. 7.54; Tables 7.57, 7.58.

Site Location and Description: S033 is on a ridge 2 km west

of the Shtyllas-Radostina road junction. To the north

567
 there are good views to Fier; to the south, down the

Levan valley. A dirt road cuts through the site;

although both sides are terraced, there is substantial

erosion. Average visibility was 60%.

Size: 0.30 ha (0.50).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, D and H.

Associated Tracts: D-289, H-327, H-328.

Periods Represented: HL (20); R (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-EHL (1); LCL-HL (1).

Collection Method: A 100 m long axis (T1) was laid along

the line of the terraces (300-120°) based on an

estimated site center. Three axes 100 m long were

laid perpendicular to T1. Vacuums with a dogleash

were collected at 10 m intervals along each axis. A

grab sample of diagnostic material was then taken from

each 20-30 m x 50 m unit between the axes. Rough tile

and pottery densities were noted by fieldwalkers; only

568
 diagnostic ceramics and small finds were collected. 8

grabs, 41 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (2); HL (154); PMED (1); M (3).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-EHL (3); LCL-HL (2); O-EM

(1).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S033 is

Hellenistic in date (91%). There are four sherds that

are earlier; two are either Archaic or Classical and

two are Classical. Seven additional sherds might

predate the Hellenistic period; four of these are

Classical to Early Hellenistic and three are Late

Classical to Hellenistic. There is one Roman sherd

and five pieces that are Post-Medieval.

Forty-three percent of the pre-Medieval finds are tiles

(44% of the Hellenistic material); this amount is

lower than recorded at many other sites, but could be

a reflection of partial rather than complete

collection. All of the vessel fragments that

certainly or possibly predate the Hellenistic period

are from storage vessels; two Archaic-Classical

569
 fragments are from pithoi, the rest, from transport

amphoras.

The majority of the vessel fragments are from plain closed

shapes, many of which are unidentifiable. Storage

vessels account for 23% of the assemblage. Cooking

ware sherds make up 17% of the vessel fragments. Only

6% of the sherds are black glaze. Roman is

represented by one chytra fragment.

The tract material would be sufficient to identify the date

and function of S033, although Roman would be

overrepresented since it is present in the tract

collection, but absent from the site. Although there

are no definite Archaic-Classical pieces in the tract

assemblage, there are three pieces that might be

earlier than Hellenistic. The percentages of

categories of material, however, differ only slightly

(i.e., tile is lower in the tract collection, making

other categories higher).

Given the presence of tablewares, however limited, and

cooking, storage, and plain household vessels, it is

likely that S033 was a habitation site in the

Hellenistic period. The presence of such a large

percentage of storage vessels that are, or might be,

Archaic-Classical is probably representative of a

570
 small pre-Hellenistic component to the site. The

small quantity of Roman and Post-Medieval sherds

suggests there was no post-Hellenistic use of the

site.

Site Function: Archaic-Classical field house; Hellenistic

farmstead.

SITE 0341361

Name: Shkozë e Zëzë.

Figs. 7.55, 7.56; Tables 7.59, 7.60, 7.61.

Zone: 6.

Site Location and Description: S034 is located on a knoll

in the Perroi i Levanit Valley. It sits at the lower

end of a prominent interfluve that extends northwest

from near the Vadhiza-Levan road to the bottom of the

valley. Two small ravines border the interfluve, and

from its position on the knoll, S034 was able to

control the Perroi i Levanit. The site is well

1361
Galaty et al. 2004.

571
 preserved, although there is some erosion downslope.

Average visibility was 35%.

Size: 0.84 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2001, H.

Associated Tracts: H-007, H-008.

Periods Represented: HL (12).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract H-007R.1362

Periods Represented: HL (1); MHL (2).

Collection Method: 10 x 10 m grid. A total station was

placed over site center and two main axes N-S and E-W

were laid out and marked. Squares were laid out with

the total station. A vacuum with a dogleash was taken

from the center of each grid square. Team members

then grabbed diagnostic finds from each square, and

1362
The three sherds from the revisitation are included in the tract
table.

572
 counted and recorded non-diagnostic and duplicate

diagnostic pieces. Grid squares were laid out until

vacuums stopped producing artifacts. 120 grabs, 120

vacuums. The site was excavated in 2001. 26

trenches.

Periods Represented: HL (499); MHL (1); PMED (3); EM (1); M

(1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-HL (1); LCL-EHL (2); LCL-

HL (9); EO-EM (1); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: Excavation.

Periods Represented:1363 HL (87); MHL (7814).

Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (10); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: Almost all of the material from S034

is Hellenistic; finds of this period account for 99.6%

of the total, and 93% are specifically Middle

Hellenistic. The excavation finds comprise 94% of the

total assemblage (7912 out of 8448 finds); 99.8% of

1363
S034 has 385 excavation records: 203 tiles; 28 bricks; and 154
vessels.

573
 this material is Hellenistic, primarily Middle

Hellenistic, and 95% of the total is tiles. Ten

sherds could be Classical, but they could also be

Hellenistic, and there is one post-Roman piece.

Most of the sherds from tract and site collection were

given a more general date of Hellenistic, rather than

Middle Hellenistic (96%). There is one fragment that

is definitely pre-Hellenistic, either Archaic or

Classical, and 14 others that might be, but do not

need to be, Classical. Six pieces are post-

Hellenistic: three Post-Medieval, one Early Ottoman-

Early Modern, one Early Modern, one Modern.

Eighty percent of the non-excavated sherds from S034 are

Hellenistic tiles; one piece has black glaze on its

outer surface. Of the vessel sherds, 45% are from

storage jars; this is an unusually high percentage

(vs. 36% of excavated vessel fragments). Most of the

sherds that are, or could be, earlier than Hellenistic

are from transport amphoras. Cooking ware is present,

but not in large quantities (13 fragments [13%]).

Plain ware sherds represent 34% of the vessel count;

most of these are from unidentifiable shapes. There

are only a few black glaze sherds (7 [7%]). The

574
 percentage of cooking ware is higher in the excavation

assemblage (18%) and that of black glaze lower (2%).

There is no post-Hellenistic material in the tract

assemblage, nor is there any definite pre-Hellenistic,

although the presence of one sherd that might be

Classical suggests this possibility. Although

fragments from two different pithoi were collected by

tract walkers, no transport amphoras were found. As

with the site assemblage, there are very few pieces of

black glaze and cooking ware from tract collection.

In spite of these differences, the tract assemblage

provides an adequate picture of site date and

function.

Given the presence of cooking wares, tiles, a few fine

wares, and the high number of storage vessels (pithoi

and transport amphoras), S034 was, most probably, the

site of a Hellenistic farmstead, perhaps specifically

Middle Hellenistic.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 035

575
Name: Peshtan Binjaket.

Fig. 7.57; Tables 7.62, 7.63.

Zone: 9.

Site Location and Description: Site 035 sits on a small

knoll in the Peshtan valley ca. 1 km south of the

Cakran-Peshtan road junction. Several houses and

agricultural structures built around an abandoned

shepherd's shack in the last two decades have

disturbed the center of the site, but not the

artifact-rich slopes to the south. Average visibility

was 60%.

Size: At least 2.00 ha (0.60).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2002, F.

Associated Tracts: F-043, F-045, F-046, F-052.

Periods Represented: PMED (5); EM (2).

Ranges Represented: O-EM (1); EM-M (2).

576
Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. Each square was grabbed

for diagnostics. A vacuum with a dogleash was

collected at the center of each square. 24 grabs, 24

vacuums.

Periods Represented: A (1); PMED (9); O (10); EM (3); I

(2); C (3); M (75).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1); O-EM (1); LO-EM (1); LO-M

(1); EM-M (357).

Artifact Discussion: Only two fragments from S035 are

earlier than Post-Medieval; one is Archaic, the other

is Classical or Hellenistic. The vast majority of the

material falls into the Early Modern to Modern range

(94%); one percent of this is definitely Early Modern

and 18% is Modern. There are only 18 sherds that

might be, but do not need to be earlier, and ten

sherds that are definitely Ottoman. Two fragments

were identified as specifically dating to the period

of Albanian Independence, and three can be securely

dated to the Communist period.

577
Most of the Early Modern-Modern assemblage is comprised of

bricks/tiles (59%). Jars and jugs are the most common

shapes. Many of the vessels are either slipped (34%)

or glazed (31%). Plain ware sherds account for only

19% of the vessel assemblage. There are six fragments

with underglaze painted decoration. The composition

of the small Ottoman assemblage is almost equally

divided between plain, glazed, and slipped wares. The

only fragment of cooking ware dates to the Classical-

Hellenistic period.

The tract material from S035 consists entirely of jars and

jugs. There are no examples of slipped vessels, and

more finely decorated pieces are not represented.

Half the material from the tract assemblage was

assigned a Post-Medieval date, and 40% an Early

Modern-Modern date. There is one fragment that might

be, but does not need to be, Ottoman. The quantity

and variety of the site collection assemblage allows

for greater chronological resolution, but the tract

material conveys the overall character of the site.

The material is domestic in nature and probably from one or

more households. It is possible that there was a

small Ottoman component that predated the larger Early

Modern to Modern occupation.

578
Site Function: Early Modern to Modern farmstead or small

hamlet.

SITE 036

Name: Peshtan.

Fig 7.58.

Zone: 9.

Site Location and Description: Sheshi i Gushallareve. S036

is located on a broad-saddled ridge extending west

down from the Cakran road. To the south a high (ca.

120 m) maquis covered ridge blocks the valley. The

area is also referred to as “Fusha e madhe.” The site

is well preserved, although plowing and erosion have

caused some damage. There is easy access to water.

Average visibility was 25%.

Size: 1.80 ha (2.60).

579
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2002, F.

Associated Tracts: F-223, F-224, F-225, F-226, F-227, F-

229, F-249.

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. The fields were divided

into grid squares oriented N-S by E-W starting from

the track-road to the south of the area of the site.

Two team members were placed in each square and given

15 minutes to vacuum all artifacts. The grid was

expanded until artifact densities dropped off. 48

vacuums, 1 revisitation.

Site Function: Lower Paleolithic to Neolithic lithic

manufacturing station.

SITE 037

Name: Mbyet.

Tables 7.64, 7.65.

Zone: 7.

580
Site Location and Description: S037 sits at the end of a

long steep interfluve that runs at a right angle to

the main north-south ridge bounding the Gjanica valley

on the east; it is perched on a slope between a field

road and a conspicuous house. Immediately north of

the site is a broad subsidiary valley that extends up

over the ridge north of Portez. The Fier railway line

runs just past the site on the west. Artifact counts

suggest that there has been serious soil displacement

in the southwest of the site, in the direction of a

house complex, and in the northwest, downslope above a

field road. A preliminary density plot shows a

concentration of artifacts on level ground at the

center of the site, an area of lower densities

downslope where the ground is steeper, and higher

densities again at the base of the slopes where

artifacts have been redeposited on more level ground.

Average visibility was 80%.

Size: > 1.10 ha (1.00).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, H.

581
Associated Tracts: H-074, H-075, H-076, H-077, H-078.

Periods Represented: HL (10); PMED (17); EM (9).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL(1); O-EM (17); O-M (1); EM-M (2).

Collection Method: 10 x 10 m grid. Squares were initially

laid out along two axes (120° and 30°). The edge of

the site was not reached at the south, where there was

a fenced house complex that was guarded by dogs and

consequently not tract-walked, and at the north. A

vacuum with a dogleash was collected at the center of

each square.1364 A grab of diagnostics was collected

from each grid square. 112 grabs, 112 vacuums.

Periods Represented: EIA (1); HL (181); LHL (1); O (7);

PMED (137); EM (61); M (21).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); CL-HL (1); O-EM (537); EM-

M (2); UNKN (4).

Artifact Description: S037 has two chronological

components. Eighty-one percent of the assemblage is

post-Roman and 19% is Hellenistic. Two fragments are

1364
S034-432V was the exception; a circle of 20 m2 was vacuumed.

582
 indigenous and predate the arrival of the Greeks; one

is Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age and the other is

Early Iron Age. Two other pieces might be, but do not

need to be, Classical; they could also be Hellenistic.

Seventy-three percent of the total assemblage is tiles.

The majority of the Hellenistic material is also tiles

(84%). Most of the vessel sherds come from transport

amphoras (41%) or unidentified closed plain vessels

(34%). Twenty-two percent of the vessel fragments are

cooking ware. There is only one piece of black glaze;

it is from a plate.

Eighty percent of the post-antique sherds from S037 are

tiles. All of the Modern and all but one of the

Ottoman-Early Modern finds belong in this category.

The most closely dated pieces are Early Modern (30%);

the majority of the vessels, however, has been

assigned a broad Post-Medieval date (67%), so they

also might, but do not necessarily need to be, Early

Modern. Forty-three percent of these vessels are

slipped, 33% glazed, 3% underglazed-painted, and 2%,

slip-painted. There are no cooking ware fragments.

Except for the non-Greek material that was found during

site collection, the tract material provides an

accurate chronological snapshot of S037. The tract

583
 assemblage alone, however, is insufficient to

determine the site's function since the finds are

comprised almost entirely of tiles (except for one

transport amphora). The tract and site assemblages

mirror each other fairly consistently regarding post-

antique date and function.

The Hellenistic vessel types and fabrics from S037 are

characteristic of household use, with emphasis on

storage capacity; the fragments, however, are

extremely small and worn. Therefore, although it is

possible that the site was occupied by a small

farmstead in the Hellenistic period, the large area

over which the material is spread raises the prospect

that the material was brought to the site through

manuring. The post-antique material is also

consistent with domestic occupation.

Site Function: Small Hellenistic farmstead?; Ottoman-Early

Modern hamlet.

SITE 038

Name: Kraps, Bronze Age.

584
Fig. 7.59; Tables 7.66, 7.67, 7.68.

Zone: 7.

Site Location and Description: S038 is located at the top

of a hill southwest of Portez. The small hilltop is

part of a long flat ridge that controls both the

Gjanica river valley (village of Mbyet) and the open

lowland east of Portez. The site center is near an

electric power line pylon at the top of the hill.

S038 is generally well preserved, although erosion has

washed material down the southwestern slope of the

hill. The installation of bunkers at the northern

edge of the hill and of the electric pylon at the

eastern end caused disturbances on the periphery of

the site. Average visibility was 70%.

Size: 0.51 ha (0.30).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2001, H.

Associated Tracts: H-143, H-144, H-145.

585
Periods Represented: MBA (2); LBA (71); EIA (1); HL (15).

Ranges Represented: MBA-LBA (2); LBA-EIA (2); A-HL? (1);

CL-HL (2); UNKN (3).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract H-144R.1365

Periods Represented: LBA (9).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1).

Collection Method: 10 x 10 m grid, excavation. The grid

was laid over two main N-S and E-W axes. Each square

was grabbed and a vacuum with a dogleash was taken

from the center. The grid was expanded until probable

site boundaries were established. 49 grabs, 49

vacuums. The site was excavated in 2001. 14

trenches.1366

Periods Represented: MBA (1); LBA (56); EIA (3); IA (1); HL

(48); PMED (1); M (1).

1365
The 10 revisitation sherds are included in the tract table.
1366
S038 has 94 excavation units.

586
Ranges Represented: MBA-LBA (52); MBA-EIA (69); LBA-EIA

(163); CL-EHL (3); CL-HL (18); UNKN (9).

Collection Method: Excavation.

Periods Represented: MN (1); MBA (15); LBA (39); HL (17).

Ranges Represented: MBA-LBA (17); MBA-EIA (33); LBA-EIA

(136); CL-HL (5); UNKN (124).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S038 is

prehistoric (73%). There is also a small Hellenistic

component, which accounts for 12% of the total

assemblage. Fifteen percent of the finds from the

site cannot be dated. Three pieces are post-antique;

two are Post-Medieval, and one is a Modern brick.

The highest percentage of prehistoric material dates to the

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age (33%); the percentages are

roughly the same for the non-excavation (33%) and

excavation assemblages (35%). The percentage of

securely dated Late Bronze Age finds is much higher

for the non-excavation body of material (27% vs. 10%).

Only eighteen pieces (2%) are definitely Middle Bronze

Age, and there is one piece of Middle Neolithic.

587
Most of the prehistoric sherds from S038 are from plain

unidentifiable (81%) or plain open (9%) vessels.

Bowls are the most frequent recognizable vessel type

(15 = 2%); two of these are burnished. Also present

are kantharoi (7), mugs (2), and jars (4). There are

56 fragments from burnished vessels, one from a

slipped pot, and one from a pot with painted

decoration.

Twelve percent of the entire assemblage is or could be

Hellenistic; this includes a few pieces that could be

as early as Classical. Unusually, only 3% of the

finds are tiles. Most of the sherds come from plain

closed vessels (84%). Eleven percent of the vessel

assemblage consists of black glaze pieces, while

cooking ware (2%) and transport amphoras (3%) account

for only a small portion of the finds.

The date and function of S038 can be determined from either

the tract, site, or excavation assemblage alone. The

only unusual find was the Middle Neolithic fragment

from the excavation.

The character of the prehistoric finds suggests that S038

had a domestic function. It is possible that it was

used on a semi-permanent basis, rather than for full

time occupation. The body of Hellenistic finds is

588
 interesting, given the high percentage of black glaze

and the paucity of tiles, cooking wares, and storage

vessels. The assemblage does not appear to be

domestic in character.

Site Function: Illyrian hamlet; small Hellenistic site of

undetermined type.

SITE 039

Name: Kraps, Paleolithic.

Fig. 7.60; Tables 7.69, 7.70.

Zone: 7.

Site Location and Description: S039 is located near the

village of Kraps on an old river terrace near the

gravel road and railroad tracks, several kilometers up

the Gjanica river valley from Pluk. The site is

situated near a spring. The terrace is well preserved

although the top few meters of the knoll were stripped

to construct a dam that holds back the water for the

589
 pond; this might explain how many of the artifacts

came to be on the surface. Average visibility was

50%.

Size: < 0.50 ha (0.60).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2002, H.

Associated Tracts: H-347, H-348, H-349, H-352.

Periods Represented: HL (1); PMED (2).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. A grid was placed along

the whole interfluve to the west of the modern house

and pond. Each square was completely vacuumed. 32

vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (287); LHL (1); PMED (3); EM (1); M

(4).

Ranges Represented: CL-HL (1); LCL-HL (3); O-EM (14).

590
Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S039 dates

to the Hellenistic period (91%). There are five

fragments that might be, but do not need to be,

earlier, either Classical or Late Classical. One

piece can be securely dated Late Hellenistic. The

rest of the assemblage (8%) falls into the Ottoman to

Modern range.

Of the potential Hellenistic sherds, 91% are tiles, one of

which has black glaze on the upper surface. The

variety of vessel shapes is limited; the sherds are

primarily from plain closed shapes (65%). Three

transport amphoras and one fragment from an

undetermined cooking vessel might be earlier than

Hellenistic; there are no other transport amphoras in

the assemblage. Three additional pieces come from

cooking pots, and only two pieces of black glaze were

found, both from bowls.

The post-antique sherds from S039 are primarily Post-

Medieval jugs and Ottoman to Early Modern tiles (58%).

The tract assemblage is very small. It does not offer an

accurate reflection of the site, and it would be

impossible to interpret such a small body of material

in any meaningful way.

591
Site function is difficult to determine because of the

paucity of Hellenistic artifacts; if S039 was

inhabited, it was probably on a seasonal basis or only

for a short period of time. The limited amount of

post-antique material indicates that S039 was probably

not used in any substantial way after the Hellenistic

period.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house?

SITE 040

Name: Levanit.

Fig. 7.61; Tables 7.71, 7.72.

Zone: 6.

Site Location and Description: S040 is located on the

saddle of a hill about 500 m southeast of Çuka e

Bukur. Military installations and terracing have

disturbed the area around the site, but the site

itself seems relatively well preserved. It is

592
 possible that there are unshaped masonry blocks on the

surface. Average visibility was 90%.

Size: 0.70 ha (0.40).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2001, 2002, K.

Associated Tracts: K-034, K-035, K-036, K-037.

Periods Represented: HL (11).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (2); CL-HL (1); LHL-ER (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. Each square was grabbed

and a vacuum with a dogleash was taken from the center

of each. 23 grabs, 23 vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (283); PMED (2); M (2).

Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (3).

Artifact Discussion: Hellenistic material is predominant at

S040 (96%). Only one sherd is definitely earlier

(Classical) and six pieces might be (two Archaic to

593
 Hellenistic, three Classical or Hellenistic). One

fragment might be later (Late Hellenistic to Early

Roman). There are two Post-Medieval and two Modern

fragments.

Most of the Hellenistic sherds are tiles (83%). The

variety in the recognizable vessel shapes is

substantial, given the small number of sherds.

Storage vessels account for 40% of the vessel

assemblage; 17 are transport amphoras, three of which

might be Classical. There are also three fragments

from pithoi. Sherds from unidentifiable plain closed

vessels make up 34% of the Hellenistic vessel

assemblage; other plain vessel shapes include a plate

and amphora. Ten percent of the sherds are cooking

ware and 6% are black glaze; the black glaze fragments

are from a cup, a kantharos, and a banded hydria.

The later material from S040 consists of two Post-Medieval

slipped jug fragments and two Modern tiles. It is

unlikely that this small quantity of material

represents post-Roman use of the site.

The tract assemblage is similar to the site collection in

chronological and functional representation. As in

the site collection, the number of storage vessels

from the tract collection is high; they account for

594
 40% of both assemblages. Tract walkers collected one

piece of black glaze and one fragment of cooking ware;

both categories are also underrepresented in the site

assemblage. The only potential post-Hellenistic sherd

from the tract collection is one fragment that could

date as late as Early Roman; there is no Post-

Medieval. The tract assemblage is a fairly reliable

subset of the site collection and would be sufficient

to characterize the date and function of the site.

Small finds from S040 include two loomweights and four

millstones. These items, along with the categories of

ceramics that are present, are indicative of domestic

occupation. The large number of storage vessels

suggests that agricultural products were collected

and/or stored at S040. Given the quantity of tiles,

it is likely that a small Hellenistic structure stood

on the site. The post-Hellenistic material does not

reflect occupation.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 041

595
Name: Margelliç acropolis.

Figs. 7.62, 7.63, 7.64; Tables 7.73, 7.74.

Zone: 10.

Site Location and Description: S041 consists of a steep

hill, Mali i Kalasë, to the southeast of the modern

village of Margelliç, and a steep-sided ridge that

extends to the northwest. The Illyrian hillfort

located on the acropolis has received much attention

from Albanian archaeologists. The site was first

explored by Patsch at the beginning of the 20th

century, and then by Praschniker and Schober during

World War I.1367 Excavations were undertaken here by

Neritan Ceka, beginning in the 1970s.1368 He found

evidence for Late Bronze and Early Iron Age

occupation, as well as Early Archaic from the 7th

century B.C. and later Greek pottery.1369 Most of the

area of the acropolis has been extensively disturbed

by modern building activities. The summit of the hill

1367
Patsch 1904; Praschniker and Schober 1919, pp. 75-77.
1368
Ceka 1977-1978, 1986, 1987a, 1990a.
1369
Almost all of the 7th century B.C. pieces are Corinthian Type A
transport amphoras. The quantity of later Archaic imports increases in
the 6th century B.C. See Ceka 1978, pp. 252-253, 1986, 1987a; Andrea
1984, p. 109. Ceka (1990a, p. 139) also found a LH III Mycenaean pyxis
in a grave, as well as a few earlier Mycenaean sherds.

596
 is partially surrounded by Late Antique walls that

were also excavated by Ceka.1370 The site is heavily

eroded, and the top of the ridge has been greatly

disturbed by bunkers, oil workings, and a water tower.

Average visibility was 70%.

Size: 2.00 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, L and M.

Associated Tracts: M-069, M-079, M-081, M-082, M-089, M-

090, M-091, M-092, M-093.

Periods Represented: EA (1); A (3); CL (3); HL (61); MHL

(1); LHL (6); MR (1); LR (3); PMED (1); M (1).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); A-CL (1); CL-EHL (1); CL-

HL (2); LCL-EHL (3); UNKN (2).

Collection Method: Microtracts. 25 m wide microtracts

running 60/240°. Grabs for diagnostics were taken from

each tract and a vacuum with a dogleash from the

center. 19 grabs, 19 vacuums.

1370
Ceka 1985; 1987a. Excavations revealed Late Bronze Age walls,
Hellenistic walls and houses, and a Late Antique/Early Modern church.

597
Periods Represented: BA (1); LBA (4); IA (3); CL (1); HL

(399); MHL (1); LHL (3); R (1); LR (6); LB (2); PMED

(1); M (18).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); A-CL (1); CL-HL (3); LCL-

HL (1); MR-LR (1); LR-MED (1); EM-M (1); UNKN (1).

Artifact Discussion: Eighty-seven percent (471 pieces) of

the material collected from S041 dates to the

Hellenistic period. Two percent of the finds are non-

Greek, and 2% predate the Hellenistic period. Of the

indigenous finds, four are Late Bronze Age, one is

Bronze Age, two are Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age,

three are Iron Age, and one cannot be dated more

closely than Bronze Age. Also present is an Early

Archaic Corinthian transport amphora. An additional

2% of the finds might be, but do not need to be, pre-

Hellenistic. Two percent of the material is Roman,

and 5% is post-Roman.

Tiles account for 48% of the Hellenistic sherds. The

largest percentage of the vessel assemblage is sherds

from plain shapes; the shape could not be identified

for 77% of the finds. There are 39 pieces with black

598
 glaze, which constitutes 25% of the vessel fragments;

16 are from skyphoi and seven from kantharoi. Also

included in this category are seven banded fragments.

Cooking ware comprises 14% of the finds. There are

only 21 fragments of storage vessels (three transport

amphoras and two pithoi). Most of the Roman sherds

come from cooking vessels.

The non-Greek sherds are from plain jars and plain vessels

of unknown shape.

The tracts on the west side of the Margelliç acropolis are

associated with the site. The material from the

tracts is similar in composition to the site

collection; it is diverse in both date and vessel

type. Again, the majority is Hellenistic, but Bronze-

Iron Age and Roman finds are also represented. There

is a larger percentage of Greek material that predates

the Hellenistic period in the tract assemblage, and a

larger quantity of storage and black glaze vessels.

Nevertheless, the tract assemblage provides an

accurate chronological and functional picture of S041.

The nature of the finds indicate clearly that the acropolis

at Margelliç was used as a habitation site, probably

continuously, from the Late Bronze Age through the

Roman period.

599
Site Function: Illyrian regional center; Graeco-Roman

regional center.

SITE 042

Name: Levan.

Fig. 7.65; Table 7.75.

Zone: 6.

Site Location and Description: S042 is located in the

Shaban valley, north of the asphalt road from Shtyllas

to Levan, ca. 1 km from Shtyllas near the village of

Jaroi. The site, probably a Roman villa, was

excavated by Maksim Gjata but never published. The

site appears to be well-preserved except for the

excavation. Average visibility was 80%.

Size: Undetermined.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, C.

600
Associated Tracts: C-289, C-290.

Periods Represented: HL (1); R (4); PMED (2).

Ranges Represented: EM-M (1).

Collection Method: Not collected.

Artifact Discussion: Very little material was collected

during tract walking. Half of the finds are Roman.

The Hellenistic and Early Modern to Modern periods are

represented by one sherd each, and two Post-Medieval

pieces are present.

There are two amphora fragments and two jar fragments, one

glazed, and the other plain; the rest of the finds are

tiles.

The nearby Tract C-277, located just upslope from the Roman

villa excavated by Gjata produced 31 joining and non-

joining pieces of a Roman water pipe, which are likely

to have been from the villa. An Early Iron Age wide-

mouthed jar with incised decoration was also found in

this tract. The Early Iron Age vessel suggests a pre-

Greek presence at the site.

601
The tract assemblage is not sufficient to define the

chronology or function of the site. Although Roman

was found in the tracts, the finds are not in

themselves representative of what one might expect to

find in the ruins of a Roman villa.

Site Function: Roman villa?

SITE 043

Name: Pojan Bonjakët.

Figs. 7.66, 7.67; Tables 7.76, 7.77.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: S043 is located on the plain

below the walls of Apollonia, south of Pojan village

and across the western canal from the Apollonia

acropolis. The site sits on the land of the Bonjakët

family. It was the location of a religious sanctuary,

possibly dedicated to Aphrodite. S043 has been

extensively damaged by house building, the digging of

602
 drainage ditches, and plowing. It was partially

excavated by an Albanian-Russian team in 1960 under

the direction of Skender Anamali and is currently

under investigation by a team from the University of

Cincinnati Department of Classics, the International

Centre for Albanian Archaeology, and the Institute of

Archaeology at Tirana.1371 Average visibility was 45%.

Size: 0.75 ha (1.90).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, 2004-2006, L and P.

Associated Tracts: P-020, P-021, P-022, P-131, P-132, P-

133, P-134, L-427.

Periods Represented: HL (35); LHL (2); PMED (2); M (1).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-EHL (1); LCL-EHL (1); LCL-

HL (2); EHL-MHL (1); HL-MR (1) ER-MR (1).

Collection Method: Microtracts. Microtracts with

approximately the same visibility and vegetation were

established using fenced areas between and around the

houses. The fields outside the current habitation

1371
Anamali 1992; Davis et al. 2004, 2005, 2006.

603
 area were also divided into microtracts of similar

size. Grabs of diagnostics were taken from each

microtract, and a vacuum with a dogleash was collected

at the center. Following site collection, the area

was intensively walked by Team L. It seems likely,

given the high density of pottery, that Tracts L-425—

L-434 are associated with S043. In addition, a well-

bounded Hellenistic scatter located to the southeast,

across the irrigation ditch in L-401 and L-403, could

also be part of the site. 24 grabs, 24 vacuums, 1

revisitation.

Periods Represented: A (1); CL (2); LCL (2); HL (964); MHL

(2); LHL (24); R (4); MR (2); LR (3); PMED (3); EM

(3); M (24).

Ranges Represented: CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (3); LCL-EHL (7);

LCL-HL (11); HL-MR (1); LHL-ER (1); ER-MR (16); UNKN

(74).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S043 dates

to the Hellenistic period (86%); an additional 2% (26

sherds) might also be Hellenistic, but it could be

earlier. There are only six sherds (1%) that are

604
 definitely pre-Hellenistic; one is Archaic, four are

Classical, and one is Archaic or Classical. Two

percent of the material from S043 is Roman. Twenty-

five sherds are Modern (2%), and five additional

pieces are Post-Medieval. Six percent of the material

cannot be dated.

Tiles account for only 20% of the pre-Medieval assemblage,

and all are Hellenistic in date. Of the vessel

sherds, 71% are plain, mostly from unidentifiable

closed shapes (52%). Black glaze fragments account

for 13% (114 pieces) of the assemblage; 17 of these

(15%) predate, or might predate, the Hellenistic

period. Cooking ware fragments comprise 10% of the

vessel assemblage, and storage vessels 6%. All of the

storage vessel fragments are from transport amphoras;

no pithos fragments were found. One fragment of a

Late Classical red-figured askos that preserves the

wing of a bird was also found.

The single Archaic artifact is a fragment of tile with a

red-slipped surface. An Archaic or Classical oinochoe

fragment is probably a Corinthian import, and two Late

Classical to Early Hellenistic black glaze plate

fragments are Attic; one skyphos of the same date is a

miniature votive.

605
Most of the Modern material from S043 consists of

bricks/tiles or pipe. There are a few pieces of Post-

Medieval/Early Modern cooking ware and glazed vessels.

The tract material accurately depicts site function and

date, and the percentages of finds in each are almost

identical in the tract and site assemblages. The

tract finds alone would be sufficient to identify the

date and function of the site.

Site Function: Sanctuary.

SITE 044

Name: Rusinja, north.

Fig. 7.68; Tables 7.78, 7.79.

Zone: 11.

Site Location and Description: S044 is in the Rusinja

valley on a ridge running south from the main

Margelliç-Ruzhdia asphalt road. It is 600 m east of

Mali i Kalasë. The site is heavily eroded on the east

606
 side where the slope is steepest, and the north end is

cut by an asphalt road. Average visibility was 60%.

Size: 1.00 ha (0.50).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, M.

Associated Tracts: M-039, M-042, M-043, M-048, M-049.

Periods Represented: HL (36); MHL (1); R (1); LR (4); MED

(3); M (2); C (1).

Ranges Represented: UNKN (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. A vacuum with a

dogleash was taken in the center of each square, then

grabs for diagnostics were made. 38 grabs, 38

vacuums.

Periods Represented: CL (1); HL (312); R (2); LR (6); O

(3); PMED (3); M (3).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-EHL (1); A-HL (1); LCL-HL

(1); ER-MR (1); UNKN (5).

607
Artifact Discussion: Ninety percent of the material from

S044 is Hellenistic. Only two fragments are

definitely earlier; one is either Archaic or

Classical, the other is Classical. Three additional

pieces could be pre-Hellenistic, but they could also

be Hellenistic. Four percent of the material is

Roman, and both Early and Late Roman sherds are

present. Post-Roman and unknown finds comprise 5% of

the assemblage. There are three Medieval, three Post-

Medieval, three Ottoman fragments, and five Modern

tiles. One fragment of a glazed jug is of Communist

period manufacture.

Fifty-two percent of the assemblage from S044 is tiles; 94%

of these are Hellenistic. Four of the remaining tile

fragments are Roman. The largest group of sherds

(54%) are from plain vessels, most of which are

closed. Storage vessels account for 14% of the vessel

assemblage, and all of the sherds that are, or might

be, pre-Hellenistic are from transport amphoras. One

quarter of the fragments are cooking ware and only 6%

are black glaze. There is also a piece from an Early-

Middle Roman Terra Sigillata plate. Small finds

608
 include one kiln support and two game pieces that were

perhaps reused as stoppers.

The tract assemblage provides a fair representation of the

site. Hellenistic predominates, but the Roman

component is also represented, although the percentage

is slightly higher in the tract assemblage (10% vs.

3%). Material that predates the Hellenistic period

is, however, absent from the tract assemblages. Three

Medieval sherds were found, but no Post-Medieval. As

in the site assemblage, the largest percentage of

tract finds is tiles. Although the tract material is

slightly poorer in quality, the functions and dates of

the site can be determined from this assemblage. The

finds from site collection, on the other hand, present

a fuller picture of the types of ceramics that were

used at the site.

The quantity of cooking and storage vessels from S044 is

consistent with domestic use. Most of the fine ware

shapes are associated with eating or drinking and

ordinary household consumption. Although the Roman

component is small, it suggests there was some

activity at S044 during the Roman period.

609
Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; small Roman

farmstead?

SITE 045

Name: Margelliç, below acropolis.

Fig. 7.69; Tables 7.80, 7.81.

Zone: 11.

Site Location and Description: S045 is located at the foot

of a cliff immediately to the northeast of the

Margelliç acropolis (S041). It is part of the lower

town (S055), but was collected and is discussed as a

separate site. Substantial military constructions

around S045, especially to the north and west, have

caused considerable disturbance, and the site has been

heavily eroded. Average visibility was 50%.

Size: 0.60 ha (0.30).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, L.

610
Associated Tracts: L-076, L-080, L-081, L-089, L-090.

Periods Represented: EIA (1); IA (12); A (2); CL (1); LCL

(1); HL (35); MHL (1); LHL (2); LR (2).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1); A-CL (3); A-HL (1); CL-HL

(8); MHL-LHL (2); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: 20 x 20 m grid. A vacuum with a

dogleash was collected from the center of each square,

then grabs for diagnostics were made. Stone piles

were examined but no diagnostic material was

collected. 22 grabs, 22 vacuums.

Periods Represented: LBA (1); IA (5); A (1); CL (1); HL

(203); LHL (6); ER (1); R (6); MR (1); LR (5); M (2).

Ranges Represented: A-EHL (2); CL-EHL (1); LCL-HL (2); EHL-

MHL (1); LHL-ER (1); UNKN (3).

Artifact Discussion: S045 has one of the largest bodies of

non-Greek finds in the survey area; Late Bronze or

Iron Age material accounts for 6% of the assemblage.

611
 Most of the sherds, however, are Hellenistic (79%),

with a strong Early Hellenistic component. Nine

sherds (3%) are definitely pre-Hellenistic; three of

these are Archaic. Fourteen additional pieces (5%)

might also predate the Hellenistic period. Fifteen

fragments are Roman (5%) and another piece might be;

all phases of the Roman period are represented. Only

two post-antique pieces were collected, one a Modern

brick, the other a Modern tile. Four pieces could not

be dated.

Most of the non-Greek sherds are from plain jars, but there

are also two pieces of cooking ware. Thirty-seven

percent of the Graeco-Roman assemblage is tiles.

Sherds from plain vessels make up the largest

percentage of the vessel assemblage (40%). Twenty

percent of the sherds are cooking ware. Storage

vessels from S045 account for 11% of the finds; eight

of the definite or possible earlier pieces are from

this category. The quantity of black glaze fragments

is higher than usual and accounts for 26% of the

Graeco-Roman vessel assemblage. One fragment comes

from an imported Ionian black glaze kylix. In

addition to the kylix, other black glaze or banded

shapes include hydriai, cups, echinus bowls,

612
 kantharoi, kylikes, oinochoiai, plates, and skyphoi.

Also present are two moldmade vessel fragments. One

of these is black glaze with a gorgon head medallion

on the bottom; it is Middle to Late Hellenistic in

date. Six percent of the finds are possible imports

from Corinth, Ionia, Italy, or Attica. Most of the

Roman fragments are from plain ware or cooking ware

vessels, although there is one combed fragment and two

glazed. Small finds from S045 include a Hellenistic

cippus and figurine and a Late Roman altar fragment.

The percentage of non-Greek material is higher in the tract

assemblage (19% vs. 2%), but there is slightly less

Roman (3% vs. 6%). All of the Roman finds from tract

walking are specifically Late Roman. No Modern

material is in the tract collection, and tiles are

underrepresented (only one piece). Thirty-eight

percent of the tract finds have either banded, black

glaze, or molded decoration, compared to 22% from the

site collection.

The quantity of non-Greek finds indicates that S045 was

part of an indigenous settlement, inhabited at least

as early as the Late Bronze Age, long before the Greek

apoikia was established at Apollonia. The variety,

quality, and early date of some of the Greek material

613
 suggests that the indigenous population had commercial

ties with Apollonia from the inception of the colony.

It is possible, although unlikely, that, given the

quality of the early and later fine wares, the site

functioned in some type of ritual capacity. S045

continued to be used, although on a much smaller

scale, throughout the Roman period.

Site Function: Illyrian regional center; Graeco-Roman

regional center.

SITE 046

Name: Rusinja, Paleolithic.

Zone: 11.

Fig. 7.70; Table 7.82.

Site Location and Description: S046 is on a low ridge to

the east of the Margelliç acropolis at the junction of

the Margelliç-Ruzhdia asphalt and Rusinja dirt roads.

The Paleolithic component is concentrated on the

614
 highest point of the ridge; the Hellenistic component

is just above the Rusinja road. The site is well

preserved. Visibility was 90% on roads, 20% off

roads.

Size: 3.00 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, M.

Associated Tracts: M-252, M-253, M-254, M-255, M-256, M-

257, M-258.

Periods Represented: HL (13); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); LCL-EHL (2).

Collection Method: Revisited for lithics, other finds not

collected.

Artifact Discussion: Although the majority of the material

from S046 is Paleolithic, a small amount of non-

prehistoric material was collected during tract

walking. Most of these finds are Hellenistic,

615
 although three pieces might be, but do not need to be,

earlier, and two sherds are Post-Medieval.

The Post-Medieval fragments are both from combed jugs.

Half of the remaining fragments are bricks/tiles. Of

the eight sherds from ancient vessels, four (50%) are

fragments of transport amphoras, three of which might

be, but do not need to be, earlier than Hellenistic.

The remaining two sherds are from plain unidentified

vessels.

The unusually high percentage of transport amphoras from

S046 could in part be due to the durability and

visibility of these vessels. Their presence, along

with bricks/tiles, and the lack of cooking and fine

ware vessels, suggests limited use of the site during

the Hellenistic period, perhaps as a storage facility

for crops or as an animal shelter.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house.

SITE 047

Name: Pojan Islamaj 1.

616
Figs. 7.71; 7.72; Tables 7.83, 7.84.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: S047 is a small site on the

plain near Pojan Islamaj. It is well preserved,

except for a hedge and ditch system at the east end.

Average visibility was 80%.

Size: 0.80 ha (0.10).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, M.

Associated Tracts: M-347, M-348.

Periods Represented: HL (3).

Collection Method: 10 x 10 m grid. Vacuums with a dogleash

were collected from the center of each square, then

grabs for diagnostics were made. 33 grabs, 33

vacuums.

Periods Represented: HL (354); PMED (3); M (1).

617
Ranges Represented: UNKN (2).

Artifact Discussion: Except for six fragments (2%), all of

the material from S047 (98%) dates to the Hellenistic

period; there are three Post-Medieval fragments, one

Modern, and two of unknown date.

Seventy-nine percent of the Hellenistic assemblage is

tiles. The rest of the finds are poor and scrappy.

Only two vessel shapes can be securely identified;

these are pithoi and transport amphoras. Sherds from

storage vessels account for 29% of the vessel

fragments, 50% are from plain unidentifiable closed

vessels, and 21% from unidentifiable closed cooking

ware vessels. No black glaze was found.

The tract assemblage from S047 accurately reflects the date

of the site, but it is too small to allow any

conclusions to be drawn about site function.

The paucity of pre- and post-Hellenistic finds indicates

that the S047 was a single-period occupation site. A

domestic function is suggested by the presence of

cooking ware, plain ware, and storage vessels. The

large quantity of tiles points to the presence of a

building on the site. On the other hand, the lack of

fine and tablewares might indicate that S047 was

618
 impoverished or only occupied on a seasonal basis.

The large quantity of storage vessels is indicative of

the storage of agricultural products.

Site Function: Hellenistic field house or small farmstead.

SITE 048

Name: Sopi.

Table 7.85.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: S048 is on the plain below

Apollonia, at the southern edge of Pojan-Sopi village.

The site is bounded by irrigation ditches on the east

and west. Preservation is good although the site has

been plowed. Average visibility was 60%.

Size: 1.50 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, L.

619
Associated Tracts: L-471, L-472, L-473, L-474, L-475, L-

476, L-477, L-478, L-479, L-480, L-481, L-482, L-483,

L-484, L-485, L-486, L-487, L-488, L-489, L-490, L-

491, L-492, L-493, L-494, L-495, L-496, L-497.

Periods Represented: HL (4); PMED (8); EM (15).

Ranges Represented: HL-MR (1); ER-MR (3); O-EM (3); LO-EM

(8); EM-M (2).

Collection Method: Not collected.

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S048 falls

into the Ottoman to Early Modern date range. Only

eight pieces (18%) are earlier: four Hellenistic,

three Early or Middle Roman, and one Hellenistic to

Middle Roman. The largest securely datable body of

material is Early Modern (34%). An additional 21

pieces (48%) might be Early Modern (eight of these are

Post-Medieval).

There is only one Hellenistic tile fragment in the

assemblage. Over half (58%) of the Graeco-Roman

vessel fragments are from transport amphoras. Of the

620
 three other sherds, one is Roman Terra Sigillata, one

is cooking ware, and one is plain ware.

Almost all of the Post-Medieval sherds from S048 are from

glazed, slipped or slip-painted vessels; cooking wares

and plain vessels are totally absent.

It is difficult to determine the function of the site in

the Hellenistic and/or Roman periods because of the

paucity of finds. The nature and quality of the Post-

Medieval material from S048 suggests it was a

settlement that included several households.

Site Function: Post-Medieval hamlet.

SITE 049

Name: Pojan, fusha e Qoramidhës ("field of pottery").

Fig. 7.72; Table 7.86.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: The western necropolis of

Apollonia has been designated S049. The site is

621
 located on the plain below the slopes of the

acropolis, just to the south of Pojan village. It

begins just outside the city wall. The site is

bounded by two main irrigation canals and is just to

the west of the main western canal. Parts of the

necropolis were excavated by Mano in 1962.1372 S049 has

been disturbed by canal construction and plowing.

Average visibility was 40%.

Size: 1.00-2.00 ha?

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, L.

Associated Tracts: L-322–L-366, P-012, P-013, P-014, P-102,

P-103, P-104.

Periods Represented: HL (79); MHL (1); LHL (6); ER (2); R

(4); MR (2); LR (14); PMED (1); EM (3); M (2); UNKN

(3).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); CL-EHL (1); LCL-EHL (1); HL-R

(7); ER-MR (1); MR-LR (1).

Collection Method: Not collected.

1372
Mano 1975, 1977-1978, 2006.

622
Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S049 is

Hellenistic in date (67%). There is one black glaze

tile fragment that is Archaic or Classical and two

other fragments that could be pre-Hellenistic (3%).

Nineteen percent of the material is Roman, and an

additional seven fragments (5%) are either Hellenistic

or Roman. Sherds from all phases of the Hellenistic

and Roman periods are present. In addition, there are

nine post-Roman or unknown sherds (7%); one is Post-

Medieval, and three are Early Modern.

There are only nine pieces of tile in the Graeco-Roman

assemblage (10%); one has black glaze on the surface,

and another is slipped. Forty-three percent of the

vessel assemblage consists of plain ware sherds from

both open and closed domestic shapes. There is a

great deal of variety in the number of shapes

represented. Nineteen black glaze fragments from

various shapes associated with dining or drinking

account for 17% of the vessel assemblage. Transport

amphoras comprise 27% of the assemblage; most of these

are Hellenistic, but 13 are, or could be, Roman. Only

11% of the fragments are cooking ware. There are also

two pieces of Terra Sigillata.

623
S049 divides into two components, one Hellenistic, and the

other Roman. The Hellenistic assemblage is consistent

with domestic use, and the unusually high percentage

of fine tablewares suggests a wealthy household of

this date. The field counts reported by tract walkers

are extremely high, and it is likely that many of the

uncollected sherds are of Roman date.

Site Function: Hellenistic houses; Roman necropolis?

SITE 050

Name: Pojan Islamaj 2.

Fig. 7.72; Tables 7.87. 7.88.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: S050 is located on the plain

directly west of Apollonia. The site is fairly well

preserved, although it is cut by a field road and has

been heavily plowed. Average visibility was 70%.

624
Size: 3.50 ha (3.40).

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, M.

Associated Tracts: M-368, M-369, M-370, M-385, M-386, M-

387.

Periods Represented: LCL (1); HL (47); PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); LA-CL (1); HL-R (1); EM-M

(1); UNKN (1).

Collection Method: Microtracts with vacuums. Microtracts

were defined within previously walked tracts. Walkers

were spaced 5 m apart. A vacuum with a dogleash was

taken, and then diagnostics were grabbed during

microtract walking. 52 grabs, 52 vacuums.

Periods Represented: IA? (1); CL (1); EHL (1); HL (480); R

(1); LR (2); EO (1); LO (1); M (5).

625
Ranges Represented: A-HL (1); CL-EHL (1); CL-HL (2); LCL-

EHL (1); LCL-HL (6); MHL-LHL (3); HL-ER (1); O-EM (1);

LO-EM (5); UNKN (7).

Artifact Discussion: One sherd from S050 is non-Greek,

probably dating to the Iron Age. Most of the finds

from the site are Hellenistic (92%). Three percent of

the sherds, however, are, or might be, earlier; two

are definitely pre-Hellenistic, and 13 pieces might

be. Three of these, all of which are from transport

amphoras, might be Archaic. Three pieces are

definitely Roman, and two pieces are either

Hellenistic or Roman (1%). Fifteen sherds (3%) fall

into the range of Ottoman to Modern; five are from

Modern pipes and five are tiles. Eight pieces (1%)

are unidentifiable.

Tiles comprise 69% of the Graeco-Roman assemblage; one

fragment is definitely Classical in date. Only 173

sherds (31%) are from vessels. Fifteen percent of

these are from storage vessels, and 12 of the 15

pieces that do, or might, predate the Hellenistic

period belong to this category. The majority of the

sherds are from plain vessels (56%), primarily

amphoras or unidentifiable closed shapes. Although

626
 only 14% of the fragments are black glaze, a great

variety of shapes is represented. There is one

fragment of a moldmade bowl, and one piece of Terra

Sigillata. Cooking ware accounts for 13% of the

vessel assemblage.

The tract assemblage provides a fairly accurate picture of

site date and function. The major differences between

the tract and site collection assemblages are the

higher percentage of black glaze fragments in the

tract collection (25% vs. 11%) and the lower

percentage of cooking ware (5% vs. 16%). The

percentages of storage vessels and plain ware sherds

are approximately the same.

Even though the pre-Hellenistic component is small, it is

likely that activity began at S050 in the Classical

period, perhaps in the 5th century B.C., and continued

into the Hellenistic period. The presence of Early

Classical, Late Classical, and Early Hellenistic finds

suggests unbroken continuity at the site.

The presence of fine wares, cooking wares, and storage

vessels suggests that S050 was a domestic site. The

size of the scatter might indicate that the site was

comprised of more than just one household. The number

627
 of black glaze shapes suggests a fairly wealthy

settlement.

Site Function: Classical field house; Hellenistic hamlet.

SITE 051

Name: Shtyllas, northwest slope 1.

Tables 7.89, 7.90.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S051 is located on a small

hill about 500 m from the spring on the northwest

slope of the Shtyllas valley, ca. 200 m from the

Radostina-Shtyllas road. The site is nestled among

figs and vines, and pits dug for the trees have

disturbed parts of the site. The lower slopes of the

hill are terraced. Average visibility was 60%.

Size: 1.00 ha.

628
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2003, J and K.

Associated Tracts: J-477, J-485.

Periods Represented: HL (3); R (2); LR (2).

Collection Method: Revisitation. The associated tracts

were re-walked by a small team of museum experts;

finds were analyzed in the field. A representative

sample was collected, but probably does not reflect

the full range of material.

Periods Represented: HL (24); LHL (3); R (16); LR (1).

Ranges Represented: HL-R (5).

Artifact Discussion: There are two components to S051; one

Hellenistic, the other Roman. Fifty-four percent of

the material dates to the former, and 37% to the

latter. Three sherds are definitely Late Hellenistic,

and three are Late Roman. Five pieces (9%) are either

Hellenistic or Roman.

Tiles comprise 20% of the assemblage. The largest group of

finds is from plain ware vessels (49%) that represent

629
 common household shapes, including hydriai, pitchers,

plates, and bowls. Storage vessels account for 20% of

the finds, and cooking ware for 23%. There are two

black glaze pieces (4%) and two fragments of Terra

Sigillata (4%). A millstone was also found at the

site.

All of the sherds from S051 that are either Hellenistic or

Roman are from transport amphoras. The Hellenistic

vessel assemblage consists principally of plain ware

vases and includes both open and closed shapes. There

are only four fragments of cooking ware. Three

Hellenistic pithoi are represented in the assemblage,

two of which are definitely Late Hellenistic. The

Roman material also consists primarily of plain ware

vessels. Cooking ware, however, accounts for a higher

percentage of the Roman vessel assemblage than the

Hellenistic (33%).

The tract assemblage from S051 is very small. The dates of

the material suggest that the Roman component is

larger than the Hellenistic. There are no black glaze

sherds, and only one piece of cooking ware. Despite

the small quantities, however, the tract assemblage is

sufficient to identify the domestic nature of the site

in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.

630
The presence of cooking wares, plain ware dining pots, and

storage vessels, along with a few fine ware drinking

vessels, suggests that S051 had a domestic function in

the Hellenistic period and was probably a single-

family farmstead. The same is also true for the Roman

period.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead; Roman farmstead.

SITE 052

Name: Shtyllas, northwest slope 2.

Table 7.91.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S052 is located in a plowed

field just below the large terraces on the northwest

slope of the Shtyllas valley. The site is undisturbed

except for plowing. Average visibility was 80%.

Size: < 0.20 ha.

631
Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2003, J.

Associated Tracts: J-543.

Periods Represented: HL (4); LHL (1).

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Artifact Discussion: All of the material from S052 dates to

the Hellenistic period. One sherd has been identified

specifically as Late Hellenistic.

The assemblage includes a cooking pot, a storage vessel,

two plain ware fragments, and one black glaze plate.

Although the body of material is very small, it is

characteristic of a small domestic assemblage.

Site Function: Small Hellenistic farmstead.

SITE 053

Name: Mbyet, kiln.

632
Table 7.92.

Zone: 7.

Site Location and Description: S053 is located in a field

to the east of the field road to S038, about 150 m

from the gravel road to Pluk. The site has been

plowed and olive trees planted; according to a local

informant, a bulldozer uncovered a small circular

brick building, perhaps a kiln, around 1990. Average

visibility was 25%.

Size: < 0.10 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2003, H.

Associated Tracts: H-148, H-149.

Periods Represented: HL (21); PMED (1); EM (1).

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

633
Artifact Discussion: Of the 23 sherds collected from S053,

21 are Hellenistic, one is Post-Medieval, and one is

Early Modern.

Fifteen of the Hellenistic fragments are tiles. There is

one sherd from a plain unidentified closed vessel, one

piece of cooking ware, and one fragment from a

transport amphora.

The percentage of tiles suggests that some type of

structure was present at S053 in the Hellenistic

period. The ceramic assemblage, however, is too small

to determine the function of the site; the finds

themselves do not suggest the presence of a

Hellenistic kiln.

Site Function: Kiln?

SITE 054

Name: Rusinja, south.

Fig. 7.73; Table 7.93.

Zone: 11.

634
Site Location and Description: S054 is located at the crest

and on the slopes of a small hill just beyond the

olive pressing plant on the Margelliç-Ruzhdia road.

The site has been plowed and somewhat disturbed by a

road constructed to provide access to the olive press.

Average visibility was 65%.

Size: 0.50 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, 2003, L.

Associated Tracts: L-206, L-245.

Periods Represented: A (3); HL (11); R (1); MR (1).

Ranges Represented: O-EM (1).

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Artifact Discussion: Hellenistic sherds comprise 65% of the

assemblage from S054. There are three pieces (18%)

that are Archaic and two that are Roman (12%), one of

635
 which is Middle Roman. The only post-Roman find was

an Ottoman to Early Modern tile.

There is only one piece of tile in the assemblage. Cooking

ware makes up 40% of the vessel assemblage. Five

sherds (33%) are from storage vessels; two of these

are from Archaic pithoi. There are four plain ware

fragments (27%), one of which is Archaic, and one

Roman. No black glaze was found.

The material collected during tract walking suggests that

the site was used for agricultural purposes, beginning

in the Archaic period. The high percentage of cooking

ware and storage vessels suggests a domestic function

for this part of S054; the type of material would be

consistent with a single-family unit. It is possible

that there was also a small Roman component to the

site.

Site Function: Archaic-Classical field house; Hellenistic

farmstead; Roman site of undetermined type.

SITE 055

Name: Margelliç, lower town.

636
Fig. 7.74; Tables 7.94.

Zone: 11.

Site Location and Description: S055 is a large site located

to the northeast of Margelliç. It spreads over the

area below the acropolis, from S045 to the bottom of

the perroi. Much of the area has been terraced, and

oil drilling has created disturbances in places.

Average visibility was 50%.

Size: 10.00 ha?

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, 2003, L.

Associated Tracts: L-016–L-056, L-064–L-084, L-087–L-090.

Periods Represented: BA (1); LBA (10); IA (2); EA (1); A

(5); LA (1); ECL (1); CL (1); HL (81); LHL (4); LR

(8); PMED (17); O (1); M (5).

637
Ranges Represented: MBA-LBA (1); LBA-EIA (26); A-CL (3); A-

HL (1); CL-EHL (2); CL-HL (5); LCL-HL (1); O-EM (1);

LO-EM (9); EM-M (4); UNKN (3).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tracts L-022R and L-

026R.1373 Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Periods Represented: PMED (1).

Ranges Represented: LBA-EIA (1).

Artifact Discussion: The large quantity of non-Greek

material (21%) indicates that S055 was used by

indigenous people for a long period of time, beginning

in the Bronze Age. Twelve of 41 non-Greek pieces

(29%) are definitely Bronze Age, one of which might

be, but does not need to be, Middle Bronze Age.

Twenty-seven additional fragments are either Late

Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, and two others are Iron

Age. The lower town of Margelliç has the largest

number of non-Greek sherds, with the exception of

S038. Survey evidence confirms what is already known

about the site; that there was a large indigenous

1373
The two revisitation sherds, a Late Bronze-Early Iron Age jar and a
Post-Medieval slipped jug, are included in the tract table.

638
 community below the citadel. MRAP data demonstrates

that the community here probably began already in the

Middle Bronze Age.

The amount of Archaic and Classical material from the lower

town of Margelliç is small in comparison to

Hellenistic. Twelve sherds (6%) are definitely pre-

Hellenistic, and one of these is specifically Early

Archaic. Five others are Archaic, one is Late

Archaic, two are Classical, and three are either

Archaic or Classical. Nine pieces might or might not

be pre-Hellenistic. The majority of the finds from

the site are Hellenistic (43%). Late Roman accounts

for 4% of the assemblage and post-Roman or unknown for

21%.

The identifiable shapes in the pre-Greek assemblage are

plain jars and a kantharos, but 95% of the fragments

are from plain unidentified vessels. There is also a

piece of cooking ware and a burnished sherd from an

unknown closed shape.

Twelve percent of the Hellenistic assemblage is tiles.

There are 35 storage jar fragments in the vessel

assemblage (35%); nine of the definite, and six of the

possible, pre-Hellenistic sherds are from this

category. Plain ware (38%) and cooking ware (21%)

639
 vessels are well represented, but the quantity of

black glaze fragments is low (6%), especially when

compared with the percentage from S041 (25%) and S045

(26%).

Site Function: Illyrian regional center; Graeco-Roman

regional center.

SITE 056

Name: Levanit, near S034.

Fig. 7.75; Table 7.95.

Zone: 6.

Site Location and Description: S056 is located on top of a

ridge, to the east of, and above, S034. It is

situated along the road near a prominent concrete

topographical marker. The ridge overlooks perroi

Levanit. The site has been deep plowed. Average

visibility was 85%.

640
Size: 0.50 ha?

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1999, 2003, D.

Associated Tracts: D-363, D-374.

Periods Represented: HL (27).

Ranges Represented: A-CL (1).

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Artifact Discussion: All of the material from S056 is

Hellenistic, except for one piece that is either

Archaic or Classical.

The pre-Hellenistic fragment is from a black glaze tile; it

is the only piece of black glaze from the site. Over

half of the Hellenistic sherds are tile fragments

(56%). There is one sherd from a table amphora, and

one from a pithos; the rest are from plain,

unidentified closed shapes or unknown vessels. No

cooking ware or black glaze vessel fragments were

found.

641
The lack of shapes makes it difficult to characterize the

nature of the site. It is possible that the

assemblage is from a small Hellenistic farmstead.

Site collection would be necessary, in this case, to

determine site function.

Site Function: Hellenistic farmstead?

SITE 057

Name: Dushku i Kuq, lower.

Fig. 7.76; Table 7.96.

Zone: 4.

Site Location and Description: S057 is located 500 m north

of, and below, S031. It is at the eastern edge of an

olive grove, ca. 150 m southeast of Dushku i Kuq, on

the ridge road from Radostina to Mali i Portës. The

site appears to be well preserved. Average visibility

was 30%.

642
Size: 0.25 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 1998, 2003, A.

Associated Tracts: A-156.

Periods Represented: HL (2).

Ranges Represented: LHL-ER (1); EM-M (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract A-156R. Designated

in 2003 and not collected.

Periods Represented: HL (2).

Artifact Discussion: Two thirds of the material from S057

dates to the Hellenistic period. There is one sherd

that might be, but does not need to be later, i.e.,

Late Hellenistic or Early Roman. There is also one

fragment that is either Early Modern or Modern.

Two of the Hellenistic pieces are tiles, as is the Late

Hellenistic or Early Roman piece. A table amphora

fragment is the only identifiable Hellenistic vessel

shape; the other fragment is from a plain unidentified

643
 closed pot. There is too little material to determine

site function.

Site Function: Hellenistic site of undetermined type.

SITE 058

Name: Kodra e Kripës, settlement.

Tables 7.97, 7.98.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S058 is located on the edge

of the necropolis of Apollonia. It is west of, and

downslope from, Kodra e Kripës (S005). The site has

been almost completely destroyed by bunker

construction. Average visibility was 50%.

Size: 0.40 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2003, J.

644
Associated Tracts: J-414, J-415.

Periods Represented: HL (1); LHL (1); R (1).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tract J-415R. Designated

in 2006 and not collected.

Periods Represented: HL (3); MR (2); LR (6).

Ranges Represented: LCL-HL (1); MR-LR (1).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S058 is

Roman (63%). However, five sherds are Hellenistic

(31%) and one piece is either Late Classical or

Hellenistic.

Two of the four Hellenistic pieces are tiles. The other

two are from plain unidentified vessels. A Late

Classical or Hellenistic transport amphora fragment

represents the only identifiable vessel shape in the

pre-Roman assemblage.

The Roman assemblage from S058 contains one fragment of a

Terra Sigillata plate. Four fragments of Late Roman

cookware pitchers might or might not be from a single

645
 vessel. There is also one piece of a transport

amphora that is either Middle or Late Roman.

The tract assemblage has more Hellenistic than Roman

material; the revisitation assemblage, on the other

hand, is the opposite, with more Roman material than

Hellenistic. The character of the Roman finds suggest

a domestic function for the site. The quantity of

Hellenistic material is too small and the type range

too imprecise for a reliable definition of site

function.

Site Function: Hellenistic site of undetermined type; Roman

farmstead?

SITE 059

Name: Shën Marina.

Zone: 1.

Site Location and Description: S059 is located on a

bramble-covered hill across the road from and to the

west of the Shën Marina cemetery. The site has been

646
 heavily disturbed by bunker construction. A partially

robbed wall is preserved. A Doric capital and

fragments from a sarcophagus were found nearby.

Average visibility was 20%.

Size: 0.15 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2000, 2003, J.

Associated Tracts: J-144.

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Artifact Discussion: No artifacts were collected from the

site; the identification is based on sarcophagus

fragments.

Site Function: Grave of unknown date.

SITE 060

Name: Margelliç necropolis.

647
Table 7.99.

Zone: 11.

Site Location and Description: S060 is located to the

north-northwest of the acropolis of Margelliç (S041).

The site extends along the eroded, sandy marl ridge

that separates Zones 10 and 11. The site has been

damaged by erosion and modern building. Average

visibility was 75%.

Size: 10.0 ha?

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2002, L.

Associated Tracts: L-095, L-096, L-097, L-098, L-099, L-

100, L-101, L-102, L-103, L-104, L-105, L-106, L-113,

L-114, L-115, L-116, L-117, L-118, L-119, L-120, L-

127, L-128, L-129.

Periods Represented: A (1); LCL (1); HL (40); MHL (1); LB

(2); PMED (1); M (2).

648
Ranges Represented: A-CL (1); A-HL (1); CL-HL (4); LO-EM

(2).

Collection Method: Revisitation, Tracts L-096R, L-097R, L-

106R. Not collected. Designated in 2006.1374

Periods Represented: HL (2).

Artifact Discussion: Most of the material from S060 dates

to the Hellenistic period (74%). There are three

earlier sherds (5%); one of these is Archaic, one,

Late Classical, and the third, either Archaic or

Classical. Five additional pieces (9%) might be

earlier, i.e., Classical or Hellenistic. Seven

fragments (12%) are Ottoman to Modern.

Fourteen percent of the assemblage is tiles. Plain ware

sherds comprise the largest percentage of the vessel

assemblage (45%). Storage vessels are 30% of the

total, and cooking ware 7%. The quantity of black

glaze is high; 32% of the vessels pieces belong to

this category. One of these is an Archaic sherd from

a black-figured imported Corinthian closed shape

decorated with a broad "tongue motif." The Late

Classical piece is from a black glaze krater, and the

1374
Revisitation sherds are included in the Tract Table.

649
 Archaic or Classical fragment is from a Corinthian

Type A transport amphora. Small finds include human

bone and a figurine.

The necropolis assemblage at Margelliç is distinguished

from the acropolis material (S041) by the scarcity of

cooking ware and the presence of imported vessels.

Site Function: Necropolis.

SITE 061

Name: Shtyllas Temple.1375

Figs. 7.77, 7.78; Table 7.100.

Zone: 2.

Site Location and Description: S061 is located south of the

acropolis of Apollonia, above the modern village of

Shtyllas. A single Doric column from the temple

remains. The site has been heavily disturbed by

1375
Heuzey and Daumet 1876, pp. 394-395; Holland 1815, p. 511; Leake
1835, pp. 372-373; Patsch 1904, p. 40. For recent discussions of the
temple at Shtyllas, see Galaty et al. 2004; Amore et al. 1995, p. 779;
Quantin 1999 (with full bibliography); Lenhardt and Quantin 2007.

650
 erosion and post-Byzantine activities, and visibility

is very poor. Average visibility was 25%.

Size: Ca. 0.50 ha.

Year(s) Investigated and Team: 2003, J.

Associated Tracts: J-227, J-229, J-514, J-518, J-519, J-

520, J-523.

Periods Represented: A (1); CL (1); PMED (4); O (1); LO

(2).

Ranges Represented: A-R (1); CL-HL (1); EHL-MHL (1); LB-EO

(1).

Collection Method: Designated in 2003 and not collected.

Artifact Discussion: Sixty-two percent of the finds from

S061 are post-Roman. The Graeco-Roman assemblage

consists of five pieces: two of the sherds are pre-

Hellenistic, two are possibly pre-Hellenistic, and one

is Hellenistic.

651
There is one fragment of Classical tile, two transport

amphoras, and two black glaze sherds.

The tract assemblage alone is insufficient to determine the

date and function of the site.

Site Function: Temple.

652
653
 Chapter 8.

Toward a Rural Archaeology of Apollonia in Antiquity:

Analysis of MRAP Survey Data

It has been said before that the

city of our state, so far as
circumstances permit, be in
communication alike with the mainland,
the sea, and the whole of its
territory.1376

The cultivation of this noble

plain, capable of supplying grain to
all Illyria and Epirus, with an
abundance of other productions, is
confined to a few patches of maize near
the villages. Nevertheless, the
Mizakía is as well peopled as most of
the great plains, either of Asiatic or
European Turkey, and better than many
of them. This part of it is well
wooded; the hedges and great trees are
festooned with wild vines, which
produce a small grape of excellent
flavour; and the villages in general
are embosomed in clusters of trees, the
huts standing far apart, each with its
piece of garden ground.1377

Introduction

Chapter 8 offers a detailed analysis of the data

presented in Chapter 7. It provides a discussion of each

zone in numerical order, the sites identified in each, and

1376
Arist. Pol. 1330a34.
1377
Leake 1835, vol. 1, p. 366.

654
the periods represented (Fig. 8.1; Table 8.1).1378 A

synthesis of these data organized by period will be given

in Chapter 9. The analyses in both chapters focus on how

rural settlement patterns in the MRAP survey area developed

and changed through time. While much was known about the

asty and necropolis of Apollonia before the advent of MRAP,

almost nothing was known about its hinterland, since, as

noted in Chapter 1, MRAP was the first project to apply a

rigorous methodology to rural archaeology in Albania. Much

recent scholarship has concentrated on Greek colonization

in the Archaic period and the nature of native-Greek

interactions, but few studies have looked at the impact

colonization had on the surrounding landscape or traced

diachronically the spread of Greek material culture into

indigenous areas.1379

Questions to be considered in this and the next

chapters include: What were the borders of the Greek

settlement? How did the Greeks organize landholdings

within the territory of their colony and did this change

through time? Did they expropriate land from indigenous

peoples? Is it possible to distinguish archaeologically

1378
A dash (-) is used to indicate a period range, i.e., to, and a slash
(/) to indicate either/or.
1379
See Chapter 4. Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, p. 124, n. 1 discuss
the problems with the terminology used to describe a population living
in the vicinity of a Greek apoikia. With awareness of the connotations
implied in such words, nevertheless for the sake of variety, the terms
indigenous, local, native, pre-Greek, non-Greek, and Illyrian are here
used interchangeably. See also van Dommelen 1997, 2002.

655
between Greek and non-Greek sites? Are changing relations

between Greeks and native peoples reflected in settlement

patterns and the distribution of Greek material culture?

How can a transitory human presence in the landscape be

differentiated from a more permanent locus of activity?1380

During the second half of the 20th century, when

Albania was cut off from much of the modern world, Albanian

archaeologists, under the influence of a Marxist doctrine,

formulated the theory of an unbroken continuity between the

indigenous Bronze and Iron Age inhabitants at Apollonia

which was thought to have occurred in 588 B.C.1381 As noted

in Chapter 3, this cultural continuum was traced in their

analyses of the archaeological record. To support this

hypothesis of continuity, Albanian archaeologists cited the

unique method of tumulus burial found in the necropolis in

the Kryegjata valley.1382 It was argued that the indigenous

population was still using this burial practice at the time

of the establishment of the colony and that the Greeks

adopted this practice directly from them. The analysis

presented here suggests the opposite, that there was

1380
Criticism has recently been leveled against survey archaeology by
Osborne and others that, although it is now possible to mark accurately
places of high artifact densities on a map, the interpretation of their
meaning has not been adequately addressed. For example, do these
concentrations indicate more than a casual human presence in the
landscape? Osborne 2004, p. 88; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991,
p. 327; Pettegrew 2001, 2007.
1381
See Chapters 3 and 5.
1382
Mano 1971, pp. 203-204, 1977-1978, pp. 65-66. See Stocker and Davis
2006, p. 90.

656
instead cultural discontinuity in the area around Apollonia

and that the newly arrived Greek colonists confronted an

open, empty landscape that was devoid of permanent human

occupation. The colonists also initiated major changes in

land use in the hinterland of the colony by the end of the

Classical period, which had in turn a profound effect on

the indigenous Illyrian culture.

Analysis of MRAP Data by Zone and Period

In the remainder of this chapter I summarize what is

known about archaeological remains, and consequently the

development of settlement and land use, as a result of the

MRAP survey. I proceed zone by zone, period by period,

throughout the entire hinterland explored by MRAP (Table

8.2). The result is dense and descriptive, a product

hardly intended to be read from start to finish, but

clearly a necessary foundation for the synthesis that

follows in Chapter 9.

Zone 1

Zone 1 is composed of the asty of Apollonia and the

Myzeqe plain to the west of the city center.1383 It is the

largest zone in the survey region and encompasses an area

1383
For geomorphological investigations of the plain, see Amore et al.
1995; Balandier et al. 1996, pp. 988-990; Cabanes et al. 1997, 1999;
Fouache et al. 2001; Fouache 2002, 2007.

657
of ca. 10 sq km. The coastal plain now extends across the

area of the Gjoli lagoon, which is represented on an

Austrian map of 1912, but was drained under communism.1384

The sea is presently some 8.5 km distant from the

acropolis, but that distance has doubled since antiquity

when the coastline was closer to the base of the citadel.1385

It is likely that a river port, not identified during the

survey, was located near the city on an ancient

paleochannel of the Vjosa.1386 A total of seven sites were

defined in Zone 1: S008, S043, S047, S048, S049, S050, and

S059 (Fig. 8.2). S043, S047, and S050 were tract walked

and site collected, S008, S048, S049, and S059 were only

tract walked. Fragments from a maximum of 2,594 vessels

and tiles were collected in the course of fieldwork.

The asty of Apollonia, S008, is the area inside the

city walls – 130 ha.1387 The entirety of the site was not

tract walked; instead transects were taken across the

acropolis and through the city walls, one of which went all

1384
Fouache et al. 2001, p. 796.
1385
According to ancient sources, Apollonia was located 60 (Strabo 7.5.8
[C 316]) or 50 stades (Scylax 26) or 4 miles (Pliny HN 3.145) from the
sea. See Chapter 5 and Fouache 2007, p. 12, figs. 5, 14, pp. 18-19,
fig. 9.
1386
Pseudo-Scylax (26) recorded that the Aous flowed beside the town of
Apollonia. Fouache and his team (2002, pp. 8, 14, fig. 3, Fouache et
al. 2001, pp. 796, 799) have identified three courses of the Vjosa:
ancient, medieval, and modern. In the Graeco-Roman period the river
followed the ancient course; the paleochannel of this route has been
identified 750 m west of the acropolis. See also Cabanes 1994, pp.
523-525; Cabanes et al. 1997, pp. 861-869; Fouache 2007.
1387
Davis et al. 2003-2004, p. 313, n. 9. For the city walls, see the
bibliography in the Site Gazetteer for S008.

658
the way to the sea. Most of the visible remains of the

civic center and the buildings just below the acropolis are

either Hellenistic or Roman in date.1388

S043 is located in the plain west of the acropolis.

It was tract walked in the first transect laid out by Team

P and later site collected. The site has since been

excavated for three seasons by an international team from

the University of Cincinnati Department of Classics and the

International Center for Albanian Archaeology.1389 It is now

clear that a Greek sanctuary with a monumental temple stood

in this spot.

S047 is on the plain in the northern part of the zone,

near the modern village of Pojan. To the south of S047 and

ca. 3/4 km east of S043, is S049, which was only tract

walked. The site is just outside the city walls and

encompasses the area called "Fusha e Qoramidhës (field of

ceramics)." In the southeastern part of the plain, a large

area around the modern village of Sopi was designated S048.

S050 is about 1/2 km west of S047 and 1 km north of S043.

The final site in Zone 1, S059, is a possible ancient

cemetery located at the northwest foot of the acropolis,

1388
For the monuments, see N. Ceka 1982a and Korkuti, Baçe, and Ceka
2008, pp. 146-162. For results of ongoing excavations, see Koço 1987;
Cabanes 1994; Amore et al. 1995; Balandier et al. 1996; Cabanes et al.
1997, 1999; Dimo 1998, 2004; Cabanes, Lamboley, and Vrekaj 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003; Delouis et al. 2007; Dimo et al. 2007; Lamboley and Vrekaj
2003-2004; Mano 2003-2004; Lamboley 2007; Verger et al. 2007.
1389
Davis et al. 2006.

659
across the road from Shën Marina cemetery; no material was

collected from this site.

The MRAP survey data provide no evidence that the

plain and the acropolis of Apollonia were used before the

arrival of the Greeks. The only possible non-Greek sherd

in Zone 1, which might be an Iron Age fragment, was found

at S050. This absence of indigenous material could

indicate that the plain was not utilized in the Bronze and

Early Iron Age, which would be in keeping with a preference

for hill top habitation sites, at least during the Iron

Age.1390 An alternative explanation is, of course, that the

massive alluviation and flooding to which the plain has

been subjected in post-antique times has preferentially

buried pre-Greek material so deeply as to obscure its

presence.

Zone 1 has surprisingly few Archaic finds; only three

sherds are definitely Archaic in date, and all of these are

associated with sites. Two black glaze sherds are from

S008; one from the summit of the acropolis, the other from

near the plain. The other fragment, a slipped tile, was

found at the sanctuary at S043. An Archaic figurine

fragment of a standing female figure was found during site

collection at S043. While these finds point to an Archaic

phase at both S008 and S043, they are barely suggestive of

1390
See Chapters 5 and 9.

660
the pure Archaic levels that have been found in excavations

by the French team on the acropolis and the American-

Albanian team at S043.1391 The Archaic levels at S043,

however, are deeply buried under several meters of alluvial

fill, and on the acropolis they occupy a very small, well

bounded area that was not covered by a MRAP transect; this

helps explain the limited quantity of early Greek material

in the survey assemblage from Zone 1.

Three additional sherds from Zone 1 are Archaic-

Classical. One, a black glaze oinochoe, is from S043. A

Late Archaic-Early Classical transport amphora, possibly

Corinthian Type A, was found at S050, and a black glaze

tile is from S049.1392 Six other potentially Archaic

fragments are Archaic-Hellenistic.

There is slightly more Classical than Archaic material

in Zone 1, but the quantity is still small. All of the

sherds that are firmly dated to the Classical period were

picked up at sites. Six pieces come from S008. A

Classical tile was found in a transect near the plain, and

another was found on the summit of the northern acropolis.

Three fragments are from transport amphoras. One, an Early

1391
Excavations by the French team in 2006 revealed extensive Archaic
remains on the acropolis, some of which were quite near the surface.
See Davis et al. 2006, pp. 123-125; Verger et al. 2007, pp. 232-237.
1392
AS92. Amphora sample numbers (AS) assigned to sherds that were
exported to Cincinnati for analysis are provided in the footnotes. See
Chapter 5.

661
Classical Corinthian Type A, was found just below the

summit. The other two are a Classical fragment and a Late

Classical Corinthian Type B fragment that were found in

contiguous tracts just inside the city wall.1393 There is

also a piece of Classical cooking ware from near the

northern gate of the city.

There are four definite Classical sherds from S043. A

tile and black glaze skyphos date to the Classical period,

and a red-figured askos and black glaze skyphos are

specifically Late Classical.1394 There is also a fragment of

an Archaic-Classical black glaze oinochoe. All of the

above are shapes that can comfortably be associated with a

temple or rituals at a sanctuary. The other two definite

Classical sherds from Zone 1, a Classical tile and a Late

Classical Corinthian Type A transport amphora, are from

S050.1395

In addition to S008 and S043, which were clearly in

use in the Archaic and Classical periods, it is likely that

S050 began in the Late Archaic or Early Classical period.

Tracts M-385 and M-386, near the site center, contained the

earliest firmly dated material, all transport amphoras.

Although the quantity of finds from these periods at S050

1393
AS93, AS94.
1394
A large number of Archaic and Classical black glaze skyphoi have
been found in excavations inside the city walls and in the necropolis.
1395
AS91.

662
is small, the Late Archaic-Early Classical transport

amphora and the Iron Age sherd fall within the late 6th-

5th century B.C. Also from the site are a Classical tile

and another transport amphora that is definitely Late

Classical. Two additional fragments, including another

transport amphora, are Classical-Early Hellenistic. The

presence of early Greek transport amphoras with indigenous

pottery might be indicative of a pattern found elsewhere in

the study area. If S050 had an indigenous component,

perhaps the nearby sanctuary at S043 was established to

mark the boundary of Greek territory.1396

Seventeen pieces from Zone 1 range in date from

Classical/Late Classical-Early Hellenistic; all but three

of these are from S008, S043, or S050. Two, however, are

from S049; one is from a Classical-Early Hellenistic black

glaze plate, the other a Late Classical-Early Hellenistic

bolsal. Thirty-six fragments are Classical/Late Classical-

Hellenistic. Twenty-four of these are transport amphoras.

All but five of the 36 are from S008, S043, or S050.1397 All

off-site Archaic/Classical/Late Classical-Hellenistic

sherds are from transport amphoras and were found in tracts

1396
See de Pologinac 1994, 1995 and Cole 1994, 2004 on liminal
sanctuaries. See also Davis et al. 2003-2004, p. 313, where it is
suggested that S043 was a liminal sanctuary situated on the edge of the
lagoon.
1397
Fourteen of the 19 Late Classical-Hellenistic pieces from S043 are
from transport amphoras.

663
that had other Hellenistic material, but nothing earlier.1398

The only securely dated Early Hellenistic piece is also

from S050.

There is very little change in the use of the plain

from the Archaic through the Early Hellenistic period. The

quantity of Hellenistic material in Zone 1, however, is

astronomical compared to previous and subsequent periods;

2,322 sherds are definitely Hellenistic in date, and an

additional 47 can be more closely dated within that broad

period. This was clearly the period when the plain was

most extensively exploited, probably for agriculture, but

also for habitation. Hellenistic finds are present in

almost every tract from which material was collected.1399

One hundred eighty-seven sherds were collected off-

site in Zone 1; 38% of these are from brick/tiles. Of the

vessel fragments, 32% are from transport amphoras. Only 14

pieces of black glaze (12%) were found off-site, and only

slightly more of cooking ware; most of the fragments are

from plain closed vessels. Much of the plain to the east

and northeast of the asty was utilized in the Hellenistic

period. Apart from the area within the polis walls,

however, the central third of the zone has the highest

1398
A Late Archaic-Early Hellenistic sherd is AS14, and AS82 and AS83
are two Corinthian Type B transport amphoras or imitations.
1399
Field walkers counted over 10,000 ceramics in tracts associated with
S049.

664
concentration of material. This includes S043 and S049,

and the area in between. The area to the north of S050 and

S047 has lower densities, but there is, nevertheless, a

fairly consistent scatter of Hellenistic material in the

landscape. The southern portion of Zone 1, on the other

hand, is relatively devoid of artifacts; this area was

either not extensively used in antiquity or geomorphic

factors have differentially obscured the visibility of

sherds here. Densities decreased sharply immediately west

of S043 in the long transect from the acropolis to the sea;

no ancient material was found beyond the boundaries of the

site.

S008, S043 and S050 continued to be used in the

Hellenistic period, and two new sites were established:

S049, just outside the city walls, and S047, on the plain.

Several other dense clusters of Hellenistic artifacts

exist.

The asty of Apollonia (S008) expanded in size during

the Hellenistic period. There is material of this date in

every tract walked inside the walls, except those where

nothing was collected; many of these tracts, though, have

high artifact counts that would undoubtedly have yielded

Hellenistic material. All tracts from inside the walls

with Archaic/Classical-Hellenistic sherds also contained

665
definite Hellenistic fragments, but not all tracts with

Hellenistic finds had earlier material. Most of the vessel

fragments are from plain closed shapes; although 27% are

from transport amphoras, only three are recognized as

imports and these are probably Italic. The quantities of

cooking ware and black glaze are roughly equal. Four

conical loomweights and a pierced circular game piece are

probably Hellenistic in date. Two millstone fragments of

unknown date were also found at S008.

The sanctuary at S043 also underwent expansion in the

Hellenistic period. The quantity of Archaic and Classical

finds is small compared to the proliferation of Hellenistic

material. This increase first appears in the number of

sherds that are firmly dated to the 4th century B.C. All

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic sherds are from black

glaze drinking vessels (cups and skyphoi) except for one

black glaze plate fragment. Three figurine fragments – a

face with the nose and mouth preserved and two pieces of

wavy hair from larger protomes – might be Classical-Early

Hellenistic.

One thousand twenty-eight of the Hellenistic sherds

from Zone 1 were collected at S043; 33% of these are

brick/tiles. The overwhelming majority of vessel fragments

comes from plain closed shapes (65%); excavation results

666
indicate that many of these are probably hydriai. Twelve

percent of the sherds from the sanctuary are from black

glaze or banded pots: the black glaze pieces are from a

wide variety of shapes, while the banded sherds are also

from hydriai. Most of the figurines recovered are

Hellenistic, including pieces of double recliners resting

on a kline, some with Eros and some without. This type of

figurine is very prevalent in the excavation assemblage.1400

A large halo of Hellenistic sherds extends around the site;

the only tracts in the vicinity that are lacking

Hellenistic artifacts are those where no material was

collected. Twenty-six sherds from S043 can be securely

dated to the Late Hellenistic period, which suggests that

the sanctuary continued to be used at least into the 1st

century B.C.

S050 shows some evidence for continuity in use into

the Hellenistic period, although the number of securely

dated 4th century B.C. sherds is small. Seventy-one

percent of the Hellenistic finds are brick/tiles. The

amounts of black glaze, cooking ware, and plain closed

vessel fragments are roughly equal. The black glaze sherds

are all from standard household table items. Storage

vessels only account for 8% of the vessel assemblage.

There is a fairly broad halo of material around the site,

1400
Cf. Davis et al. 2006, pp. 125-126.

667
which extends to the south-southeast but not to the north.

S050 is the only site on the plain with securely dated

Middle-Late Hellenistic finds, although there is no

definite Late Hellenistic. The site appears to have gone

out of use by the Late Hellenistic period; nothing Roman

was found here.

There is very little activity at S049 before the 4th

century B.C., and only three sherds can be securely dated

as pre-Hellenistic. One is an Archaic-Classical black

glaze tile, one is a Classical-Early Hellenistic black

glaze plate, and the third, a Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic bosal. Many of the 51 tracts that make up this

site have high density counts: most above 50 sherds and

two, in the thousands. Material was not collected from

every tract where it was noted, and, given the density of

Hellenistic artifacts in this area, it is likely that there

are sherds of this date in every tract where material was

seen. Tracts L-439–L-449, on the other hand, which are

situated right across the canal from S049, have very low

densities.

A quarter of the vessel fragments from S049 are from

transport amphoras. The black glaze pieces are standard

table shapes, and the quantity is only slightly higher than

cooking ware. Fragments from plain closed shapes

668
predominate in the assemblage. Because the site was not

intensively collected, the number of tiles is low.

Activity continued at S049 in the areas of highest density

through the Late Hellenistic period.

S047 is a well-bounded, isolated concentration of

ancient material that is entirely Hellenistic in date. The

site is confined to a small part of two tracts, with no

encircling halo of material. The finds consist largely of

bricks/tiles. Over a quarter of the vessel fragments are

from transport amphoras, and slightly fewer from cooking

pots. The rest are from plain closed shapes; no black

glaze was found. The types and proportions of the

Hellenistic finds suggest that S047 might have been a field

house for the processing of agricultural products or a

small farmstead.

The pattern of land use in the plain changes radically

in the Roman period; only 116 pieces of pottery from all

phases were collected in Zone 1 (compared to 2,322

Hellenistic). Eighteen of the Roman finds were picked up

off-site, and all but six of the rest are from S008, S043,

or S049. Seven out of the 17 pieces of Terra Sigillata

found during the survey came from Zone 1. The largest

Roman assemblages are from the city center and S049. No

sherds of this period were collected in the long transect

669
west of P-102, and none were found at S047. Only a Roman

Terra Sigillata plate fragment and two Late Roman sherds

came from S050.

Forty-two of the definite Roman sherds were collected

from S008, with all phases represented: 18 fragments are

Early Roman, seven are Middle, five are Middle-Late, six

are Late, and six are generally Roman. Fifteen additional

pieces, all from transport amphoras, could be Hellenistic;

seven are Hellenistic-Early Roman, five Hellenistic-Middle

Roman, and three Hellenistic-Roman. Three pieces of Terra

Sigillata were collected from inside the city walls. Most

of the Roman material from S008 clusters on the west side

of the acropolis at the very bottom of the slope just

inside the fortification wall; the quantity of material

here is much higher than in the rest of the plain or at any

other site in Zone 1. Densities inside the walls drop

significantly moving south of P-168.

There are a few Late Roman sherds around S043, but the

majority of the material is Early-Middle Roman: 17 of 26

pieces are Early-Middle Roman, two are Middle, three are

Late Roman, and four are Roman. Two additional fragments

are Hellenistic-Middle Roman and one is Late Hellenistic-

Early Roman. No Terra Sigillata was found. The range of

dates and quantity of material in the Roman assemblage

670
suggests that S043 continued to be used throughout the

Roman period, albeit in a much more limited fashion than in

the Hellenistic period. The Roman material is more in

keeping with a domestic assemblage, making it unlikely that

the life of the sanctuary continued beyond the end of the

Hellenistic period. The limited quantity of Roman material

from S043 is surprising given that there are excavated

Roman remains in the vicinity.1401

There is a small amount of Roman material from around

the modern village of Sopi (S048). As noted, S048 was not

formally collected, and the size was determined through

tract walking; it includes a rather large area.1402 There

are three sherds, all Early-Middle Roman in date, one from

a Terra Sigillata bowl. The pieces are not localized.

Although most of the finds from S049 are Hellenistic

in date, Roman (or possible Roman) finds account for 26% of

the assemblage. Sherds of this period cluster in two

areas. The heaviest concentration is in Tracts L-345–L-348

and L-35–L-352; this consists of 24 sherds (71% of the

Roman). The other group, nine sherds (26%), is in Tracts

P-101–P-102, L-334, L-337, and L-342.1403 The closely

datable material suggests that the former cluster is Late

1401
Anamali 1992.
1402
Most of the material is Post-Medieval in date.
1403
A solo Hellenistic-Roman sherd came from L-323.

671
Roman since half the material dates to this phase.1404 There

are also two pieces of Terra Sigillata, one Early and the

other Late Roman, from this group. The second cluster

could be entirely Middle-Late Roman, although two of the

nine pieces could be earlier.1405 This group more closely

resembles a household assemblage than burial goods.

Only a single fragment of Terra Sigillata was

collected from S050, and it is unlikely that the site was

often used after the Hellenistic period. Other than the

sites, Zone 1 shows a very limited, dispersed scatter of

Roman material, mostly Early-Middle or Late Roman in date.

There is one group of Roman finds in the transect at

the southwestern edge of Zone 1. The material is from four

tracts and is either Early-Middle Roman or Late Roman; it

consists entirely of cooking wares and amphoras.1406 This

concentration probably represents a small household

assemblage.

In conclusion, there is only one indigenous sherd from

the entirety of Zone 1. This is a possible Iron Age

fragment that was found on the plain at S050. Definite

Archaic material is very rare; it was found only inside the

1404
Six transport amphoras are Hellenistic-Roman, and four pieces are
Roman. The other two sherds are Early Roman. See discussion in
Chapter 9.
1405
One piece is Early-Middle Roman, the other is Roman.
1406
P-121, P-122, P-123, P-124. Five sherds are Early to Middle Roman,
four are Late Roman.

672
city walls (S008) and at the Bonjakët sanctuary (S043).

There are more definite Classical sherds and most are again

from S008 and S043. The finds from the asty are located

both on the summit and near the city walls, which indicates

that the early settlement was not limited to one nucleated

area of the site.1407 A small quantity of Late

Archaic/Classical sherds was found at S050, and it is

possible that this site was used as a field house or by a

small group of indigenous people before the end of the

Classical period.

The human presence in Zone 1 increased tremendously

during the Hellenistic period. An abundance of finds of

this date are scattered everywhere across the plain, except

in the southern portion. S008, S043, and S050 continued to

be used, although on a much expanded scale, and farmsteads

appear at S047 and S049. Ceramic evidence suggests that

three sites, S008, S043, and S049, remained in use through

the Late Hellenistic period, at which time there was a

marked decline in the utilization of the plain. The

sanctuary at S043 appears to have ceased to function in

this capacity during the Roman period and to have become,

rather, a domestic site.

1407
Archaic finds are also found in the saddle between the two
acropoleis where the French team is currently excavating. See Verger
et al. 2007.

673
Zone 2

Zone 2 is located on the east side of the acropolis of

Apollonia in the Kryegjata valley. It covers an area of

ca. 5.80 sq km and is the third largest zone in the survey

area. Eleven sites were identified: S003, S004, S005,

S006, S007, S016, S017, S024, S030, S058, and S061 (Fig.

8.3). A total of 1,086 pre-Medieval sherds were collected.

The Greek necropolis, which includes a large area of the

valley and the southern ridge above it, has been designated

S007.1408 The site consists of multiple tumuli and graves,

many of which have been heavily disturbed by military

construction, bunker placement, and recent looting. Five

additional sites are located within the borders of S007.

Two are individual tumuli that were gridded and collected

separately; these are S005 and S006. S005 is located on

the top of Kodra e Kripës, a ridge separating the Shtyllas

and Kryegjata valleys, and S006 is just above the floor of

the valley, east of the modern village of Kryegjata.

Although these two tumuli are part of the necropolis, they

are treated separately. S017 is primarily a Paleolithic

site, but a few ceramics, probably from graves, were

collected during tract walking. S004 is a Post-Medieval

site, again with a scatter of Hellenistic material. S058,

1408
See Chapter 7 for a thorough treatment of the necropolis and
bibliography.

674
which was designated as a site during the 2003 study

season, also falls within the area of S007, even though it

is not a burial site; it is located on the slopes below

S005.

There are four other groups of tracts within the

borders of the necropolis that did not receive site numbers

but will be treated as such and discussed separately.

These are Z2 G1, Z2 G2, Z2 G3, and Z2 G4.1409 Z2 G1 consists

of 12 tracts that are located on the slopes below the

south-central border of the necropolis and extend into the

floor of the Kryegjata valley.1410 The area is truncated on

the northwestern edge by derelict army barracks near the

modern village of Kryegjata. On the east the artifact

spread continues to the edge of tumulus S006, with which

the lowest tracts are contiguous. The area immediately

west marks the edge of the necropolis; it is covered with

maquis and adjacent to a deep ravine and thus could not be

surveyed. Five of the tracts in Z2 G1 were inside the

boundaries originally defined for the necropolis; the rest

were outside and were added when the territory was expanded

to include areas not mapped.1411 For this reason it was not

mapped during the GIS project.

1409
Z2 = Zone 2, G = Group.
1410
The tracts included in Z2 G1 are J-362–J-367, J-393–J-395, J-399–J-
401.
1411
J-362–J-367 were inside, J-393–J-402 were outside.

675
 Z2 G2 is a cluster of five tracts located along the

north boundary of the necropolis on terraces that descend

gently into the valley bottom.1412 The westernmost, B-089,

is contiguous with S016. Graves are also found in adjacent

1413
tracts. Z2 G3 on the west-central border of the

necropolis is composed of two adjacent tracts. Part of one

tract, D-137, contains a large concentration of material

spread around a modern farmhouse.1414 Z2 G4 consists of

three tracts located in the valley bottom between Z2 G1 and

Z2 G2.1415

Five sites in Zone 2 are located outside the

necropolis. S016 is just outside the northwest border.

Three sites, S003, S024, and S030, are entirely Paleolithic

and will not be discussed. The lone surviving column from

the temple at Shtyllas is located at S061; it sits on a

hill south of the acropolis of Apollonia where the

Kryegjata valley meets the Myzeqe plain. The area around

the temple straddles the borders of Zones 2 and 4, but the

site is included in Zone 2.1416

Five pieces of non-Greek pottery were found in Zone 2.

Two of these, both Late Bronze Age, are from contiguous

1412
The tracts in Z2 G2 are B-089, B-090, B-091, B-092, and B-094.
1413
J-007, J-008, D-024, D-025, and B-057.
1414
The tracts in Z2 G3 are D-137 and J-354.
1415
The tracts in Z2 G4 are B-022, B-023, and B-027 (S017, which is
primarily Paleolithic in date, is located in Tract B-027).
1416
One tract from the site in which no ancient material was collected
or recorded is in Zone 4.

676
tracts in Z2 G1, just above S006. A third fragment, Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age in date, was picked up during site

collection at S006.1417 There is also a Bronze-Iron Age

fragment from the southeast edge of Zone 2 in Tract B-117

and a Late Bronze Age piece from the center of the southern

border (J-293). Both the two latter pieces are located

near the top of the ridge that separates the Kryegjata and

Shtyllas valleys; J-293 appears to be a random find

unassociated with any other material.1418 The three former

are from near the bottom of the Kryegjata valley and

probably represent an indigenous site.

The two Late Bronze-Iron Age sherds from Z2 G1 were

found in adjacent tracts near the floor of the valley. One

piece was from a jar, the other from an unidentified closed

shape. A Late Bronze-Early Iron Age sherd was found nearby

in the southeastern quadrant of S006. This group of three

indigenous fragments likely represents the ephemeral

remains of a Late Bronze Age burial tumulus that had gone

out of use by the end of the Early Iron Age, before the

arrival of Greek colonists.

Tract B-117, just outside the southeastern boundary of

the necropolis, has what Korkuti identified during tract

1417
Tracts J-396, J-397, J-398, and J-402 are revisitations of the
tracts in S006.
1418
"Random" finds fall under Model 1 of Bintliff and Snodgrass's
discussion of the explanations for off-site finds (1988, pp. 507-508).
See also Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994.

677
walking as a moderate concentration of Bronze Age pottery.

The only sherds collected from this tract are a Bronze-Iron

Age cooking fragment and an Archaic-Early Hellenistic

transport amphora. This material might have washed

downslope from an indigenous site on top of the ridge,

either a Bronze-Iron Age burial or, more likely, a

settlement.1419 The summit itself is heavily eroded and

devoid of finds.

A total of 23 pieces of Archaic pottery were found in

Zone 2; 19 of these were collected in S007. One of the

four from outside the necropolis was found in a tract near

the northeast boundary, and another was found nearby in a

tract near the northeast boundary of Zone 2. The former

will be discussed with the four Archaic sherds found to the

south in Z2 G2, which is just inside the limits of S007.

The latter is a fragment of an Archaic black glaze tile,

which appears to be an isolated find.1420 The other two

Archaic sherds that are not from the necropolis were found

at S016 in the northwest and S061 at the southwest tip of

the zone.

Two Archaic sherds were picked up during site

collection of the tumulus (S005) on Kodra e Kripës, which,

1419
A fragment of an Archaic cooking pot was found downslope on the
Shtyllas side of the ridge. It is one of three fragments of Archaic
cooking ware found outside the site of Apollonia. A second was found
in the site collection of S005, which is at the top of the same ridge.
1420
J-016.

678
as noted above, is situated on a high ridge along the very

southern border of S007. One of these is a piece of

cooking ware, the other a fragment of a banded olpe. These

two pieces indicate that there was activity at the site

already in the Archaic period, but the nature of the

activity is unclear.

Of the 17 other Archaic sherds collected in S007,

three are specifically Early Archaic and three Late

Archaic. The earliest fragments are all from transport

amphoras; indeed, eight of the 17 Archaic pieces from S007

are from this vessel type. Archaic material was collected

in four non-contiguous areas in the necropolis. The

majority is from Z2 G1 and Z2 G2.

Seven Archaic pieces are from Z2 G1; all of them are

imports, most from Corinth. Two transport amphoras can be

closely dated to Early Archaic and constitute some of the

earliest Greek finds from the study area. One is

definitely an imported Corinthian Type A, the other is an

imitation Type A of unknown provenance.1421 Three other

imported transport amphoras, two Archaic (one another

Corinthian Type A, the other a black glaze SOS form) and

one Late Archaic (Corinthian Type B), are also from this

cluster.1422 A pithos fragment and a sherd with black-

1421
AS22 and AS66.
1422
AS17 and AS65.

679
figured decoration are the other two Archaic pieces from

this group. The transport amphoras and pithos were

probably used for enchytrismoi.

There are numerous graves and tumuli in the tracts

that comprise Z2 G1; these extend from the top of the ridge

to the valley floor. Sarcophagus fragments were noted in

J-396 and J-393.1423 In addition to early Greek material,

the indigenous pottery mentioned above was found in tracts

that are contiguous to those with Archaic sherds. As

already noted, it is highly likely that a burial tumulus

(or tumuli) existed here already in the Late Bronze Age.

There is, however, no evidence for continuity of use

between prehistoric and historic times; it is likely,

rather, that the first Greek settlers chose to inter their

dead in, or around, an already existing indigenous burial

mound.1424 Such is the case with Tumulus 10, recently

excavated by Bejko and Amore. At the bottom of the tumulus

they found a Late Bronze Age grave that is unrelated in

date and nature to the material above.1425

1423
There are two definite and 11 possible Archaic pieces from J-393.
1424
As noted in Chapter 5, there is evidence for this practice of burial
around a pre-existing tumulus at Corinth, Apollonia's metropolis.
Burials begin to occur in the 8th century (MG II) in the North Cemetery
at Corinth near a Middle Helladic tumulus that remained visible and
venerated until the Classical period. See Williams 1984, pp. 9-19,
1995; Rutter 1990, pp. 455-458; Dickey 1992, pp. 128-129; Morgan 1995,
pp. 314-315. See also Stocker and Davis 2006.
1425
Bejko and Amore (pers. comm.). See Chapter 9.

680
 Four Archaic sherds were collected from contiguous

tracts in Z2 G2. The earliest, a securely dated imported

Early Archaic Corinthian Type A transport amphora, was

collected in B-094, which is the southernmost tract in the

group and runs from a lower terrace into the valley

bottom.1426 It is among the earliest Greek finds from the

study area. The other three pieces are Archaic in date: a

pithos fragment was found in B-092, a fragment of a closed

black glaze vessel in B-090, and a plain sherd from an

unidentified open shape in B-089.

Two other Archaic sherds were collected from tracts

near Z2 G2. An Archaic pithos shoulder was picked up to

the east, outside the border of S007.1427 It is decorated

with three raised, angular bands on the exterior, similar

to the decoration on a pithos currently displayed in the

stoa of the Apollonia museum.1428 To the west of, and

contiguous to, Z2 G1, an imported Early Archaic Corinthian

Type A transport amphora was collected at S016; it should

probably be associated with the Archaic material from Z2

G1.1429

There are graves, tumuli, and sarcophagus fragments in

all the tracts in Z2 G2. Those tracts farther upslope,

1426
AS2.
1427
J-008.
1428
E.g., Mano 2006, p. 258, fig. 64, no. 612.
1429
AS42.

681
however, including B-093, contain no evidence of burials;

it appears that the colonists chose not to bury their dead

on the steepest inclination. Z2 G2 is located in close

proximity to the acropolis and seems to be one of the

earliest burial spots used by the Greek colonists. The

Archaic sherds in this assemblage are from household shapes

that are also in keeping with typical Greek grave goods

from the necropolis at Apollonia.1430

The dates and types of Archaic finds from Z2 G1 and Z2

G2 are similar. Early Archaic Corinthian transport

amphoras are the earliest sherds in both groups. The

difference is that there is no indigenous material from Z2

G2; the area in the north appears to be an entirely Greek

burial area, as opposed to one that made use of a pre-

existing, indigenous site. These tumulus groups on the

northern and southern edges of the necropolis were

separated in antiquity by the Kryegjata valley. It is

possible that the first colonists used these two widely

separated funerary locales to mark the northern and

southern boundaries of the apoikia's burial ground.

There is Archaic material from D-137 in Z2 G3,

probably specifically of the late 6th-early 5th century

1430
For the range of household shapes, see Corinth VII.2; Agora XII;
Galaty et al. 2004. For the range of shapes used in burials, see Rey
1932, pp. 12-22; Mano 1971, pp. 155-189; Amore 2005c, pp. 58-85, 132-
136.

682
B.C. Four Archaic sherds came from this tract; three are

from different black glaze lamps (two Archaic, the other

Late Archaic) and one is from a pithos (Archaic).

B-022 is the nucleus of Archaic activity in Z2 G4.

There are two Archaic finds from this tract, both imported

from Corinth. One is a black-figured closed shape; the

other is a transport amphora, possibly Type A, probably of

the early 5th century B.C.1431 This tract alone contains

multiple tumuli, and field walkers reported at least 25

sarcophagus fragments. A stele, possibly Archaic, was also

noted.

The final Archaic sherd from Zone 2 is an imported

Corinthian black glaze skyphos found near the temple at

Shtyllas (S061). On the whole, very little Greek material

was found around the temple. This lone fragment, however,

suggests that the site was visited already in the Archaic

period; its shape and quality would be in keeping with a

temple dedication, and many such Archaic skyphoi have been

found in excavations at S043.

The Classical period is better represented in Zone 2

than the Archaic; 58 sherds are definitely Classical and 43

are Archaic-Classical.1432 Of these, only 14 pieces were

1431
AS5.
1432
Five are Early Classical, 38 are Classical, and 15 are Late
Classical; two are Archaic-Early Classical, seven are Late Archaic-

683
collected outside the necropolis. An additional 192 pieces

are Classical-Hellenistic, 22 of which were not found at

S007.1433 All of the sites and groups of tracts that have

Archaic material have larger quantities of Classical.

In addition to the Archaic sherds, S005 has two that

are Archaic-Classical and three that are Classical. The

Archaic-Classical pieces are from a plain jar and a black

glaze krater. Two other black glaze kraters, both

Classical, are also from the site; five pieces from the

same vessel were found together. There is also a Late

Classical skyphos. Two other pieces, an Archaic-Classical

pithos and a Classical skyphos, are from tracts contiguous

to S005. Nine vessels are Classical-Early Hellenistic, two

specifically no later than Early Hellenistic.1434 The

combination of Archaic and Classical material at tumulus

S005 points to continuity in use between these two periods.

Evidence for use of the tumulus in the Archaic period is

limited and increases only slightly for the Classical

period.

Early Classical, 26 are Archaic-Classical, and eight are Late Archaic-

Classical.
1433
Twenty-three are Classical-Early Hellenistic, 60 are Late Classical-
Early Hellenistic, 105 are Classical-Hellenistic, and four are Late
Classical-Hellenistic.
1434
One is a Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora, one is a
Late Classical-Early Hellenistic black glaze skyphos, and seven are
from a variety of Classical-Hellenistic pots, five of which are
transport amphoras.

684
 The quantity of pre-Hellenistic material in Z2 G1

increases in the Late Archaic and Classical periods. In

addition to those mentioned above, 25 sherds were collected

that are Archaic/Classical. Seven are definitely Classical

(two are specifically Early, one of which is a Corinthian

Type A transport amphora, the other a red-figured krater);

six are Archaic-Early Classical (two Corinthian Type A or

A' are Archaic-Early Classical, four – including three

Corinthian Type A, A' or imitation, and a black glaze

lekythos – are specifically Late Archaic-Early Classical);

and 12 are Archaic-Classical (eight Archaic-Classical,

including one Corinthian Type A, and four Late Archaic-

Classical, including three Corinthian imports or

imitations).1435 This brings the total number of vessels

from the 5th century B.C. or earlier from Z2 G1 to 12.

Thirty-one sherds from Z2 G1 are no later than Early

Hellenistic, 29 of them are specifically 4th century B.C.

(Late Classical/Early Hellenistic). Nine pithos and

transport amphora sherds from Z2 G1 are dated

Archaic/Classical-Early Hellenistic and are just as likely

to be pre-Hellenistic as not.1436 This body of material is

strong evidence of continuity at Z2 G1 between the Archaic

1435
AS16; AS18, AS19, AS62, AS25, AS15, AS63, AS21, AS28 (a coarse
closed vessel in Corinthian fabric), AS34.
1436
Five Archaic-Early Hellenistic and two Classical-Early Hellenistic
pieces were selected for analysis: AS20, AS23, AS24, AS29, AS33, AS26,
AS27.

685
and Classical periods, with a marked increase of activity

during the 4th century B.C.

There is no definite Archaic material from S006, but

there are five Archaic-Classical sherds (three Archaic-

Classical, two Late Archaic-Classical). These are a tile;

a closed shape; two pithos fragments, one a Corinthian

import; and a black glaze krater fragment.1437 There are

also eight Classical sherds, six specifically Late

Classical. The lack of securely dated Archaic is noteworthy

given that S006 is contiguous to, and just north of, Z2 G1.

Such evidence indicates that this specific location in the

valley bottom was not used for burials as early as Z2 G1,

and perhaps not until sometime in the Classical period.

The largest number of closely dated pre-Hellenistic

sherds from S006 is of the 4th century B.C., and it is

possible that much of the above mentioned material is also

of this date. Six pieces are specifically Late Classical;

these are two red-figured and two black glaze skyphoi, a

black glaze cup, and a black glaze pyxis. The pyxis is a

rare shape among our survey finds; only one other fragment

was recovered, this also from the necropolis. Twenty other

sherds are Late Classical-Early Hellenistic; 13 are from

black glaze skyphoi. There are also two Classical-Early

Hellenistic sherds and two Classical-Hellenistic, one of

1437
AS32.

686
which is a Corinthian Type B transport amphora. Two other

pieces are Archaic-Early Hellenistic, one a transport

amphora, the other from a closed vessel of Corinthian

fabric.1438 These data indicate that burials in the tumulus

at S006 began in the Classical period, at least by the

beginning of the 5th century B.C., and greatly increased in

the 4th century B.C. Use of this tumulus, however, began

later than at Z2 G1 to the south.

Two Archaic-Classical pithos fragments were collected

at S017, the Paleolithic site, and graves were noted there

in the scarp of the road. A large number of ceramics were

counted in the tract, but only three were collected; these

finds should be associated with the material from Z2 G4.

B-022, immediately north of S017, and also part of Z2

G4, is particularly rich in pre-Hellenistic material. One

hundred ninety-seven ceramics were counted in the tract, 34

of which were collected.1439 In addition to the two Archaic

fragments mentioned above, an Archaic-Classical black glaze

column krater handle, two skyphoi, and a closed plain

fragment of Classical date were found. Tract B-023, which

is contiguous, contained sherds from a Classical black

glaze amphora and a Late Classical lekane and skyphos.

Five sherds that are no later than Early Hellenistic were

1438
AS64 and AS30.
1439
Four hundred eighty-nine ceramics were counted in the tracts
associated with Z2 G4; only 45 (<10%) were collected.

687
also collected from these two tracts, as were 13 Classical-

Hellenistic pieces (five black glaze, five transport

amphoras).1440 Also found were a Late Classical-Middle

Hellenistic coin (ca. 400-200 B.C.) with the head of Apollo

on the obverse and an obelisk crowned by a laurel wreath on

the reverse (from B-023), and a stone stele of unknown

date. Clearly, this central part of the necropolis was

used only in a limited fashion in the Archaic and Early

Classical periods, but activity increased during the 4th

century B.C.

The amount of Classical material in Z2 G3 is larger

than earlier finds. A fragment of an Early Classical black

glaze lamp was found in D-137; this is one of four lamps

from this tract.1441 Two red-figured sherds from a Classical

krater and a Classical skyphos piece also come from this

tract, along with a Late Classical red-figured krater

fragment.1442 One piece, also black glaze, is Late

Classical-Early Hellenistic and three are Classical-

Hellenistic. A Late Archaic-Early Classical piece was

found in J-354, and a Late Classical krater fragment came

from an adjacent tract.

1440
AS3.
1441
The quantity and quality of the lamps in D-137 suggests they might
have been used as part of a funerary ritual.
1442
It is probable that the Late Classical red-figured krater fragment
is from the same vessel as the two Classical pieces.

688
 Five Classical sherds, in addition to the Early

Archaic and Archaic-Classical transport amphoras mentioned

above, were found in association with S016; two of these

are the only pre-Hellenistic cooking ware from the site.

The others are two black glaze sherds and one Corinthian

Type A transport amphora.1443

Use of the site increased in the 4th century B.C.

Eleven fragments are definitely no later than 300 B.C.;

four of these are Archaic-Early Hellenistic Corinthian

transport amphoras, three are Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic black glaze fragments, and four are Classical-

Early Hellenistic (two of which are transport amphoras).1444

Five pieces are definitely 4th century B.C.: a Late

Classical transport amphora and a black Glaze krater, and a

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic black glaze plate, salt

cellar, and lekythos. Four other sherds are Classical-

Early Hellenistic, and are likely also 4th century B.C. As

noted, S016 is adjacent to the line of graves in Z2 G2 and

it appears that burial activity in this part of the

necropolis had also increased during the Late Classical-

Early Hellenistic period.

There is great variety in the shapes from S016.

Although two Classical cooking ware fragments were found,

1443
AS46.
1444
Three of the Archaic-Early Hellenistic sherds were sampled; they are
AS45, AS43, and AS44.

689
it is unlikely that the site had a domestic function, since

the other finds are in keeping with the types and

quantities of ceramics found in the adjacent tumuli and

graves. The paucity of Archaic material from S016,

especially given that the site was intensively collected,

suggests that activity did not begin in the Archaic period,

but rather in the Classical period, and probably not until

the 4th century B.C.

Z2 G2 is composed of a line of graves running to the

east of S016, which, as noted above, includes some of the

earliest finds from the study area. In addition to the

Archaic sherds, there are three pieces that are Archaic-

Classical and four that are definitely Classical, including

a red-figured krater fragment. There are also five pieces

that are no later than the 4th century B.C., three of which

are from imported transport amphoras; the fourth is from a

non-Corinthian imported closed shape.1445

The line of graves in Z2 G2 continues to the east.

Densities are high in these tracts, but fall off sharply to

the north and south. J-008 is just outside the northern

boundary of the necropolis and to the east of Z2 G2; it is

an isolated tract with high ceramic counts. Bones were

seen eroding out of the slope, and walkers reported graves,

but no tumulus was obvious. The finds include an Archaic

1445
AS6 and AS4.

690
pithos, an Archaic-Classical black glaze plate rim, and a

conical loomweight, possibly of Hellenistic date. Very

little other material was collected. The finds in this

tract should probably be associated with B-057 to the south

where 14 tumuli were counted. The tumuli were all

preserved, with little evidence of looting; this could

account for the low artifact density from this tract. No

finds were collected. Large, shaped, building stones were

visible immediately to the south of the tract.

D-024 and D-025, immediately west of B-057, are a part

of the cluster of graves and tumuli radiating out from Z2

G2. D-025 was identified as a tile grave. Both tracts

have high field counts, and the finds include transport

amphora and fine black glaze sherds. The earliest material

is Classical-Early Hellenistic. The tombs in this area

probably represent a 4th century B.C. expansion of the

graves in Z2 G2. Counts fall off sharply to the southwest.

One Classical tile and a Classical-Hellenistic sherd

that might be pre-3rd century B.C. were found at S061. The

only other find is an Early-Middle Hellenistic Corinthian

Type B transport amphora.1446 Although these data could be

interpreted to mean that the temple at Shtyllas received

only limited use in the Archaic and Classical periods, it

is more likely that the paucity of material is a reflection

1446
AS67.

691
of the heavy erosion and continuous invasive activity S061

has suffered since antiquity.1447

All but two of the 25 pieces dated Archaic-Early

Hellenistic in Zone 2 are from tracts that have Archaic or

Classical material (or both): seventeen are transport

amphoras, two are pithoi, and the rest are coarse body

sherds from closed vessels. All are from imported vessels,

most of them Corinthian.1448 There is no a priori reason

that any need to be as late as Hellenistic. On the other

hand, seven out of 23 Classical-Early Hellenistic fragments

come from tracts where no earlier material was found. The

other 16 sherds are from clusters of Archaic/Classical

material, especially Z2 G1 south of S006. All of these

sherds are also imported, and 16 of them are transport

amphoras. These data lead to the conclusion that use of

the necropolis intensified significantly in the 4th century

B.C. The number of burials increased and the amount of

space in use expanded. Sherds from this century appear in

tracts where no earlier material was found. Almost

everything that can be securely dated as Late Classical,

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic, or Early Hellenistic is

from fine black glaze vessels; drinking vessels

1447
Including systematic looting. See Galaty, Stocker, and Watkinson
1999.
1448
Two are AS61 and AS11. Two Classical pieces that were found off-
site are AS55 and AS56.

692
predominate, but a variety of other forms are also present

in the assemblage.

Zone 2 is littered with Hellenistic material, most of

which is from graves and tumuli in the necropolis: there is

a consistent scatter of sherds across the entire valley

bottom. A total of 669 sherds out of 1,086 in Zone 2 is

definitely Hellenistic, and another 22 can be more closely

dated. Only a quarter of these are from bricks/tiles. All

tracts that had material with date ranges from

Archaic/Classical-Early Hellenistic or, more generally,

Hellenistic, but lacked definite earlier material, have one

or more Hellenistic pieces; this makes it more likely that

these broadly dated pieces, too, are Hellenistic rather

than earlier. The number of burials increased

exponentially during the Hellenistic period, and tile

graves came to surround most tumuli and even extend beyond

the borders of S007.

Hellenistic is the most well represented period at

both S005 and S006, and the quantity of material suggests

that this was the primary period of use for both tumuli.

The assemblages from both sites consist of a large number

of black glaze sherds from a variety of shapes. Plain

wares are also well represented, as are transport amphoras.

One Middle Hellenistic and three Late Hellenistic sherds

693
were collected at S005, suggesting that the tumulus

continued to be used for burials into the 1st century B.C.

On the other hand, only one sherd from S006 can be closely

dated; this is a Middle Hellenistic Corinthian Type B

transport amphora.1449 It is possible that burials in this

tumulus did not continue beyond the 2nd century B.C.

S004, which is primarily Post-Medieval, has a small

Hellenistic component. A likely Hellenistic ceramic

amphora stopper and a millstone, perhaps Roman in date,

were found during site collection. There is only a single

piece that could possibly be earlier; this is an Archaic-

Hellenistic transport amphora. The area around S004, which

is located in the eastern portion of the valley, was not

likely used before the Hellenistic period, and there is no

post-Hellenistic occupation until the Ottoman period.

The clusters of graves in Z2 G1, Z2 G2, and Z2 G4

indicate increased Hellenistic use of the areas. Many

pieces collected from all three groups are from black glaze

vessels, but there is also a fair amount of plain ware in

the assemblages. The number of transport amphora declines

through time, and tile counts increase; this is probably

the result of an upsurge in the use of tile graves at the

expense of enchytrismoi (see Chapters 7 and 9). A conical

1449
AS57.

694
loomweight, possibly Hellenistic in date, was found in a

tract adjacent to Z2 G1.

There is also an increased quantity of Hellenistic

pottery from Z2 G3. Most of these sherds are from plain

vessels, though, rather than black glaze; a variety of

shapes are represented, many of which are consistent with

domestic use. A completely preserved conical loomweight of

unknown date was also found here.

Hellenistic sherds are plentiful along the periphery

of the necropolis, especially in tracts at the base of the

acropolis that follow the contours of the hill. No earlier

material was collected in most of these tracts, and the

majority of the sherds is from plain unidentifiable closed

vessels. This assemblage differs from the necropolis finds

in the paucity of black glaze. Hellenistic material is

also found in other areas outside the borders of S007 where

no earlier sherds were found.

Very few of the Hellenistic sherds from Zone 2 could

be assigned to a specific phase within this 300-year

period. Three pieces are specifically Middle Hellenistic,

three are Early-Middle Hellenistic, two are Middle-Late

Hellenistic, and seven are Late Hellenistic. None of these

are from Z2 G1, Z2 G2, or Z2 G4. There is one Late

Hellenistic tile from Z2 G3, and a Middle-Late black glaze

695
plate fragment from another tract at the foot of the

acropolis.

The greatest quantity of tightly dated Hellenistic

sherds is from S05l and consists of a Middle Hellenistic

black glaze chous fragment and three Late Hellenistic

pieces. Two other sherds from near the tumulus are Late

Hellenistic-Early Roman. These pieces make it clear that

S005 continued to be used throughout the Hellenistic period

and perhaps even into Early Roman times.

Three closely dated sherds were found during site

collection at S016; one is from a Middle-Late Hellenistic

cooking pot, the other two from Late Hellenistic tiles.

The quantity of cooking and plain wares increases at S016

in the Hellenistic period, as does the number of transport

amphoras. A Hellenistic amphora stopper was also picked up

at the site. Nearly all of the Hellenistic black glaze

sherds are from drinking vessels. A substantial number of

stone blocks and tiles concentrated in the area of the site

were recorded, a fact that might indicate the presence of

an ancient building. Again, it is likely that activity at

S016 continued from the Archaic period through the

Hellenistic period, but perhaps the nature of the activity

changed.

696
 Burials in, and use of, the necropolis appears to have

ceased in most areas by the Late Hellenistic period. There

are only six pieces from S007 that could be Hellenistic-

Roman. Two Late Hellenistic-Early Roman tiles from S005

are the only evidence that suggests otherwise.

There is very little Roman material anywhere in Zone

2; no more than 22 pieces dating to this period were

collected. The only areas in the necropolis where definite

Roman sherds were found are at S016 and S058. The scarcity

of post-Hellenistic material suggests that S007 was no

longer much used as a burial ground in the Roman period.

Yet Praschniker excavated substantial parts of a Roman

funerary monument of the 2nd century A.D. very nearby S007

in the vicinity of Kryegjata.1450 Although we were unable to

locate any traces of this building, or to identify the site

with complete certainty, a surface scatter of Roman tiles

was found near its approximate location. The general

scarcity of Roman material in Zone 2 is surprising given

that the Via Egnatia ran through the Kryegjata valley,

probably past the monument that Praschniker described.

The most significant concentration of Roman material

in Zone 2, and the only one from the necropolis, comes from

1450
Praschniker 1922-1924, pp. 42-51; Davis et al. 2003-2004, p. 311, n.
7. This monument was first described by early travelers to the area.
See Holland 1815, p. 513; Leake 1835, pp. 372-373; Gilliéron 1877, p.
15.

697
S058, which is situated on the hillside above the Kryegjata

valley, ca. 200 m downslope from tumulus S005. The site

was identified through tract walking, but not intensively

collected. The only piece of Terra Sigillata in the zone

comes from this site. Most of the Roman material appears

to be Middle and Late in date; two sherds are Middle Roman,

one is Middle-Late, and five are Late. Four additional

sherds come from two tracts that are contiguous to S058 and

should be considered part of the site.1451 In contrast to

the late date of the material from the site, however, the

tract assemblage suggests an earlier date; two of the

fragments are Late Hellenistic-Early Roman, and two are

specifically Early Roman. There is also a Roman piece and

a Middle Roman sherd from upslope at S005. The material is

in keeping with a domestic context; the assemblage includes

plain wares, cooking wares, a transport amphora, and tiles.

The presence of such a large quantity of Roman material

compared to its scarcity in the rest of the zone suggests

the presence of a small Roman household in this area of the

necropolis. It appears that there was continuity around

S058 and S005 from the Late Hellenistic to Late Roman

periods.

1451
This tract is B-038, which overlaps with J-412. See Chapter 7
entries for S007 and S058.

698
 Only two other possible Roman sherds were collected

from S007, both from Tract J-341 on the western edge of the

necropolis. One of these is a Roman? pipe fragment, the

other is an imported Hellenistic-Roman transport amphora.

There was also a concentration of Roman material at S016.

Six Roman sherds were picked up during site collection, all

in a single grid square: one is Hellenistic-Roman, one

Roman, one Early Roman, and three Late Roman.1452 Given the

small size of the assemblage, it is impossible to determine

whether or not this site was used continuously into and

throughout the Roman period; it is likely that S016 was

abandoned between Early and Late Roman times and was not

occupied in the Middle Roman period. The scatter from the

site, probably domestic in nature, is not surprising given

its close proximity to the acropolis of Apollonia.

Five other sherds that might be Roman came from Zone

2, but cannot be closely dated. A fragment of an Archaic-

Roman transport amphora was found at the temple at Shtyllas

(S061). The four other pieces were random finds: one is a

Hellenistic-Roman sherd from near the border with Zone 3

and three are from the slopes below the acropolis (two

sherds from the same tract are Roman and Hellenistic-Roman,

the other is Roman).

1452
Three of the six are cooking ware, two are black glaze, and one is a
plain Late Roman table amphora.

699
 In conclusion, four of the assemblages discussed above

are from loci where there are early Greek burials. One, Z2

G1, was used as early as the Late Bronze Age, and an

indigenous tumulus (or cluster of tumuli) already stood on

the slope of the hill above the valley bottom when the

Greek colonists arrived. There is no evidence, however,

that this area was still being used for indigenous burials

when the colony was founded. Z2 G1 began to be used in the

Archaic period as a Greek burial ground, and funerary

activity increased in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C.,

continuing through the Hellenistic period.

Z2 G2, on the opposite side of the Kryegjata valley,

was also a locus for Early Archaic burials, and the Early

Archaic Corinthian transport amphora from S016 should

probably be associated with this group. As with Z2 G1, Z2

G2 saw increased use, beginning in the 4th century B.C.

This area, also continued to be used for burials throughout

the Hellenistic period.

Roman finds are scarce in Zone 2, and the only area

that might have been continuously used from Late

Hellenistic to Roman times is in the vicinity of S058.

While there is some Roman material from S016, it is late in

date, which suggests that this site was largely abandoned

until the beginning of the 4th century A.D.

700
 A majority of the imported Archaic-Early Classical

sherds in Zone 2 are from Corinthian transport amphoras,

which were reused in a secondary capacity as burial urns.

The quantity of transport amphoras, however, decreases

substantially during the Late Classical period, and the

quantity of black glaze, used as grave goods, increases.

It is possible to trace the gradual infilling of select

areas of the necropolis during the Archaic-Classical

periods. Continuity is indicated by the fact that all

tracts with Archaic material also have Classical finds. On

the other hand, not all tracts with Classical finds had

Archaic finds, which demonstrates that the number areas

being used for burials expanded through time. There was a

dramatic upsurge in mortuary activity in all parts of the

necropolis during the Hellenistic period.

Zone 3

Zone 3 extends south from the village of Radostina.

It is separated from the Kryegjata valley to the west by a

steep ridge. The ridges and valleys that comprise Zone 3

look east onto the plain around the modern village of

Vadhiza and the city of Fier. The ridge that separates

Zone 3 from Kryegjata continues south and forms the eastern

head of the Shtyllas and Levan valleys. The asty of

701
Apollonia is not visible from anywhere in this zone. The

zone itself is ca. 2.65 sq km in area, which makes it the

6th largest zone in the survey area. Six sites were

identified: S018, S019, S020, S023, S029, and S033 (Fig.

8.4). A maximum of 2,272 pre-Medieval ceramics were

collected from the zone.

S018 is in fields behind the house of the Saliaj

family, in a little valley below a pumping station. The

site has a small pre-Medieval component, but most of the

material is Late Ottoman. S019 is located southeast of

Radostina, above the modern Radostina-Shtyllas road, on top

of a ridge separating Zones 2 and 3.1453 S020 is in the

west-central part of the zone, on the border separating

Zones 3 and 4. It is in a field beside the Radostina-Mali

i Portës road and commands an excellent view of the

Shtyllas valley. S023 is between S020 and S029 on the

slope of a hill above a small valley near the village of

Vadhiza. Immediately northwest of Vadhiza, towards the

Radostina-Mali i Portës road and less than 1/2 km northeast

of S023, is S029, which spreads across several fenced

fields. S033 is near the southern boundary of Zone 3 along

a dirt road on top of a ridge. The territory south of S033

towards Peshtan was not surveyed.

1453
One tract from S019 is located in Zone 2, but will be discussed
here.

702
 Only five fragments of non-Greek pottery were

collected in Zone 3; two of these are Neolithic. One, a

Middle Neolithic sherd, was found at the southeastern edge

of the zone, the other, a Neolithic-Bronze Age piece, was

found in a nearby tract; six prehistoric lithics were also

picked up in adjacent tracts.1454 Neolithic material is rare

throughout the study area; only two other securely dated

Neolithic sherds were collected, one of these from an

almost adjacent tract across the border in Zone 6. This

cluster of three sherds is the only trace in the MRAP

survey area of a possible Neolithic site.

Two later indigenous sherds were picked up during site

collection at S019. One is from a Late Bronze Age bowl,

the other from a closed Iron Age vessel. The fifth sherd,

which is Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, was found on the lower

slope of a hill near S019.1455 Two prehistoric lithics were

also found in this tract. These pieces might be the

vestiges of a prehistoric site; they are enough to signal

an indigenous presence in the vicinity.

No sites in Zone 3 began prior to the Classical

period. There is no definite Archaic and very little

Classical material from this area. The earliest piece is a

Late Archaic-Early Classical transport amphora; it is from

1454
Three are from the same tract, in which three specifically
Mesolithic lithics were also found.
1455
D-085.

703
Tract A-191, which is on the border with Zone 4, adjacent

to S014.1456 All the finds from this tract, which include an

Archaic-Hellenistic sherd, a Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic amphora (which joins with a sherd from A-190 in

Zone 4), a Classical-Hellenistic piece from a closed shape,

and a Late Classical-Hellenistic tile, should be associated

with S014.

An Archaic-Classical and an Archaic-Hellenistic

transport amphora are from S019; it is likely that neither

of these is Archaic, though, since no other material of

this period was found there. Two other transport amphoras

from the site are definitely Classical, as are a pithos

fragment, three table amphora sherds, and a tile. There

are also two transport amphora fragments that could predate

the Hellenistic period; one is Classical-Early Hellenistic,

an imitation Corinthian Type A; the other is Classical-

Hellenistic. Two Classical-Hellenistic sherds were picked

up in a tract adjacent to the site.

These data suggest that S019 began in the Classical

period, probably in the 4th century B.C. The definite and

possible pre-Hellenistic artifacts from the site point to

seasonal use in this period, and it was probably a field

house. If there was indigenous occupation at the site, it

appears to have ceased before the Greeks arrived.

1456
AS1.

704
 Four definite pre-Hellenistic sherds were found at

S033. Two are Archaic-Classical pithos fragments, one

found during tract walking, the other in site collection.

The pieces are decorated in different Corinthian patterns

with raised bands. The other two are Classical; one is

from a Corinthian Type B transport amphora,1457 the second

from a closed cooking pot. As with S019, S033 was first

used in a limited way in the Classical period, again

probably as a field house.

There are only four other definite pre-Hellenistic

sherds in Zone 3, and these appear to be random finds. A

fragment of a Classical transport amphora comes from a

tract near S020,1458 but the site itself is entirely

Hellenistic. There is another Classical piece from near

S029, but this site, too, began in the Hellenistic

period.1459 A Late Classical transport amphora fragment was

found in the southwest portion of the zone in a tract with

a Hellenistic tile. Finally, an Archaic-Classical tile

came from the valley near Radostina in the northwestern

part of the zone; it was the only sherd in the tract, and

the surrounding area is almost entirely devoid of finds.

1457
AS100.
1458
AS59.
1459
There are four sherds from S029 that could be pre-Hellenistic, but
it is more likely they are not, given the quantity of Hellenistic
material from the site.

705
 Activity had increased at S033 by the Early

Hellenistic period. Four pieces are Classical-Early

Hellenistic; all are transport amphoras, three of them

imitation Corinthian Type A.1460 Three other transport

amphoras from the site are Late Classical-Hellenistic. The

fact that seven out of the eight sherds that are 4th

century B.C. or earlier come from storage jars, indicates

that S033 continued to be used as a field house through the

Early Hellenistic period.

Five fragments that might be 4th century B.C. or

earlier were collected at S029; two of these are black

glaze, one a Classical-Early Hellenistic lekane, the other

a Classical-Hellenistic sherd from an open shape. There is

also a Classical-Hellenistic chytra and two Late Classical-

Hellenistic transport amphoras. The amphoras were found in

the same grid square and, based on similarity of fabric,

are probably from the same pot.

There are two other sherds from Zone 3 that are

definitely no later than Early Hellenistic; one of these is

a Classical-Early Hellenistic Corinthian Type A transport

amphora.1461 Four other pieces are Classical-Hellenistic;

since all these come from tracts where other Hellenistic

sherds were found, it is likely that they were brought here

1460
Five are transport amphoras, and two are pithoi. The eighth piece
is from a Classical cooking pot.
1461
AS12.

706
during the Hellenistic period. The scarcity of Archaic and

Classical material indicates that the entirety of Zone 3

was little utilized until at least the end of the 4th

century B.C. The nature of finds that predate this time

suggest that, prior to the Early Hellenistic period, there

was no permanent habitation in this area.

Exploitation of the land in Zone 3 intensified in the

Hellenistic period, and material of this date was found in

much greater quantity than that of previous periods. A

maximum of 1,971 ceramic objects are Hellenistic, 87% of

the total pre-Medieval finds from Zone 3. Only 102 of

these were collected off-site. New sites were established

in this period, and preexisting ones had much larger

Hellenistic components. The new sites are located above

the Vadhiza valley, along present-day major and minor roads

that were probably the same in antiquity.

A continuous spread of Hellenistic material runs

through the center of Zone 3, following terraces that

ascend from the Vadhiza valley, north and west of the

modern village. This smear of Hellenistic artifacts

extends from S020 in the west to beyond S029 in the east,

engulfing S023; it accounts for over a quarter of the off-

site finds. There is also a continuous blanket of off-site

sherds in the southern part of Zone 3 that stretches

707
northwest from S033 to S031 and continues across the border

into Zone 4. The triangular area between S019, the plain

of Fier, and S023, on the other hand, is fairly devoid of

material, as is the area south of Vadhiza between S033 and

the modern village. All off-site finds ranging from pre-

Hellenistic to Hellenistic come from tracts in which

unambiguous Hellenistic sherds were found.

Evidence of a small Hellenistic component is present

at S018. Except for a conical loomweight found during

tract walking, material of this period was only picked up

during site collection. Eighty-nine brick/tile fragments

were collected, but just 12 vessel fragments, all plain

unidentifiable closed shapes. In pre-Medieval times S018

was a single-period site in use only during the Hellenistic

period; there is no earlier material and only three pieces

of Roman.

S019 was much larger in the Hellenistic period and was

then permanently occupied. A large concentration of

Hellenistic material was found at the site, and a halo of

sherds extends into nearby tracts to the north and west,

but not the east. Most of the pieces are from plain closed

shapes, cooking pots, or transport amphoras. Only four

fragments of black glaze were collected, three of these

from cups. The vast majority of the material picked up

708
during site collection is bricks/tiles. The finds are

consistent with a single-family farmstead.

S020 is entirely Hellenistic in date. The site itself

is very small, and the concentration of material comes

primarily from one tract where two piles of sherds had been

gathered by farmers and placed in a corner of the field.

Most of the finds are bricks/tiles and transport amphoras.

Only plain closed vessels are represented in the

assemblage, and no black glaze was found. In addition to

ceramics, a grinding stone of unknown date was found during

tract walking. S020 was clearly a small, single-period,

farmstead.

S023 was also first occupied in the Hellenistic

period. As with S020, most of the sherds are from

bricks/tiles. Almost all of the vessels are either cooking

pots, plain closed shapes, or transport amphoras; there is

only one fragment of black glaze, that from a drinking

vessel. The percentage of storage jars is smaller than at

S020. S023 appears also to have been a small, rural,

single-period farmstead.

S029 is located upslope from, and in close proximity

to, S023. The Hellenistic assemblage is very similar to

that from S023; it mostly consists of cooking wares and

plain closed shapes. Only two transport amphoras and a

709
single fragment of black glaze were found. The number of

tiles is double that of vessels, but there were no bricks.

In the Hellenistic period, S029 unquestionably has an

occupational history similar to that of S020 and S023.

The Hellenistic assemblage from S033 is larger and

spread over a greater area than the other sites in Zone 3

except S019, which is situated at the opposite end of the

ridge. The large number of fragments from unidentifiable

closed vessels makes the assemblage similar to those from

the other sites in the zone. Plain wares predominate,

mostly from closed shapes. Cooking ware and transport

amphoras are also well represented. A wider variety of

shapes, however, is recognizable at S033 than at other

sites, and more pieces of black glaze, from both drinking

vessels and closed shapes, were collected.

S018, S020, and S033 appear to have been abandoned by

the end of the Hellenistic period.1462 The Roman presence in

Zone 3 is confined to S019, S023 and S029, and is chiefly

Late Roman in date.

The Roman material from S019 is localized in the

northeast portion of the site. Two-thirds of the sherds

1462
There is a small amount of Roman material at S018, which is
otherwise almost completely Post-Medieval. Two of the four fragments
are Roman bricks or tiles, one is a Middle Roman transport amphora, and
the fourth is a plain unidentified closed Roman vessel. S033 appears
to have been completely abandoned after the Hellenistic period. There
is only one fragment associated with the site which was collected
during tract walking. No material was found during more intensive site
collection.

710
(40 of 60) are Late Roman; of these, 75% are tiles. Twelve

fragments, however, are Early-Middle Roman; all are from

plain table amphoras and were collected in two contiguous

grid squares, making it highly likely that most of them

belong to the same vessels. These amphora fragments

represent the only possible securely dated Early-Middle

Roman in the zone. Given the quantity of Middle Roman at

this site, though, it is likely that they are of this date.

If not, their presence might indicate that use of S019

spanned the Hellenistic-Roman transition, although the

portion of the site that remained in use was much reduced

in scale. A small, single-family farmstead probably

existed at S019 in the Late Roman period, but it is unclear

whether the site underwent a period of abandonment prior to

this or was in continuous use throughout the Roman period.

Given patterns of Roman settlement in Zone 3 and throughout

the survey area, the former seems more plausible.

Another concentration of Roman material was found at

S023. Unlike S019, however, the closely datable material

is almost exclusively Late Roman; 17 fragments are from

this period, most of them from cooking pots, table

amphoras, and transport amphoras. Two tiles are Middle

Roman, but nothing needs to be earlier than this. Of the

23 sherds that are dated generally as Roman, 18 are

711
bricks/tiles and the rest are mostly unidentifiable body

sherds. On the basis of the finds from the site, S023 also

looks like a small, Late Roman single-family farmstead.

Evidence suggests that there was a hiatus in occupation

between Hellenistic and Late Roman times.

S029 has the largest Roman assemblage from the study

area, apart from the Apollonia acropolis. The site,

located on the slopes of the hills northwest of the Vadhiza

valley, was perhaps situated near the Via Egnatia. Most of

the material is Middle Roman, but there are some sherds

that are Middle-Late Roman in date. Thirty-one percent of

the assemblage, however, could not be more closely dated

than Roman. The sherds are primarily from household-type

vessels (only 21% of the fragments are tiles), including

plain and cooking wares. Two fragments of Terra Sigillata,

which is exceedingly rare throughout the survey area, are

also from the site.1463 As with S023, the lack of securely

identified Early Roman finds suggests that the Hellenistic

component at S029 did not span the Hellenistic-Roman

transition, but rather that the site was reoccupied in the

Middle and Late Roman periods. Unlike S019 and S023, the

Late Roman assemblage is not as large as the Middle.

1463
Only 17 fragments of Terra Sigillata were collected in the entire
survey area; all of these are from sites.

712
 Only fourteen Roman sherds were collected off-site;

eight of these were found in tracts around or between S023

and S029.1464 Given their close proximity to each other, it

is likely that there was some type of connection between

these two farmsteads in the Roman period, or that they

represent one large site. Most of the other off-site

material was found on lower terraces near the plain of

Fier.

In conclusion, Zone 3 has the strongest evidence for a

Neolithic presence in the study area. The few other

prehistoric sherds from the zone are centered around S019.

There is no securely dated Archaic material in Zone 3, and

the first sites, S019 and S033, began in the Classical

period, perhaps specifically in the 4th century B.C.; they

probably were originally used on a temporary basis as field

houses for the storage of agricultural products. The

quantity of finds from the Hellenistic period increases

greatly and spreads throughout the zone. Four new sites

were established during this period, S018, S020, S023, and

S029 (S029 in the Early Hellenistic?). S019 and S033

expanded in size and were now permanently occupied. There

is very little evidence at any of these sites for

continuity of use into the Early Roman period; S019 could

be the only exception. S018, S020, and S033 went out of

1464
D-176, D-188, D-192, D-193.

713
use by the end of the Hellenistic period and were not

reoccupied in pre-Medieval times. There are localized Late

Roman components at S019, S023, and S029.

Zone 4

The Shtyllas valley, which is the next valley to the

south of Apollonia, and the surrounding ridges comprise

Zone 4. The northwest boundary of the zone is the ridge

that separates it from Zone 2; large parts of the slope,

where it is not too steep, are covered with modern terraces

(and perhaps ancient?) that descend into the floor of the

valley. On the opposite side, the ridge that separates

Zones 4, 5, and 6 forms the southeast boundary. The west

side of Zone 4 is formed by the intersection of the slopes

of Mali i Shtyllasit and the Myzeqe plain. Zone 4 is the

second largest in the survey area; it encompasses ca. 6.35

sq km. A total of 3,402 pre-Medieval sherds were collected

from the catchment.

There are 16 sites in Zone 4, which is the largest

number of sites found in any zone; they are S001, S002,

S009, S010, S011, S012, S013, S014, S015, S021, S022, S026,

S031, S051, S052, and S057 (Fig. 8.5). Three additional

sites are located on the border of the zone; S061, the

temple at Shtyllas, is just inside Zone 2; S020, Zone 3;

714
and S032, Zone 6. There is an interesting cluster of

sherds in Tracts A-001, A-002, and A-009 that will be

called Z4 G1. Another undesignated site in Tracts J-431,

J-432, and J-433 has extremely high field counts, but very

few artifacts were collected; this is labeled Z4 G2.1465

Seven of the sites in Zone 4 were collected during the 1998

season, when the methodology for sherd retention was

different from that of later years; for this reason, the

overall ceramic counts cannot be compared with similar

sites in the same and different zones.1466 Three sites were

defined during the study season, but only one was

revisited.

S001, which looks north towards Apollonia, is located

on the Mali i Shtyllasit ridge; the site has been damaged

by bunker construction. Z4 G1 is just downhill to the

northwest, almost in the bottom of the Shtyllas valley.

S002 also has good views of Apollonia. It is located on a

road on the Çuka e Bukur ridge, above S009, which is on the

lower part of the ridge. Both sites have been disturbed by

bunkers. S010 is a water hole located in a field below

Mali i Shtyllasit; it was likely the site of an ancient

spring.

1465
A total of 112 sherds were noted, but only 12 were collected.
1466
S001, S002, S009, S010, S013, S014, and S015.

715
 S011 is located on top of a ridge in the south-central

part of Zone 4 on the border with Zone 6; it is only 200 m

upslope from S012. S012 commands a good view of the

Shtyllas valley and is located near a road. S014, located

strategically at the east end of the zone in the pass

between Radostina and the head of the Shtyllas valley, is

one of the largest sites in Zone 4. It is on a small hill

close to the Shtyllas-Radostina road, near the boundary

with Zone 3, with an excellent view of the Shtyllas

valley.1467 The junction of three modern roads is located

immediately west of the site. S015 is in a field on a

small knoll on the ridge above the main road that runs

through the Shtyllas valley. The site has been disturbed

by recent building.

S021 is located on the edge of the Myzeqe plain on a

low ridge that runs parallel to the main Shtyllas-Levan

road. Less than 1 km to the east of S021, on a spur of the

Mali i Shtyllasit ridge that separates the Shtyllas and

Jaroi valleys, is S022, which commands impressive views of

the plain and the sea. The site is next to a ridge road

and has been heavily disturbed by bunkers. S026 is

situated on a steep slope southeast the modern village of

Shtyllas, midway up the slope of Mali i Shtyllasit. The

site is along a road that runs to the top of the ridge and
1467
The site is ca. 2.0 ha in area.

716
has a good view towards the plain. S026 is upslope from

S021 and less than a quarter kilometer from S022. S031 is

opposite S021 and S026 in the eastern part of Zone 4, near

the borders of Zones 3 and 6. It is on top of a ridge

facing the Shtyllas valley, beside a road that runs towards

Radostina.

S051, S052, and S057 were designated as sites during

the 2003 study season. S051 is on a small hill on the

southeast slope of the Shtyllas valley, just above the main

road. S052 is directly west-southwest near the top of the

ridge separating Zones 2 and 4. S057, on the other hand,

is in the eastern portion of the zone, just below S031.

Finally, the artifact cluster designated as Z4 G2 is on the

north slope near the bottom of the Shtyllas valley, just

below S001.

S013 is the Post-Medieval church of Shëndëlli located

near the floor of the Shtyllas valley.1468 Two Hellenistic

sherds were found here and should be considered background

scatter. The material from this site is late and will not

be discussed. Possible cut blocks were noted at S057

during tract walking, although densities in the tract were

not very high. Only four sherds were collected: two are

Hellenistic, one is Late Hellenistic-Early Roman, and one

is Early Modern-Modern. Given the small size of the

1468
See Galaty, Stocker, and Watkinson 1999.

717
assemblage, nothing can be said about site function or

periods of use.

Most of the sites in Zone 4 are located near

transportation routes. Four sites are located on the main

road through the valley or near large road arteries (S014,

S015, S021, and S051); six others are near smaller roads

(S002, S011, S012, S022, S026, and S031). A number of the

sites in Zone 4 are relatively close to one another. S012

is located only 1 km south of S015, and S014 is located in

a pass at the east end of the Shtyllas valley,

approximately 2 km northeast of S015. S051 is situated

between S014 (just over 1 km to the northeast) and S015

(less than 1 km to the southwest). Most important is the

fact that S014, S015, and S051 are located near the main

road.

Fifteen fragments of non-Greek pottery were collected

in Zone 4. A small concentration of sherds was found at

S026. The group consists of a Late Bronze, two Late

Bronze-Early Iron, an Early Iron Age, and a Prehistoric

fragment. A Neolithic-Bronze Age grinding stone was also

collected from here, as were several Prehistoric lithics.

In addition, two joining Late Bronze Age sherds were found

during tract walking in an adjacent tract.1469 This body of

material suggests the presence of an indigenous site on the

1469
A-022.

718
slope of Mali i Shtyllasit, overlooking the Myzeqe plain.

The site was abandoned during the Early Iron Age and was

deserted by the time the apoikia was founded at Apollonia.

Another piece of Late Bronze-Early Iron Age cooking

ware was found at S022, as were five Prehistoric lithics;

S022 is above S026 near the summit of Mali i Shtyllasit.

Below S022, an Iron Age fragment was found at S001. Two

Early Iron Age pieces were collected farther downslope in

Z4 G1, which is almost in the valley bottom. It is

possible that this group of material, all of which could be

Early Iron Age in date, is also the vestige of an

indigenous site that might have continued to be used into

the Archaic-Classical period.

Four other indigenous sherds were found in Zone 4, but

are unrelated to surrounding ceramics. Two pieces, one

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, the other Early Iron Age, were

found upslope from the spring at S010, just below the

summit of Mali i Shtyllasit. A stray Late Bronze Age sherd

was found in the east part of the zone, near S057, and an

Iron Age piece was found in the center at S015. A

Neolithic axe and 10 Prehistoric lithics were also

collected at S015. The pre-Greek material suggests that

native inhabitants were present at the spring and in the

area around Shtyllas before the arrival of the Greeks.

719
 Only two definite Archaic sherds were found in Zone 4,

and both of these are from cooking pots. One was found

during site collection at S031, the other in tract walking

at Z4 G2.1470 Eleven other pieces from Zone 4 are Archaic-

Classical. Two are Corinthian transport amphoras, one each

from the sites that had definite Archaic sherds. There is

even less securely dated Classical material from Zone 4

than there is Archaic-Classical. Only 10 fragments are

Classical, and two of these are Late. Half of the pieces

come from locations where possible Archaic material was

collected.

It is unlikely that S031 was used more than

sporadically before the 4th century B.C. Besides the

Archaic and Archaic-Classical pieces, the only other

certain pre-Hellenistic find in the area is a Classical

tile from a tract near the site. On the other hand, a

Classical-Early Hellenistic sherd is also from S031, as are

two Late Classical-Early Hellenistic sherds; of the three,

two are either Corinthian Type A or imitation transport

amphoras. Based on the nature of this assemblage, if S031

was used prior to the Hellenistic period, it was on a very

temporary basis, probably as a field house for agricultural

storage.

1470
Tract J-431.

720
 There is some evidence for continuity between the

Archaic and Classical periods at Z4 G2, where much of the

material is no later than Early Hellenistic. In addition

to the Archaic and Archaic-Classical transport amphoras,

there is also one that is Classical. Two other transport

amphoras, as well as a black glaze lamp fragment, predate

the end of the 4th century B.C. A Classical-Hellenistic

cooking ware sherd was also found here. The fact that four

of the six sherds that predate the end of the 4th century

B.C. are from transport amphoras, all Corinthian A, A', or

possible imitations, suggests that Z4 G2 was first used in

the Archaic or Early Classical period as a non-permanent

field house, probably for agricultural processing and/or

storage.

An Archaic-Early Classical black glaze fragment was

found at S001; this is the only other sherd in Zone 4 that

is definitely 5th century B.C. or earlier. In addition to

this, an Archaic-Classical sherd from an unknown form, a

Classical transport amphora, and a Late Classical skyphos

fragment of Corinthian type were collected at the site. An

Archaic-Classical black glaze fragment, possibly a

Corinthian import, and one from a Late Archaic-Classical

black glaze lekane were found nearby at Z4 G1. Because

indigenous material is so evanescent and there is very

721
little evidence for Greeks living outside the asty before

the Late Classical period, it is tempting to interpret

these six Greek sherds from S001 and Z4 G1, along with the

three Early Iron Age fragments, as the remnants of an

Illyrian site that continued to be used by the indigenous

inhabitants after the arrival of the Greeks.1471 Occupation

at both sites continued through the Classical period and

into the Hellenistic period, by which time the site had

coalesced around S001.1472

An Archaic-Classical transport amphora was found at

S014. Another, Late Archaic-Early Classical in date, was

collected in an adjacent tract, A-191, just across the

border in Zone 3; this piece, which is among the earliest

securely dated Greek material from that zone, and the

others from this tract, should be associated with S014. A

Classical piece comes from a tract contiguous to S014. As

with other sites in Zones 3 and 4, this small assemblage of

pre-Hellenistic material, which consists primarily of

transport amphoras, points to impermanent use of the site

as a field house prior to the 4th century B.C.

Two Archaic-Classical sherds, one a black glaze krater

fragment possibly of Laconian manufacture, the other a

1471
See discussion in Chapter 9.
1472
Pottery counts were extraordinarily high in the tracts that comprise
Z4 G1, especially in A-001. The site is at the edge of the modern
village of Shtyllas, and the vast majority of the finds is Post-
Medieval in date.

722
black glaze tile, are from the same tract in the northwest

corner of the zone, on the slopes just below the Shtyllas

temple (S061). An Archaic-Hellenistic conical loomweight

was found in the same tract.1473 These pieces belong with

the other material in the S061 assemblage that was

discussed in Zone 2.

Another Archaic-Classical sherd, this one from a small

pithos, was collected on the south slope of the Shtyllas

valley, just below S005 in Zone 2.1474 It is likely that

this piece is from the tumulus on Kodra e Kripës and eroded

downslope from the summit.

S002 is one of the sites in Zone 4 that has a small

amount of Classical material, but nothing earlier. Three

Classical pieces were found on the Çuka e Bukur ridge: two

of them from transport amphoras, both Corinthian imports,

and a third from a chytra.1475 Such a small amount of

material suggests that S002 was only sporadically visited

in the Classical period, and it is probable that these

broadly dated finds do not predate the 4th century B.C.

A Classical pithos fragment was found downslope from

S002 at S009. This piece is the only definite pre-

Hellenistic find from this site. A Late Archaic-Early

1473
SF2146.
1474
In Tract B-037.
1475
One is probably a Type A, the other, two joining fragments from a
Type A' (AS48).

723
Hellenistic transport amphora, possibly Corinthian, was

also collected, but this need not predate the 4th century

B.C.1476 Another transport amphora is Archaic-Hellenistic.

The presence of so few sherds that are Classical or earlier

makes it unlikely that S009 was used during this period.

The quantity of sherds that are likely to be 4th

century B.C., and are definitely no later than that, is

much larger than those certain to be earlier. A total of

44 fragments, 27 of them transport amphoras, are probably

or definitely Late Classical-Early Hellenistic; three are

Archaic-Early Hellenistic (two of which are discussed

above); 22 are Classical-Early Hellenistic (six discussed

above); and 17 are Late Classical-Early Hellenistic. One

hundred thirty-nine other sherds might be earlier than

Hellenistic; thirteen are Archaic-Hellenistic; 97 are

Classical-Hellenistic; and 29 are Late Classical-

Hellenistic; 51 of these are from transport amphoras. In

addition to the sites discussed above (S031, Z4 G2, S001,

S002, S014), material of the 4th century B.C. was found at

three new locations: S010, S022, and S026. Although there

is evidence for new or increased activity at many sites in

Zone 4, none of them were used on anything other than a

temporary or seasonal basis until the end of the 4th

century B.C.
1476
AS41.

724
 A fragment of an Archaic-Early Hellenistic transport

amphora was found at Z4 G1, as was a Classical-Early

Hellenistic closed shape; both are possibly Corinthian

imports. Two other sherds that might be earlier than

Hellenistic, both from cooking pots, were also collected

here; these are Archaic-Hellenistic and Classical-

Hellenistic in date. Very little other material was picked

up in this location, which could mean that the Hellenistic

inhabitants moved upslope to S001.

Two transport amphora fragments were found nearby at

S001; one is a Classical-Early Hellenistic Corinthian Type

A', the other is Late Classical-Early Hellenistic, possibly

a Corinthian Type B.1477 Thirty-six other pieces from the

site are Classical/Late Classical-Hellenistic, as are two

sherds from nearby tracts. Four sherds are Archaic-

Hellenistic. Transport amphoras are prevalent in this

assemblage, but not dominant; black glaze, cooking ware,

and plain ware sherds are also well represented. The

quantity of probable 4th century B.C material suggests that

more vessels are from this century than closely datable

finds alone indicate, implying that use of the site

increased in the Late Classical-Early Hellenistic period.

The lack of cooking ware and the limited amount of plain

1477
AS96 and AS95.

725
ware, however, suggests that S001 was still not permanently

occupied at this time.

In addition to the three Classical pieces from S002,

two transport amphoras from the site are Classical-Early

Hellenistic, one of them definitely of Corinthian Type A.

There is also a plain sherd from an unknown shape of the

same date.1478 Five additional sherds from S002 might be 4th

century B.C. or earlier. Four are Classical-Hellenistic

and one is Late Classical-Hellenistic. Two tiles were

specifically dated Early Hellenistic. Based on the

character of this assemblage, it seems likely that S002 was

first used on a seasonal basis for agricultural purposes in

the Classical period, probably in the 4th century B.C.

S010 marks the location of a spring that was used

during the Late Classical-Hellenistic period. The

concentration of artifacts is very well-bounded, confined

to one area in a field, and densities fall off sharply in

all directions. Many of the sherds found here are from

drinking cups and water vessels.1479 The majority of the

finds is Hellenistic, but two 4th century B.C. sherds, both

black glaze (one from a table amphora, the other from a

skyphos) were collected, as was a Late Classical-

Hellenistic amphora. Twenty-four other pieces are

1478
The Corinthian sherd is AS47.
1479
These include skyphoi, kantharoi, hydriai, jugs, and numerous table
amphoras. There is a high concentration of black glaze sherds.

726
Classical-Hellenistic. Since this site was not intensively

collected, it is likely that more 4th century B.C. material

would be found here and that the site was first used on a

limited basis at this time.

Seventeen pieces from S014 might predate the beginning

of the 3rd century B.C.; one is from a Classical-Early

Hellenistic transport amphora, one from a Late Classical-

Early Hellenistic mortarium, three from Classical-

Hellenistic vessels (a cooking pot, skyphos, and

unidentified closed black glaze shape), and 12 are from

Late Classical-Hellenistic transport amphoras. In

addition, an Archaic-Hellenistic sherd, a Late Classical-

Early Hellenistic table amphora (which joins with a sherd

from A-190), a Classical-Hellenistic piece from a closed

shape, and a Late Classical-Hellenistic tile were found in

adjacent Tract A-191. A Late Classical-Early Hellenistic

imitation of a Corinthian Type B transport amphora was also

collected in a nearby tract.1480 The amount of definite and

possible 4th century B.C. material at S014 suggests that

the site began at this time, but the predominance of

transport amphoras suggests that it was used seasonally

rather than permanently.

Three sherds that are likely 4th century B.C. were

found at S022; one is a Late Classical black glaze one-

1480
AS54.

727
handler cup, the other two are Classical-Early Hellenistic

transport amphoras, both possible imitations of Corinthian

1481
Type A. Another of the same date came from a contiguous

tract. Five additional pieces, four from black glaze

vessels, are Classical-Hellenistic, and a transport amphora

is Late Classical-Hellenistic. There is no connection

between these Greek sherds and the Late Bronze-Early Iron

Age sherd also found here; it appears thus that, after a

period of abandonment, S022 was reused on a temporary basis

beginning in the 4th century B.C.

S026 probably was established in the 4th century B.C.

Three sherds are definitely no later than Early

Hellenistic. Two of these are transport amphoras, one

Archaic-Early Hellenistic, the other Classical-Early

Hellenistic. The third is a Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic fragment from an open black glaze vessel. Two

Late Classical-Hellenistic pieces, one a transport amphora,

the other a skyphos, might be 4th century B.C. There is

also an Archaic-Hellenistic transport amphora from the site

and a Classical-Hellenistic Corinthian Type A or imitation

from a nearby tract. Although this body of material is

small, it suggests that there was some limited activity at

S026 by the end of the 4th century B.C.

1481
Another fragment of a Late Classical one-handler cup, the second of
only five from the study area, was found downslope in a tract in Zone
5.

728
 There is also definite 4th century B.C. material from

S031. All of the sherds are from storage vessels. The

three sherds that are no later than Early Hellenistic are a

Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora and a Late

Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora and pithos;

both transport amphoras are possible or imitation

Corinthian Type A. Five other transport amphora sherds

from the site might be 4th century B.C. or earlier; three

are Archaic-Hellenistic, one is Classical-Hellenistic, and

one is Late Classical-Hellenistic. A Late Classical-Middle

Hellenistic imitation of a Corinthian Type B shape was

found in the halo around the site.1482 The fact that all the

definite and possible 4th century B.C. sherds are from

storage vessels suggests that S031, like the other sites in

Zone 4, was first used on a seasonal basis as a field house

for processing and storing agricultural products.1483

Only three sherds that are or might be 4th century

B.C. or earlier, and are not directly associated with a

halo surrounding a site, were found in Zone 4. All are

from transport amphoras, two of them Corinthian Type A or

imitations.1484 In contrast to this, a carpet of securely

1482
AS53.
1483
The quantity of transport amphoras suggests that they were likely
used at field houses to store agricultural produce that was awaiting
transport back to the asty.
1484
AS50, AS52, AS54. There is also a Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic
Corinthian Type B transport amphora (AS53) from a tract near S031.

729
dated Hellenistic material covers the landscape throughout

the zone.

Zone 4 was intensively utilized during the Hellenistic

period, and the quantity of material of this date is over

five times greater than the total of definite and possible

earlier and later sherds combined. Tiles and vessel

fragments numbering 2,897 are securely dated to the

Hellenistic period; of these, 1,186 are vessel fragments

(1,046 from sites) and 1,711 are from bricks/tiles (1,623

from sites). Zone 4 appears to have been littered with

small single-family Hellenistic farmsteads. Of the 15 pre-

Medieval sites located in this zone, all but S057 have

large Hellenistic components. Large halos of sherds were

recorded in all tracts around sites, with some background

scatter in between.1485 The quantity of Hellenistic material

at sites with an earlier component is great.

Because Z4 G2 was not intensively collected, the

assemblage is small. Although only four Hellenistic pieces

were retained, the counts are very high in the tracts that

make up this group. Some of the surrounding tracts also

had finds of this period. J-434, further downslope, had

high counts, but no material was collected. The tracts

above Z4 G2, however, had low counts, suggesting that the

1485
For off-site background scatters of artifacts, see Bintliff and
Snodgrass 1988, p. 506; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994, pp. 139-141.

730
site was localized in a small area on the terraces of the

hill. Z4 G2 was a farmstead that, like those in Zone 3,

began as a field house and was later converted into a

permanent residence in the Hellenistic period.

S001 is one of the larger sites in Zone 4.1486 After

being used on a temporary basis, a permanent farmstead was

established in the Hellenistic period. The quantity,

variety, and quality of sherds from this period increase

greatly. A large number of transport amphoras is still

present in the assemblage (18); a quarter of the vessel

fragments are from this shape. The percentage of cooking

pots and plain household shapes is much larger. Five black

glaze fragments were found, all but one from drinking

vessels. A worn bronze coin ca. 325-200 B.C. minted at

Apollonia was found during site collection; Artemis facing

right and wearing a helmet is on the reverse, and a tripod

on the obverse; the legend is not discernable.1487 A

millstone of unknown date was found nearby. Because

bricks/tiles were sorted in the field, it is impossible to

get an accurate picture of the ratio of vessels to building

materials. There is, however, no doubt that S001 was

permanently occupied in the Hellenistic period.

1486
Ca. 0.6-1.0 ha.
1487
SF0398. Cf. Ceka 1965, p. 40.

731
 Most of the material collected from S002 is

Hellenistic in date. Although the site is medium sized,

very few vessel types are represented in the assemblage.

Most sherds are from plain closed shapes or transport

amphoras. There are only four pieces of cooking ware and

two pieces of black glaze, both from unidentifiable shapes.

A millstone of unknown date was also collected here.1488 One

Corinthian Type B transport amphora from the site is Middle

Hellenistic (early to mid-3rd century B.C.) in date and two

tiles are Late Hellenistic. This closely dated material

suggests that the site continued to be occupied into the

1st century B.C.1489 Although the assemblage is small, it is

in keeping with that typical of a single-family Hellenistic

farmstead.

S009 began in the Hellenistic period. Only two pieces

from the site are of the 4th century B.C. or earlier and

another transport amphora might be. Aside from these, all

the finds are Hellenistic. The team leader suggested that

S009 might be a cemetery site associated with S002, which

is directly upslope. The finds, however, are typical

household items such as cooking pots, plain tablewares, and

storage vessels. A pre-Roman conical loomweight was also

1488
SF0421.
1489
AS49.

732
found here.1490 In addition, only a single black glaze sherd

was found at the site. It is more likely that S009 was a

single-period Hellenistic farmstead than a burial ground.

The spring at S010 continued to be used in the

Hellenistic period. There is more Hellenistic material

than earlier, and a large proportion of the finds consists

of black glaze sherds. A plain hydria, a form associated

with water collection, is the only shape that could be

positively identified.

S011 was a small Hellenistic farmstead; the

concentration of material is very localized. All the finds

are Hellenistic except for five sherds that might be

earlier (Classical-Hellenistic), but probably are not,

since no securely dated pre-Hellenistic material was found.

There are, however, two Late Classical-Early Hellenistic

transport amphoras, one of Corinthian Type A, from a nearby

tract.1491 A large number of vessel fragments was collected

from S011; sherds from fine plain closed pots predominate,

but there are also fragments of cooking ware and transport

amphoras. Only one fragment of black glaze was found at

the site. A Middle Hellenistic Corinthian Type B transport

amphora was found just downslope from the site in Zone 6

1490
SF0422.
1491
One is AS50.

733
and likely should be associated with the site.1492 S011 was

clearly a single-family single-period Hellenistic

farmstead.

S012 also began in the Hellenistic period and was a

small site like S011. Material of this period is

restricted to the grid squares west of site center. Only

one sherd might be earlier; it is a Classical-Early

Hellenistic transport amphora, possibly a Corinthian Type A

imitation. The Hellenistic assemblage consists almost

entirely of bricks/tiles; a mere nine pot sherds were

collected at the site, including a few fragments of cooking

ware, several transport amphoras, a pithos, and one small

fragment of black glaze. Seven tiles are specifically Late

Hellenistic in date, so the site appears to have survived

into the 1st century B.C. Although S011 and S012 are

located in close proximity to each other, no pottery or

tile was found in the intervening tracts, making it

unlikely that the two concentrations belonged to a single

large site.1493

As noted, S014 is one of the largest sites in Zone 4

and is also predominantly Hellenistic in date, although

utilization of the site probably began in the 4th century

B.C. Most of the sherds are from plain closed vessels,

1492
AS70.
1493
A-105 and A-106.

734
cooking pots, and transport amphoras. There are five

fragments of black glaze, three from drinking vessels, one

from a lamp, and one from an unidentifiable closed shape.

Bones were found eroding from a scarp at the west edge of

the site along the Shtyllas road (A-195/S014-019). The

finds from this tract and collection unit, which include

four transport amphoras and a fragment from a plain olpe,

are no different than those from the rest of the site.1494

Only one sherd, a fragment from a Middle Hellenistic black

glaze bowl, could be securely dated, which indicates that

the site was occupied at least through this period.

S015 is located near a water source above the major

road through the valley; it is another of the larger sites

in Zone 4. Although material is spread over a large area,

the Hellenistic sherds are restricted to three contiguous

collection units.1495 The site was not used before the

Hellenistic period; only four pieces might be earlier: two

are Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphoras, both

possibly Corinthian; the others are a Classical-Hellenistic

tub and a closed black glaze vessel.1496 Two skyphos

fragments, both from the same grid square, are specifically

1494
One quarter of the olpe fragments from the survey area are, in fact,
associated with graves.
1495
S015-002, S015-003, S015-007. One hundred sixty-six out of 203
Hellenistic sherds were found in these three units.
1496
One transport amphora might be a Corinthian Type A' (AS51), and the
other is a Corinthian Type A or imitation (AS99).

735
Early-Middle Hellenistic. The rest of the material from

the site is broadly dated to the Hellenistic period.

Unlike other farmsteads in the area, the assemblage from

S015 includes a large number of black glaze fragments (18);

all are from drinking vessels except for a lekythos and two

fragments from closed shapes. There are also sherds of

cooking and plain wares. The number of storage vessels

from the site is unusually low (two pithos sherds and two

transport amphora). A Hellenistic bronze coin from the

Koinon of Epirus was found during tract walking.1497 S015

was a farmstead, perhaps larger or more long-lasting than

others in Zone 4; one Late Hellenistic sherd suggests that

the site was occupied from the late 4th to 1st centuries

B.C.

S021 was established in the Hellenistic period. Only

a Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora and a

Classical-Hellenistic table amphora might be earlier. The

Hellenistic component covers 1.2 ha., which makes it one of

the larger sites in Zone 4.1498 The assemblage is composed

largely of bricks/tiles (87%); the vessels represented are

mostly plain unidentifiable closed shapes and coarse wares.

Cooking and storage vessels are also present, but only one

fragment of black glaze. A conical loomweight, probably of

1497
SF0364. Cf. Meta 2006, pp. 149-150.
1498
Only S014 and S015 are larger; S001 is approximately the same size.

736
Hellenistic date, was also found at the site. Although the

assemblage is small, it is in keeping with those from other

Hellenistic farmsteads in the area.

S022 is one of the smallest sites in Zone 4; it is

only 0.20 ha. Almost all of the finds from the site are

Hellenistic; there are two sherds that are definitely

Classical and one fragment that is Late Roman.1499 The

assemblage looks domestic in nature and includes cooking

wares, fine plain wares, and transport amphoras. Six

fragments of black glaze from drinking and eating vessels

were found; one is a kantharos that is specifically Early-

Middle Hellenistic. It is likely that use of this site

began in the Late Classical period, but permanent

occupation began later and continued at least through the

Middle Hellenistic period.

Most of the material from S026 is Hellenistic. The

site itself is small, but a large halo extends in all

directions from site center. Many fragments are from plain

closed vessels, and recognizable sherds are standard

household shapes associated with the collection and storage

of liquids. There are two pithos fragments, and a quarter

of the assemblage consists of transport amphoras; since a

variety of fabrics were recognized, it is clear that all

these pieces are not from the same vessel. Only seven
1499
There is also a fragment of indigenous cooking ware.

737
fragments of cooking ware were collected from the site and

one piece of black glaze. The assemblage is in keeping

with expectations for a farmstead; the number of storage

vessels present suggests that the farmstead also served as

an agricultural processing center in the Hellenistic

period.

S031 was not permanently occupied until the

Hellenistic period. It is another of the sizeable sites in

Zone 4 and has a larger than usual ratio of vessel

fragments to bricks/tiles, many of which are from

identifiable shapes. The shapes represented are common

household items, tablewares associated with eating,

drinking, and water collection. The quantity of fragments

from cooking pots (23%) and storage vessels (13%) is large,

but only three pieces with black glaze were found. S031

was a single-family farmstead in the Hellenistic period.

One Late Hellenistic piece suggests that the site lasted

into the 1st century B.C.

S051 is a medium-sized site that also began in the

Hellenistic period. The small amount of material collected

from the site is consistent with a household assemblage;

most of the sherds are from plain vessels or cooking pots.

There are two black glaze fragments and three from pithoi,

two of which are Late Hellenistic. Unusually, there are no

738
transport amphoras that can be securely dated as

Hellenistic; the five fragments are Hellenistic-Roman. An

undated millstone fragment was also found at S051.1500

S052 is a small well-bounded concentration of material

from tracts with high field counts. Only five pieces were

collected; four are Hellenistic and consist of a possible

Corinthian Type B amphora, two fine plain sherds, and a

cooking ware fragment.1501 The fifth is a Late Hellenistic

black glaze plate. This small assemblage of tract material

has all the components characteristic of a Hellenistic

farmstead.

Zone 4 appears to have been greatly depopulated at the

end of the Hellenistic period and was never again as

heavily utilized as during that time, except perhaps for

today. The total number of definite and possible Roman

sherds is only 256: six are Early Roman, 81 are Middle

Roman, 43 are Late Roman, and 101 could be no more closely

dated than Roman. The other 25 pieces, including nine

transport amphoras, might or might not be Roman: three are

Classical-Roman, 20 are Hellenistic-Roman, and two are Late

Hellenistic-Early Roman. One hundred and thirteen of the

256 fragments are tiles. Eight sites from Zone 4 were

abandoned by the 1st century B.C.: S001, S002, S009, S010,

1500
SF3882. See Gerke et al. 2006.
1501
AS68.

739
S011, S022, S026, and S052. There are a few Roman sherds

at S014, but it is likely that this site, too, went out of

use during the Late Hellenistic period. The depopulation

of Zone 4 continued through the Early Roman period, and the

situation only began to change slightly in Middle Roman

times.

Five Terra Sigillata fragments were picked up in Zone

4, and they are all from sites; this is approximately a

third of the total number found by the survey. Almost all

of the Roman sherds were found at or near sites, indeed

only 17 pieces were found off-site, four of which were

found near S051 (one Late Hellenistic-Early, one Early

Roman, and two Late Roman). Three Early Roman pieces were

found in contiguous tracts north of S015. These tracts had

very high counts, but the lone Early Roman sherd was the

only item collected in each of them.

Three Middle Roman fragments, two probably from the

same glazed bottle, were found in a single tract near a

ravine littered with pot sherds. The rest of the off-site

finds are broadly dated to the Roman period, or, in one

case, Hellenistic-Roman. They were collected in isolated

tracts and were often the only find.

In a few cases, a small amount of Roman material was

found at sites that were unoccupied in this period. Three

740
sherds from S001 might be Roman (two Classical-Roman, one

Hellenistic-Roman), and one definitely is. Two

Hellenistic-Roman fragments were collected from S002, as

was a very worn bronze Roman coin with the head of Apollo

on the obverse.1502 A Roman cooking jug fragment came from

S009. Two Roman pieces were found at S013 and S022, both

sites had one Roman and one Late Roman sherd. Two

Hellenistic-Roman pieces were found at S026. A Late

Hellenistic-Early Roman fragment was picked up at S057; it

is possible, but not certain, that the standing

architecture in this tract might also be of this date. No

material of Roman date was found at S010, S011, or S052.

Two Hellenistic-Roman and six Roman pieces were found

at S014; all except one Hellenistic-Roman cooking ware

sherd are tile fragments that could not be closely dated.

The tile scatter might represent some limited activity in

the pass between the Kryegjata and Shtyllas valleys. Such

a paucity of material, none of which can be securely dated,

makes it unlikely that this site was much used in Roman

times. If the tile scatter does represent Roman activity,

it need not necessarily be earlier than the Middle or Late

Roman period, which would make it likely that S014 follows

the pattern noted throughout Zone 4: a strong Hellenistic

1502
SF0125. Cf. Ceka 1965, p. 121, no. 106.

741
phase, followed by a period of abandonment, with reuse in

the Middle or Late Roman phases.

A mere five sites in Zone 4 had substantial Roman

components: S012, S015, S021, S031, and S051. All of these

are located near main roads. S015 is the only site that

might have been used in Early Roman times; the rest seem to

be reoccupied after a period of abandonment.

Only three out of 32 sherds from S015 can be closely

dated; these are an Early Roman lamp and Terra Sigillata

fragment, and a Middle Roman cooking pot. The rest of the

pieces could be no more closely dated than Roman, except

for one that is Hellenistic-Roman.1503 The assemblage is

composed almost entirely of cooking ware and tiles. A

Roman millstone was also found at the site.1504 The presence

of a few definite Early and Middle Roman sherds, in

addition to the three pieces found in a tract just to the

north, might indicate that a small farmstead survived at

S015 from Hellenistic into Roman times. There is no secure

evidence for a Late Roman presence.

The closely dated Roman component at S012 is entirely

Middle Roman except for one piece that is Late Roman.

Seventy-three sherds are definitely Middle Roman. Six

1503
Cooking ware (11) and tiles (10) predominate in the assemblage. One
of the Early Roman pieces is Terra Sigillata. See above. The
assemblage also includes a pithos, a transport amphora, and eight plain
vessel fragments.
1504
SF0388.

742
additional pieces are more broadly dated: one is

Hellenistic-Roman and five are Roman, as is a millstone.1505

All of these could be Middle Roman, though. The assemblage

is typical of a small household: cooking pots, plain table

wares, and storage jars. There is also one fragment from a

Terra Sigillata bowl. The absence of securely dated Early

Roman material strongly suggests that S012 was abandoned at

the end of the Hellenistic period and only reoccupied in

the Middle Roman period after a hiatus of ca. 200 years.

The Roman component at S021 is much smaller than the

Hellenistic. Most of the material comes from one grid

square from west of site center. The closely datable

sherds are Late Roman except for one fragment of Middle

Roman cooking ware. Most of the post-Hellenistic finds

cannot be closely dated: 37 fragments are Roman and three

are Hellenistic-Roman. Over half the assemblage is

composed of tiles; the rest are containers for liquid and

storage jars. There are only a few cooking ware fragments

and no Terra Sigillata. The little evidence that exists

suggests that S021 was reoccupied, possibly by the Middle,

but definitely in the Late Roman period, after several

centuries of abandonment. The material is in keeping with

a domestic assemblage and its poor nature is surprising

1505
Three of the broadly dated fragments are from transport amphoras and
one is a tile. The millstone is SF0627. There are also three pieces
of glass from S026 that are Roman-Modern.

743
given that S021 is on the major Roman road linking

Apollonia with Vlora.

The Roman material from S031 is exclusively Late Roman

in date, except for two Middle Roman sherds, one of which

is a piece of Terra Sigillata. The assemblage is typical

of a small, single-family farmstead and consists of tiles,

fragments of cooking ware jugs, storage vessels, and one

plain ware table amphora. There is no doubt that S031 was

reoccupied late in the Roman period after several centuries

of abandonment.

Only three out of 26 sherds from S051 could be closely

dated, and these are Late Roman. Five pieces, all

transport amphoras, are Hellenistic-Roman; the rest are

Roman. Two Terra Sigillata fragments were collected, one

from a plate, the other from a bowl. The rest of the

assemblage consists of closed cooking and plain vessels,

and table ware shapes. A millstone, probably Roman, was

also found here.1506 The material is characteristic of a

single-family farmstead. As with S021 and S031, S051,

after a period of abandonment, was reoccupied later in the

Roman period.

In conclusion, Zone 4, the Shtyllas valley, situated

in closest proximity to Apollonia, has the greatest number

of sites in the survey area. Very little indigenous

1506
SF3882.

744
material was found in the zone, and surprisingly, all

except one sherd of that sort came from tract walking

rather than site collection. There were probably two

indigenous sites in Zone 4: a Late Bronze-Early Iron Age

site near S026 and an Iron Age site at Z4 G1. The site at

Z4 G1 might have continued to be occupied by indigenous

people after the apoikia at Apollonia was founded.

The quantity of material in Zone 4 that is 5th century

B.C. or earlier is also very small. Seven sites, however,

began to be used on a limited basis in the 4th century

B.C., probably as field houses for agricultural processing

and storage: S001, S002, S010, S014, S022, S026, and S031.

All of the sites in Zone 4 have large Hellenistic

components and all, with the possible exception of S015,

were abandoned by the 1st century B.C. Five sites were

permanently occupied in the Roman period: S012, S015, S021,

S031, and S051. S012 is the only definite Middle Roman

site in the zone. S021, S031, and S051 have small amounts

of securely dated Middle Roman material, but are primarily

Late Roman in date. S015 could not be more closely dated

than Roman.

Zone 5

745
 Zone 5 is enclosed by Zone 4 in the north, Zone 6 in

the south, and the Myzeqe plain in the west; it is only

1.34 sq km in area, which makes it the smallest zone except

for those in the area of Margelliç. The catchment is

composed of the Shtyllas-Jaroi valley and the surrounding

ridges. The valley opens onto the Myzeqe plain at the

modern village of Shtyllas-Jaroi (S025). Besides S025,

which was not collected, the only other site in Zone 5 is

S028 (Fig. 8.5); this is located on a low hill in the

middle of the Shtyllas-Jaroi valley, approximately 1 km

inland from the Shtyllas-Levan road. A total of 383 pre-

Medieval sherds were collected in Zone 5.

Only one pre-Greek sherd was found in the zone. This

is an isolated Late Bronze-Early Iron Age fragment from the

slope near S028. A possible Neolithic denticulate was also

found in the east-central part of the zone. There is no

definite or even possible Archaic material, and finds of

Classical date are also rare; 20 definite or possible

pieces were found in Zone 5. Two of the three securely

dated Classical pieces are from two contiguous tracts that

abut an erosional gully; they are both fragments of black

glaze skyphoi.1507 Three Classical-Early Hellenistic

transport amphoras, two of which are imitation Corinthian

1507
Only 12 fragments of black glaze were found in Zone 5; four of them
are from this gully.

746
Type A, the other a Corinthian Type A import, are also from

this gully, as are two Classical-Hellenistic sherds.1508 The

securely dated piece is a Late Classical one-handler cup

found on the slopes below S022.1509

S028 is a large site that is spread over seven tracts.

The earliest material from the site is probably 4th century

B.C. There is a Corinthian Type A or imitation transport

amphora that is Classical-Early Hellenistic, and an one-

handler cup that is Late Classical-Early Hellenistic. A

sherd from an open black glaze vessel is Classical-

Hellenistic. In a contiguous tract just south of the site,

a Late Classical-Middle Hellenistic Corinthian Type B

transport amphora was found.1510

Three Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphoras,

all possible Corinthian Type As or imitations, were found

in Zone 5. Two of them are from tracts with a single

Hellenistic sherd; the third was found with no other

definite pre-Medieval material. Three others, Late

Classical-Hellenistic, were picked up on different

terraces.

The total number of sherds dated broadly to the

Hellenistic period is 335. Three additional sherds could

be closely dated, one to Early Hellenistic, two to Middle

1508
The Corinthian Type A is AS7.
1509
Another piece of the same date was found at S022.
1510
AS58.

747
Hellenistic. Ninety-six of these are from pots, 242 from

bricks/tiles. Of these, 242 are from S028 and 16 are from

a halo extending south from S022 in Zone 4. The remaining

80 pieces were picked up off-site.

The Hellenistic component dominates at S028, although

the ceramic assemblage is small and nondescript. Only two

pieces of cooking ware were found, and eight fragments from

storage vessels. The rest of the sherds are from plain

unidentifiable closed vessels; the single black glaze

fragment is from a tile. Tiles account for the majority of

the finds (83%). The paucity of household vessels found at

S028 make it doubtful the site was permanently occupied,

even in the Hellenistic period; if it was, it was probably

very short-lived.

There is a cluster of Hellenistic material in Tracts

C-110 and C-111. The team leader noted that the finds were

eroding from a scarp at the end of both tracts. One piece

of cooking ware is Classical-Hellenistic; this is

potentially the earliest sherd. Three other pieces of

cooking ware, five tiles, three plain vessels, and a

transport amphora, all Hellenistic in date, were collected

in these tracts. An undated millstone was also found, as

were two Middle Roman sherds.1511

1511
SF3886.

748
 Apart from the Middle Roman sherds from the gully in

C-110 and two other random sherds, the only Roman material

in Zone 5 is from S028. The material collected from the

site consists entirely of tiles that can be no more closely

dated than Roman. The lack of vessels and the small

quantity of tiles make it impossible to determine the

function of the site or the phase in the Roman period when

it was used.

In conclusion, Zone 5 appears to have been

underutilized throughout antiquity. Only one indigenous

sherd was found. There was no Archaic material, and sherds

of Classical date were also rare. The only securely dated

pre-Hellenistic pieces were from an erosional gully. S028

is the sole site in the zone, apart from the modern village

of Shtyllas, and it began no earlier than the 4th century

B.C. The Hellenistic assemblage from the site is small and

nondescript. S028 might have been used in the Roman

period, but the specific date and function cannot be

determined.

Zone 6

Zone 6 encompasses the Levan valley; it is 4.39 sq km

in area and the fourth largest zone. The zone opens onto

the Myzeqe plain in the west. Its northeastern edge

749
borders Zone 3, and the northern boundary is formed by

Zones 4 and 5. Six sites were identified in Zone 6: S027,

S032, S034, S040, S042, and S056 (Fig. 8.6). S027 is

located at the edge of the Myzeqe plain along the main

Apollonia-Vlora road, just north of the modern village of

Sheban. S032 is on the southern slopes of Çuka e Bukur in

the northeast corner of the zone, near the border with Zone

4 and less than a kilometer southwest of S031. Only half

of S032 was intensively collected; the other part was tract

walked and is discussed as Z6 G1.1512 S034 is situated on a

knoll above the valley in the center of the zone, and a

spring is located just below the site.1513 S040 is perched

on a high ridge near the head of the Levan valley, opposite

(west of) S034; the site has good views in all directions.

S042 is an unexcavated Roman villa about a half-km south of

S027, also on the main Apollonia-Vlora road.

Two other groups of tracts with high densities will be

discussed as units. The first, Z6 G1, consists of eight

tracts1514 adjacent to S032; it makes up the east part of the

site that was not intensively collected. These tracts are

on terraces that descend gently to the bottom of the Levan

1512
One tract from S032, A-202, is located in Zone 4, but will be
discussed here.
1513
See Galaty et al. 2004.
1514
The tracts in Z6 G2 are D-330, D-336, D-337, D-338, K-111, K-112, K-
113, and K-119.

750
valley; the material in the lower tracts has been washed

downslope from the top of the ridge.

Z6 G2 is composed of seven tracts, including C-254,

which is on top of Çuka e Lisit. A large quantity of the

material was found in tracts that ended in a gully below

the ridge and is likely associated with a site on top.1515

The total number of pre-Medieval sherds collected from

Zone 6 is 9,947. Of these, 7,911 are from the excavation

conducted at S034.1516 Except for 10 Late Classical-

Hellenistic transport amphora fragments found in surface

levels, all of the excavated finds are Hellenistic, and

most are specifically Middle Hellenistic. There are 2,036

pre-Medieval finds from Zone 6 that are not from

excavation; only 242 of these are not Hellenistic.

Six prehistoric sherds were found in Zone 6. A black

burnished Middle-Final Neolithic jar fragment came from a

tract in the northeast corner of the zone. It should be

considered with the Neolithic cluster discussed in Zone 3.

Four Neolithic lithics were also found in Zone 6, but all

are unassociated with ceramics or other prehistoric finds.

Pieces of five other indigenous vessels are from Zone

6. A Late Bronze Age lug handle from a jar was found near

the valley bottom in Z6 G1. A Late Bronze-Early Iron Age

1515
The tracts in Z6 G2 are C-254, C-260, C-334, C-335, C-336, C-237,
and C-338.
1516
See Galaty et al. 2004.

751
piece came from a tract just south of Shtyllas, on a hill

terrace almost at the plain. Several fragments of an Early

Iron Age wide mouthed jar with a band of incised pendant

triangles on the neck were found south of this, also near

the plain, on the slope above the Roman villa at S042. Two

fragments, one Late Bronze-Iron Age, the other Iron Age,

are from a single tract on the northwest border of the

site.

There is very little certain pre-Hellenistic material

from Zone 6. Only two pieces of Archaic pottery were

found, six Archaic-Classical, and six Classical. Eleven of

these are from sites or groups of tracts. There are

slightly more sherds that are certain to be no later than

the 4th century B.C. (24). Four are Archaic-Early

Hellenistic, 12 are Classical-Early Hellenistic, five are

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic, and three are Early

Hellenistic; 20 of these are from transport amphoras.

One of the Archaic sherds is from an imitation

Corinthian Type A transport amphora that was found at S032

in the northeastern edge of the zone. A similar fragment,

except of Archaic-Classical date, came from an adjacent

grid square.

The other definite Archaic sherd is from a pithos

found in Z6 G2. Two Classical pieces are from the same

752
tract; one is from a black glaze cup, the other, a plain

closed vessel.

An Archaic-Early Classical Corinthian Type A fragment

was collected near the valley bottom opposite Z6 G1.1517

Only three sherds were collected in this tract, the other

two being Hellenistic, and no other material was found in

the surrounding tracts.

A closed cooking ware fragment that is Archaic-

Classical was found at the northwest corner of Zone 6 in a

tract on the slopes above Shtyllas. Two Classical-Early

Hellenistic imitation Corinthian Type A pieces were found

nearby, as was a Classical-Hellenistic sherd.

The only certain pre-Hellenistic sherd from S027 is

from a Classical transport amphora; one other, a Late

Classical-Hellenistic piece from the same vessel type, is

also possibly of the 4th century B.C. These two sherds are

not enough to suggest that S027 was used prior to the

Hellenistic period.

The largest quantity of pre-Hellenistic material is

from S032, and all the pieces are from transport amphoras.

In addition to the Archaic and Archaic-Classical pieces

mentioned above, four are Archaic-Early Hellenistic

imitation Corinthian Type A. The rest of the possible 4th

century B.C. material from S032 consists of two Classical-

1517
AS8.

753
Early Hellenistic fragments; two others of the same date

were found in adjacent tracts. A few other sherds could

also be 4th century B.C.; two Archaic-Hellenistic fragments

were found at the site, as were three Classical-Hellenistic

and one Late Classical-Hellenistic. A Classical-

Hellenistic piece was found nearby. The presence of this

quantity of definite and possible Archaic-Early Hellenistic

transport amphoras suggests that S032 was used on a

temporary basis as a field house for storage purposes until

the end of the 4th century B.C.

There is from Z6 G1 a Classical cooking vessel sherd

and a Late Classical transport amphora from a bit further

downslope. In addition, two Classical-Hellenistic and

three Late Classical-Hellenistic transport amphora

fragments were found in these tracts.

The earliest material from S034 is a lone fragment

from an Archaic-Classical black glaze table amphora that

might be an Attic import; it is unlikely that it represents

anything other than chance visitation to the site, or

possibly an heirloom. The next closely datable material is

4th century B.C. and consists of two Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic imitation Corinthian Type A transport amphoras.

Eight additional fragments from this vessel type are Late

Classical-Hellenistic, as are 10 pieces from excavation.

754
Another transport amphora fragment is Classical-

Hellenistic, as is one from an unidentifiable plain vessel.

As with other sites in the study area, the sherds from S034

that are or could be 4th century B.C. are almost entirely

from transport amphoras.

A fragment of a Classical plain closed vessel was

collected from S040; this is the only securely dated pre-

Hellenistic find from the site. Although two transport

amphoras that are Archaic-Hellenistic, one that is

Classical-Hellenistic and three that are Late Classical-

Hellenistic, were collected here, it is unlikely that S040

was used prior to the end of the 4th century B.C., and then

only on a temporary basis.

An Archaic-Classical black glaze tile was found at

S056. A Late Archaic-Classical and Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic Corinthian Type A sherd were collected from an

adjacent tract.1518

A Classical imitation Corinthian Type A transport

amphora fragment was found in a tract on the ridge near the

border with Zone 4.1519 An Archaic-Hellenistic transport

amphora was found in the same tract. Another sherd of the

same type and date was collected in an adjacent tract,

along with a Classical-Hellenistic piece.

1518
AS10, AS9.
1519
AS69.

755
 There are also from Z6 G2 two imitation Corinthian

Type A pieces that are Classical-Early Hellenistic, a black

glaze fragment that is definitely Early Hellenistic, and

two additional transport amphoras that are Classical-

Hellenistic. Two other Classical-Early Hellenistic sherds

of the same type were found in adjacent tracts, as were two

Classical-Hellenistic black glaze fragments.

The only other definite 4th century B.C. sherds from

Zone 6 appear to be random pieces; all are from transport

amphoras. Three pieces are Classical-Early Hellenistic,

two of which are imitation Corinthian Type A, and two are

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic sherds that are either

Corinthian Type A or imitations.1520 The possible 4th

century B.C. material also consists almost entirely of

transport amphoras; two are Archaic-Hellenistic and 10 are

Classical-Hellenistic.1521 Five additional sherds are

Classical-Hellenistic, including two fragments from black

glaze vessels. Five transport amphoras and one tile are

Late Classical-Hellenistic.

The bulk of the finds from Zone 6 is Hellenistic.

Material of this date was found in large quantities

scattered throughout the landscape and at all sites except

S042. Of the 9,947 sherds found in Zone 6, 1,881 are

1520
The Late Classical-Early Hellenistic pieces are AS60 and AS73.
1521
One of the Classical-Hellenistic fragments is AS71.

756
Hellenistic in general and 7,818 are specifically Middle

Hellenistic. All of the Middle Hellenistic pieces are from

S034, all but four from excavated contexts; 87 of the

Hellenistic sherds are also from excavation. An additional

26 sherds fall within the 323-31 B.C. date range; three

Early Hellenistic, one Early-Middle Hellenistic, one

Middle-Late Hellenistic, and 21 Late Hellenistic, bringing

the total of non-excavated finds from the Hellenistic

period to 1,824. Indeed, sherds of the Hellenistic period

make up 90% of the entire pre-Medieval survey assemblage

from Zone 6.

S027 began in the Hellenistic period. The

overwhelming preponderance of finds from the site are

bricks/tiles (88%). The vessel assemblage consists mostly

of plain unidentifiable closed pots. Twenty fragments are

from storage vessels, equally from pithoi and transport

amphoras. There is very little cooking ware and only one

fragment of black glaze. Three Late Hellenistic sherds

were collected at the site. The quantity of bricks/tiles

indicates that a permanent structure was built at S027 in

the Hellenistic period, and the nature of the assemblage

indicates that it was a single-family farmstead. The

quality of the pottery and the quantity of storage vessels

757
suggest that the farmstead was used primarily for the

collection and storage of agricultural products.

S032 was occupied on a permanent basis in the

Hellenistic period, probably beginning early in the 3rd

century B.C. The site appears to be not only the largest

in the zone, but also in the study area apart from

Apollonia and Margelliç.1522 The assemblage is similar to

that from other single-family farmsteads; the majority of

the finds is bricks/tiles. Most of the vessel fragments

are from plain closed pots. A few fragments of cooking

ware were found and five storage jars. There are only

three pieces of black glaze. The composition of the

assemblage from Z6 G1 is almost the same, except that there

are fewer securely dated Hellenistic storage vessels.

S034 is almost entirely Hellenistic in date, and, as

excavation has shown, specifically Middle Hellenistic.1523

As with the other sites in the study area, however, most of

the survey finds from S034 could be no more closely dated

than Hellenistic. The grid established over S034 was

larger than usual so that density fall-offs could be

closely monitored. For this reason, the quantity of survey

finds from the site is larger than usual, but the

1522
Ca. 2.5-3.0 ha.
1523
The total number of sherds retrieved from excavation is 7912. Of
these 10 are Late Classical-Hellenistic transport amphoras, 87 are
Hellenistic, 7,814 are Middle Hellenistic, and one is of unknown date.

758
percentages of ceramic categories are similar to survey

assemblages from other Hellenistic farmsteads.

Bricks/tiles account for 85% of the ceramics and the rest

of the assemblage is dominated by sherds from plain closed

unidentifiable shapes. After this, storage vessels are the

most well-represented category of finds, with an equal

number of pieces of pithoi and transport amphoras. Cooking

ware is present, but the quantity is not large, and there

are only five fragments of black glaze, mostly from

unidentifiable shapes. Several ceramic wasters and

Hellenistic nails were found during excavation. The nature

of the survey finds suggest what excavation proved; that

S034 was a small, single-family Hellenistic farmstead with

an emphasis on agricultural production that began in the

3rd century B.C. and was abandoned by the 1st century B.C.

Excavation was able to provide closer chronological

resolution, but the categories of finds are the same as

those from survey.1524

S040 is similar to other sites in Zone 6 and the

survey area. Occupation began in the Hellenistic period,

probably Middle Hellenistic. The assemblage consists

largely of tiles (86%). The vessels represented are almost

1524
The ratio of bricks and tiles to vessels in the excavation
assemblage is extremely high because all pieces larger than a thumbnail
were collected, and there was 100% retention of the finds. Only vacuum
samples at other sites employed similar procedures.

759
exclusively plain closed shapes, cooking pots, and storage

jars. One difference between S040 and the other sites in

the zone is that the percentage of cooking ware sherds and

storage jars is higher in relation to plain wares. Black

glaze is under represented; only two sherds were collected,

both from drinking vessels. Fragments of two conical

loomweights and four millstones were found during site

collection.1525 The assemblage from S040 is typical of a

single-family Hellenistic farmstead.

S056 also is primarily Hellenistic in date.

Information about the site is based solely on tract data,

which suggest that the site is similar to others already

discussed. The assemblage consists largely of sherds from

plain closed vessels. One storage jar is represented but

there is no black glaze. Based on the tract material and

what we know about other sites in Zone 6, it is safe to

conclude that S056 was also a single-family Hellenistic

farmstead.

Two hundred eighty-seven Hellenistic sherds were

collected off-site in Zone 6; approximately a third of

these are bricks/tiles. More material is located in the

northern portion of the Levan valley than in the southern.

There is an almost continuous carpet of Hellenistic sherds

between S032 and S040, but the spread is more spotty

1525
SF3383, SF3384; SF3063, SF3064, SF3382, and SF3385.

760
between S040 and the Myzeqe plain. Most of the pot sherds

are from plain closed vessels, but 15% are transport

amphoras, 18% are cooking ware fragments, and 14% are black

glaze.1526 Almost all of the black glaze pieces are from

drinking vessels. Finds of the Hellenistic period dominate

both on-site and off-site assemblages from Zone 6.

There is very little Roman activity in Zone 6; 104

sherds were found, exactly half of which are broadly dated

to the Roman period. Six additional pieces could be Roman.

Fifty-six fragments are from tiles, 47 of which are from

S027. Only 14 possible or definite Roman sherds were

collected during tract walking, and just four are not

associated with a site; eight are from tracts contiguous to

S032, and two are upslope from S042. No Terra Sigillata

was found in Zone 6.

S042 is the only site that begins in the Roman period.

Just one of the Hellenistic sites in Zone 6, S027, has

strong evidence of use or reuse in the Roman period. Three

of the other five sites have no Roman component at all:

S034, S040, and S056.1527 All of these appear to have been

1526
Four off-site transport amphora sherds were selected for analysis.
One Hellenistic "mixed" sample is definitely not Corinthian and might
be local (AS72). Two others of the same date are Corinthian Type B
table amphoras (AS74 and AS75). The fourth is a Middle Hellenistic
Corinthian Type B or imitation transport amphora (AS70). See Chapter
5.
1527
There is one unidentifiable plain closed sherd of Late Hellenistic-
Early Roman date from S040. Given the large quantity of Hellenistic

761
completely abandoned by the end of the Hellenistic period,

perhaps sometime in the early 2nd century B.C., judging by

the closely datable material from S034.

S027 had the most substantial Roman component of the

sites in Zone 6. As noted above, it is strategically

located at the edge of the Myzeqe plain along the main

Apollonia-Levan road, which probably was heavily used

during the Roman period. Fifty-three sherds from the site

are or might be Roman. S027 is the only place where there

might have been continuity between the Hellenistic and

Roman periods. Nineteen Late Hellenistic pieces were

retrieved during site collection, as were one Late

Hellenistic-Early Roman and one securely dated Early Roman

sherd. There are also 17 fragments that are Early-Middle

Roman. Besides these, 22 sherds are Middle Roman, seven

are Late, two are Roman, and three are Hellenistic-Roman.

Most of the definite Roman pieces that can be more closely

dated are tile fragments (46 out of 49). Only one vessel

sherd can be closely dated; an Early-Middle table amphora

fragment. Another table amphora sherd and one from a

cooking jug are more generally Roman. The lack of vessels

means that the dating of the Roman component at S027 rests

solely on tiles and makes it difficult to speculate on the

material and otherwise complete lack of Roman material, it is likely

that this sherd is Hellenistic rather than Roman.

762
function of the site. It cannot be said conclusively that

there was continuity between Hellenistic and Roman use of

the site. The presence of definite Late Hellenistic and

Early Roman material leaves this possibility open even

though the quantity of sherds is so small. It is clear,

however, that there was a small Late, and possibly Middle,

Roman component to S027.

If there was a Roman component at S032, it was very

small. Only six sherds were found here, four of them Late

Roman, two Roman; five of these are tiles. Another Roman

piece was found in Z6 G1, and three others are from

contiguous tracts upslope to the east. These tracts are

almost adjacent to S031, which is on the same ridge just

across the border in Zone 4; a substantial Late Roman

component was found there. Such a small amount of material

from S032, on the other hand, is unlikely to represent

anything more than occasional use of the site in Roman

times, perhaps specifically in the Late Roman period.

S042 in Zone 6 is a partially excavated Roman villa.

Unlike the other sites in this zone, there is no documented

Hellenistic component to the site. The site is located

approximately 300 m southeast of S027, the only other Roman

site in the zone, at the edge of the Myzeqe plain on the

main Apollonia-Vlora road. The survey team did not find a

763
large quantity of material associated with it. Thirty-one

fragments of a water pipe were recovered nearby in Tract C-

277, however, and several other Roman fragments were found

in Tracts C-274 and C-291. The location of these finds on

the slopes above S042 attests to farming or even outlying

buildings associated with the villa.

In conclusion, there was almost no indigenous or Greek

activity in Zone 6 prior to the 4th century B.C. Single

Archaic-Classical sherds were found at S027, S034, S040,

and S056, but at S027, S040, and S056 there is no other

definite material that predates the Hellenistic period.

This makes it unlikely that these three sites experienced

anything other than sporadic use before the Late Classical-

Early Hellenistic period.

The largest number of 4th century B.C. or earlier

finds came from S032. Almost all of the pieces are from

transport amphoras, many of which are Corinthian or

Corinthian imitations. The lack of other finds of this

date, however, suggests that this site was only used on a

temporary basis until the beginning of the 3rd century B.C.

Permanent occupation at all the sites in Zone 6

(except S042) began in the Hellenistic period, probably the

3rd century B.C. Excavation has shown that this was

certainly the case at S034. S034, S040, S056 definitely

764
went out of use by the end of the 1st century B.C., and

S032 probably did, too. S027 might have continued from

Hellenistic into Roman times, but on a much reduced scale.

The villa at S042 was constructed at some point during this

period and is the only new Roman site in the zone.

Zone 7

Zone 7 encompasses a portion of the Gjanica river

valley. It is ca. 3.54 sq km in area, the fifth-largest

catchment in the survey region. The western boundary

extends from the head of the valley in the north to the

small hamlet of Kraps (Behardj) in the south; the eastern

end of the zone is defined by the ridge separating the

Gjanica watershed from the plain of Patos and the modern

village of Portez. Four sites are located in Zone 7: S037,

S038, S039, and S053 (Fig. 8.7). S037 and S039 are near

the valley bottom on opposite ends of the zone; S039 has a

large Paleolithic component and the historic finds were a

by-product of intensive site collection. S053 is located

on terraces in a field near the floor of the Gjanica

valley, just east of the modern village of Pluk. S038, in

contrast, is located on top of the ridge west of the modern

village of Portez. The site commands an excellent view of

both the Gjanica river valley to the west and the plain of

765
Patos to the east; the acropolis of Margelliç is visible to

the southeast.

In addition to these four sites, two groups of tracts

will be treated as units. The first is Z7 G1, which

consists of 11 tracts located south of S038 along the same

ridge spine.1528 The uppermost tracts are on two peaks: H-

275 and H-274 are on the north hilltop, J-767 on the south.

Both summits have been heavily eroded and much of the

material found in the lower tracts has likely ended up

there as a result of geological processes. The second

group is Z7 G2, which is comprised of several tracts on

terraces west of S038 and north of S053, above the modern

village of Pluk.1529 In Zone 7, 1,628 pre-Medieval sherds

were collected; 263 of these are from the excavation at

S038.

The largest quantity of indigenous pottery in the

survey area came from Zone 7. Although much of this is

associated with S038, either from tract walking, site

collection, or excavation, a great deal of it is also from

tracts not associated with this site. In addition to

random sherds in several localities, it is likely that the

1528
The tracts in Z7 G1 are H-273, H-274, H-275, H-276, H-291, H-292, H-
294, J-766, J-767, J-768, and J-770.
1529
The tracts in Z7 G2 are H-115, H-116, H-119, H-120, H-122, and H-
125.

766
survey has identified another previously unknown Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age site at Z7 G1.

A total of 674 pre-Greek sherds were collected from

S038 in the course of tract walking, revisitation, site

collection, and excavation; 241 of these are from

excavation. The earliest piece, a fragment of a burnished

Middle Neolithic vessel, was recovered during the

excavation; three Neolithic lithics were also found here

during the survey. S038 is the only site in the MRAP

survey area with securely dated Middle Bronze Age finds; 18

sherds of this date were found at the site. Two of the

pieces were picked up during track walking, one during site

collection, and 15 during excavation. The only

recognizable Middle Bronze Age shapes are bowls and jars.

Fourteen of the pieces are burnished. An additional 173

sherds from S038 could be Middle Bronze Age; 71 are Middle-

Late Bronze Age, and 102 are Middle Bronze-Early Iron

Age.1530 In addition to bowls and jars, there is one

kantharos fragment. Eighteen of the possible Middle Bronze

pieces have a burnished surface, and one is slipped.

Late Bronze Age material is quite plentiful in Zone 7.

Two hundred and six pieces were found, 175 of which were

1530
Fifty-four of the Middle-Late Bronze Age sherds are from tract and
site collection, 17 are from excavation. Sixty-nine of the Middle
Bronze-Early Iron Age sherds are from site collection and 33 are from
excavation.

767
collected at S038: 71 from tract walking, nine from

revisitation, 56 from site collection, and 39 from

excavation. Four other Late Bronze Age sherds are from

adjacent tracts. The only recognizable shapes are bowls,

kantharoi, mugs, and one burnished jar. The majority is

plain; only eight pieces are burnished. An additional 302

pieces from S038 are Late Bronze-Early Iron Age; two are

from tracts, 163 from site collection, one from

revisitation, and 136 from excavation.

Thirty-one Late Bronze Age sherds were collected off-

site. A group of 14 came from Z7 G1; they were found in

three contiguous tracts near the northern summit. Nearby

tracts contained two additional pieces. All of these

fragments are from plain unidentifiable vessels. Other

possible Late Bronze Age material from Z7 G1 includes one

Bronze Age, three Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, and three

Late Bronze-Iron Age sherds. Another Late Bronze-Iron Age

sherd was found in an adjacent tract to the south. It is

likely that this cluster of 25 sherds from Z7 G1 represents

a second Late Bronze-Early Iron Age site in Zone 7.

The rest of the securely dated Late Bronze Age sherds

were found in small groups or singly. Six fragments, all

from plain bowls, came from two tracts on a ridge west of

S038. Three other sherds were found further west on a

768
knoll near the valley bottom. Another Late Bronze Age

piece was found on a terrace south of S037; three Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age and one Late Bronze-Iron Age piece

were found in contiguous tracts. The only other definite

Late Bronze Age sherd came from an isolated tract in the

southwest portion of the zone, just above S039.

A few other fragments from Zone 7 could be Late Bronze

Age. A Late Bronze-Early Iron Age and a Early Iron Age

fragment were found in association with S037, and another

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age and a Prehistoric piece came

from contiguous tracts a short distance to the east. These

finds are at a low elevation near the bottom of the Gjanica

valley, an unusual location for indigenous material.

The number of certain Iron Age vessels from Zone 7 is

much lower than Bronze Age; there are only nine. Five of

these are from S038; four are specifically Early Iron Age

and one is Iron Age. None of the Iron Age pieces from S038

are from excavated contexts, and all but one are from site

collection. As noted above, 102 vessels from the site

range from Middle Bronze-Early Iron Age, and 302 are Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age. These data suggest that S038 was

abandoned at the end of the Early Iron Age.

Two sherds from Z7 G1 are securely dated to the Iron

Age, in addition to the six possible pieces. There is also

769
an Early Iron Age piece from S037, and another from an

isolated tract in the center of the zone. Although it is

likely that habitation in this area continued beyond the

Early Iron Age, survey data suggests it was on a reduced

scale.

In contrast to indigenous material, very little early

Greek material was found in Zone 7. There are only three

definite Archaic pieces: two pithos fragments and a

transport amphora. All three are from tracts at high

elevations in the southeastern part of the zone. One

Archaic pithos fragment is from Z7 G1. Two other sherds

from this tract are Late Bronze-Iron Age and one is Iron

Age. A definite Iron Age sherd and two Late Bronze-Iron

Age pieces were found on the summit directly above this,

while another Iron Age fragment came from the contiguous

tract to the south. The other Archaic pithos fragment was

found approximately 200 m south of here. The third

possible Archaic fragment, from a 5th century B.C.

Corinthian Type A transport amphora, was collected about

500 m farther south and was found in a tract with no other

material in the vicinity; it should be associated with

activities at Z7 G1.1531 Evidence suggests that these

Archaic vessels, found in association with this quantity of

possible and definite Iron Age material, were used by

1531
AS37.

770
Illyrians, rather than Greeks, at an indigenous site that

began in the Late Bronze Age and continued into the Iron

Age.

There are only 10 other pieces from Zone 7 that are

definitely pre-Hellenistic; seven are Classical and three

are Archaic-Classical. Two transport amphoras, one

Archaic-Classical, the other Classical, were found in

adjacent tracts below S038. Five Classical tile fragments

came from a tract just south of Z7 G1; all are from the

same tract and could be from the same tile. Two Archaic-

Classical transport amphora fragments were found adjacent

to S053, as was a Classical piece; all are Corinthian Type

A or in imitation of it.

Sixteen additional pieces from Zone 7 are definitely

no later than the end of the 4th century B.C., and 45

pieces might be. The largest group of sherds that predates

the Middle Hellenistic period is from Z7 G1 and adjacent

tracts that are in close proximity to the two Archaic

pithoi and the five Classical tiles. Four pieces are from

Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphoras; one of

these is Corinthian Type A, the three others, imitations.1532

An Archaic-Hellenistic and a Classical-Hellenistic fragment

were also found here. It is likely that this material,

especially if it is earlier rather than later, should be

1532
The Corinthian Type A is AS31.

771
associated with the Illyrian site rather than any potential

Greek habitation in the area.

Very little possible pre-Hellenistic material was

found at S037 or S039. Two Classical-Hellenistic sherds,

both transport amphoras, were found at S037. Three Late

Classical-Hellenistic transport amphoras and two Classical-

Hellenistic pieces, one from a black glaze tile, the other

a cooking vessel, were picked up at S039. It is unlikely

that either of these sites was used prior to the

Hellenistic period.

Three Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora,

all imitation Corinthian Type A, and a Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic black glaze salt cellar were collected from

S038 and an adjacent tract. Another black glaze sherd,

this from a cup, was found in an adjacent tract. Also from

the site are two Classical-Hellenistic transport amphoras

and two black glaze skyphos pieces, as well as an Archaic-

Hellenistic sherd from a plain closed vessel. An Archaic-

Early Hellenistic sherd was found downslope from S038 in

the tract with the Archaic-Classical piece. Six Classical-

Hellenistic sherds, five of which are transport amphoras,

came from contiguous tracts a bit further west. These

definite and possible Archaic-Early Hellenistic pieces

might indicate limited reuse of S038 and the surrounding

772
area by the 4th century B.C. following a period of

abandonment at the end of the Early Iron Age.

In addition to the two Archaic-Classical transport

amphoras from near S053, two Classical-Hellenistic sherds

were found in adjacent tracts. It is impossible to say

conclusively, based on such a small amount of evidence,

whether S053 was used before the Middle Hellenistic period.

There is some possible 4th century B.C. material from

Z7 G2. One Archaic-Hellenistic and six Classical-

Hellenistic transport amphoras were found, as was a

Classical-Hellenistic pithos fragment. A black glaze

krater fragment was also collected here.

The rest of the definite or possible pre-3rd century

B.C. sherds came primarily from the southern part of Zone

7; most are transport amphoras fragments. Almost all of

the sherds were found in association with material of

Hellenistic date. Three Archaic-Early Hellenistic

Corinthian Type A fragments are from tracts along the

southern border of the zone.1533

Subsequent to the Late Bronze-Iron Age, increased

exploitation of Zone 7 did not begin until the Hellenistic

period. The quantity of material from this zone, however,

is low compared to zones in the vicinity of Apollonia.

Unlike other zones, many of the sherds were collected

1533
AS35, AS36, and AS38.

773
during tract walking and are not associated with sites, but

in no way could there be said to be a continuous blanket of

Hellenistic sherds throughout the zone. Black glaze sherds

account for only 4% of off-site finds. Eleven percent are

from cooking vessels, and 13% from transport amphoras. The

rest are from plain closed unidentifiable shapes.

The Hellenistic component at S037 is well-bounded;

there is no halo of bricks/tiles or other finds around the

site. Most of the sherds from the site are bricks/tiles

(85%). No vessel fragments were found during tract

walking; they are all from site collection. The same

number of sherds are from transport amphoras as from plain

closed unidentifiable shapes. Only six cooking ware

fragments were found and one piece of black glaze. An

unusual Hellenistic amphora stopper also came from the

site. S037 was a small, single-family Hellenistic

farmstead. One Late Hellenistic cooking ware fragment

found during site collection might suggest that the site

continued into the 1st century B.C.

There is a small Hellenistic component to S038.

Unlike most of the other Hellenistic assemblages in the

survey area, very few tiles were found (only 5%), all of

which are from site collection; none were found during

excavation. The assemblage consists primarily of plain

774
closed vessels. There are no transport amphoras or pithoi,

and only one fragment of cooking ware. Three black glaze

pieces were collected; two are from drinking vessels, the

other from a closed unidentifiable shape. No halo of

material surrounds the site or extends downslope from the

ridge top. Most Hellenistic material from S038 should

probably be associated with a large concentration of

material downslope from the Bronze Age site that was not

intensively collected. Perhaps, however, S038 was used on

a temporary basis in the Hellenistic period as a field

house or lookout post. Although the views from the site

are excellent, the peak is very windswept and barren. It

is likely that, then as well as now, there was no soil

cover and the land was unsuitable for agricultural

exploitation.

The Hellenistic component at S039 was small and

localized. All except one sherd from the assemblage were

found during site collection, and field counts were very

low. All the vessel fragments and 77% of the bricks/tiles

were restricted to four grid squares at site center. The

assemblage consists almost exclusively of bricks/tiles

(93%). The pot fragments are all extremely worn and,

except for three cooking ware fragments and two pieces from

black glaze bowls, are all from unidentifiable closed

775
shapes. No storage vessels were found. The lack of

ceramics suggest that S039 was used as a field house in the

Hellenistic period, perhaps on a seasonal basis, rather

than permanently occupied.

The concentration of Hellenistic material at S053 is

very localized and does not appear to have washed down from

the hilltop since no finds were recorded in the tracts

above. Because the site was not intensively collected, the

assemblage is small. Three transport amphoras were

collected during tract walking; two are Archaic-Late

Classical (more likely Late Classical), the other is

Hellenistic. The only other vessel fragment is from a

plain closed unidentifiable shape, but a conical

loomweight, probably Hellenistic in date, was also found

here. The farmer who currently owns this site informed the

field team that several years before, he uncovered a

circular brick structure which he believed to be a kiln; he

dismantled it and reused the bricks to build his house.

Twenty-three percent of the off-site Hellenistic finds

from Zone 7 came from Z7 G2, and there was probably a small

Hellenistic farmstead here, near the valley bottom. The

assemblage is similar to those found at other small sites

that may be presumed to represent single-family houses and

consists mostly of plain closed vessels and tiles. There

776
are a few cooking ware and transport amphoras sherds.

Three black glaze pieces were also found.

There is another concentration of Hellenistic finds

from three tracts east of Z7 G2, downslope from S038.

Seven tracts south of S053 have Hellenistic material,

including two conical loomweights and a spindle whorl, but

from south of here to Z7 G1 and S039, the landscape was

almost entirely devoid of finds.

All of the sites in Zone 7 were abandoned after the

Hellenistic period. Roman material was not found at any of

them. Indeed, only 10 Roman sherds were collected from the

entire zone. Unlike the Hellenistic sherds, these pieces

were all found in the central third of the zone between

S053 and S039. All of the tracts with Roman finds are near

the valley bottom or on the lower portion of slopes. All

but three of the 10 fragments are specifically Late Roman;

the others are more broadly dated as Roman. Most of the

tracts with Roman finds have very little, if any, other

material; that which is present is post-Medieval in all

cases except one, where there are also eight Hellenistic

sherds.1534 This lack of Roman material suggests that Zone 7

was almost totally abandoned after the Hellenistic period

and, because of its remote location, was considered

1534
The tract with Hellenistic material is H-203, the northernmost
tract, which is closest to the Hellenistic site, S053.

777
marginal throughout most of the Roman period; there was

very limited use of the area in Late Roman times.

In conclusion, Zone 7 was most heavily utilized during

the Late Bronze-Iron Age by indigenous peoples. MRAP

discovered two new sites on the summits of the ridge that

were permanently occupied during this period: S038 and Z7

G1. Excavation results indicate that S038 was also

occupied in the Middle Bronze Age, and both sites continued

to be used into the Iron Age. S038 appears to have been

abandoned at the end of the Early Iron Age, but use of Z7

G1 continued later into the Iron Age. Archaic material

found here was clearly brought to the site for indigenous

use.

Aside from these Archaic pieces, there are very few

pre-Hellenistic finds from Zone 7. There appears to have

been sporadic visitation to the area in the 4th century

B.C., but no permanent occupation. It is unlikely that

permanent residences were established anywhere in the zone

before the Middle Hellenistic period, and even then the

area appears to be sparsely inhabited; large portions of

the landscape remained empty. The lack of settlement

before the 3rd century B.C. is probably to be explained by

the fact that this area remained within the Illyrian sphere

of influence and continued to be exploited by indigenous

778
people. The whole zone appears to have been abandoned by

the end of the Hellenistic period and remained unpopulated

throughout Roman times.

Zone 8

Zone 8, which consists of the western half of the

Peshtan valley, occupies ca. 2 sq km in area. It is

separated from the eastern half of the valley, Zone 9, by

the Kolinorit ravine, which runs from north to south. Zone

8 is bounded on the west by a steep ridge; the modern

village of Peshtan is located on this ridge in the north

part of the zone. There are no sites in Zone 8, and very

little pre-Medieval material was found (Fig. 8.8).

Only 28 pre-Medieval sherds were found in the entire

zone. None of these are indigenous, and the only possible

prehistoric find is a possible Neolithic lithic. There are

also no definite Archaic or Classical finds. The earliest

possible sherds from Zone 8 are three Archaic-Early

Hellenistic transport amphoras from widely dispersed tracts

in the central part of the zone. One of these is a

Corinthian Type A and another might be Corinthian.1535 A

Classical-Early Hellenistic sherd from an imitation

Corinthian Type A was found in a tract adjacent to one of

the above. The only other possible 4th century B.C. finds
1535
The Type A is AS13.

779
are two Late Classical-Hellenistic pieces, one from another

transport amphora, the other from a black glaze krater.

All six sherds appear to be random finds; two are from

tracts with a single Hellenistic sherd, one is the only

pre-Medieval find in the tract, and the other three were

the only finds in their tracts.

Only 20 Hellenistic sherds were collected from Zone 8.

These, too, were dispersed throughout the area, singly or

in small groups; there is no recognizable pattern to their

distribution. The largest group consists of four sherds

that came from two tracts: a transport amphora, a hydria,

and two closed plain pieces. The transport amphora is the

only securely dated Hellenistic example from the zone.

Four tile fragments came from one tract; they could all be

from the same tile. The rest of the Hellenistic assemblage

consists of unidentified closed shapes or water vessels

such as hydriai and amphoras. No black glaze sherds were

found. It appears that Zone 8 was not occupied or perhaps

even temporarily exploited during the Hellenistic period.

Similarly, almost no Roman material was found in Zone

8: there are only two sherds that can be no more closely

dated than Roman. One of these was the only find in its

780
tract; the other came from a tract with nine Post-Medieval

sherds.1536 Zone 8 was not used during the Roman period.

In conclusion, there was no permanent occupation in

Zone 8 during pre-Medieval times, and it is questionable

whether or not any resources in this area were exploited.

Zone 8 appears to have been a marginal territory throughout

antiquity because of its distance from both Apollonia and

Margelliç, the two dominant regional centers in the survey

area. Such evidence suggests that here, along with Zone 9,

was the border between Greek territory to the west and

indigenous territory to the east.

Zone 9

Zone 9 is the east part of the Peshtan valley,

separated from it by the Kolinorit ravine. It is bounded

on the east by a steep ridge, and the Gjanica river valley

begins a bit farther east, with Zone 7 on the far side.

The catchment is ca. 2.64 sq km in area, the seventh

largest in the survey area. Only two sites were identified

in Zone 9: S035 and S036 (Fig. 8.8). S035 is on a small

knoll in the Peshtan valley; the finds are almost entirely

Early Modern-Modern. S036 is in a field on a broad ridge

just above the valley bottom in the west-central part of

1536
F-264 and F-172 respectively.

781
the zone, just across the border with Zone 8; the site is

primarily Paleolithic in date.

Forty-one pre-Medieval sherds were collected in Zone

9; a quarter of these are from storage vessels. There are

no indigenous ceramics in the assemblage, but four definite

and three possible Neolithic stone tools were found. Four

of these are from S036, the other three are scattered

throughout the zone.

Only four sherds from Zone 9 predate the beginning of

the 3rd century B.C. An Archaic transport amphora fragment

was found during site collection at S035; this is the only

Archaic piece from the area. The only other definite pre-

Hellenistic find is an Archaic-Classical pithos sherd from

a tract ca. 500 m south of S035. Two transport amphora

fragments are likely 4th century B.C.; one is Classical-

Early Hellenistic, the other Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic. These sherds were found in the same tract at

the northern edge of the zone.

Five pieces might be earlier than Middle Hellenistic.

A Classical-Hellenistic chytra fragment was found at S035;

this and the Archaic piece are the only two pre-Medieval

finds from the site. Another Classical-Hellenistic piece,

this from a plain closed unidentifiable vessel, came from a

hilltop in the southern end of Zone 9; no other finds were

782
reported from this area. Three Late Classical-Hellenistic

transport amphoras were also collected – two from the same

tract as the Archaic-Classical pithos.

Thirty Hellenistic sherds were found in Zone 9; these

are dispersed throughout the catchment, except for on the

slopes above the ravine. Of these, 14 are tiles. Most of

the fragments are from plain closed unidentifiable shapes;

those that could be recognized are water vessels, such as

amphoras and hydriai. There are also three Hellenistic

transport amphoras from Zone 9, but no black glaze or

cooking ware sherds, suggesting that there was no permanent

habitation here during the Hellenistic period.

The largest cluster of Hellenistic sherds consists of

nine fragments from three non-contiguous tracts on terraces

in the east-central part of Zone 9. The assemblage

includes fragments of two transport amphoras (one is

Hellenistic-Roman), an amphoriskos, and a hydria; the rest

are from tiles. The area was revisited and, upon

inspection, the material was found to be eroding down the

side of a steep slope, the summit of which was outside the

MRAP survey zone.

Only one definite Roman sherd was found in Zone 9;

this was from a plain amphora. This piece is the only

sherd from its tract. There is also the Hellenistic-Roman

783
transport amphora mentioned above, but, because the other

sherds found with it are Hellenistic, there is no reason to

assign it a Roman date. It thus appears that Zone 9 may

have been completely abandoned during the Roman period.

In conclusion, the nature of the finds from Zone 9 is

similar to that from Zone 8. The catchment does not appear

to have been permanently occupied at all between the Bronze

Age and the end of the Roman period. The earliest ceramics

are principally storage vessels; four of the 10 definitely

predate the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. and three

others could. The quantity of storage vessels might

indicate that some short-lived, small-scale, seasonal

agricultural activities were taking place in parts of the

zone at that time. As noted above, Zone 9, like Zone 8,

appears to have been a marginal territory throughout

antiquity because of its distance from both Apollonia and

Margelliç. Such evidence suggests that here, along with

Zone 8, was the border between Greek territory to the west

and indigenous territory to the east.

Zone 10

Zone 10 covers the area of the acropolis and modern

village of Margelliç and the basin that extends west to the

modern village of Rërëzi. The southern border of the zone

784
is the road that runs between these two villages. The

northern boundary is a steep ridge that divides Zone 10

from Zone 11; the necropolis (S060) of the ancient

settlement is located here. The acropolis of Margelliç,

S041, is located just inside the eastern border of Zone 10,

where the borders of Zones 10, 11, 12, and 13 converge. It

lies ca. 18 km east of Apollonia.1537 The site has been

heavily damaged by a telecommunications tower and modern

buildings. Zone 10 is ca. 1.35 sq km in size and is the

fourth smallest in the survey region. S041 is the only

site in the zone (Fig. 8.9). The total number of pre-

Medieval sherds from Zone 10 is 547; only 50 (9%) of these

are not Hellenistic.

Ten indigenous sherds were found in Zone 10, all from

site collection at S041: four are Late Bronze Age, two are

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, and three are Iron Age. One

sherd could be no more closely dated than Bronze Age. Jars

are the only recognizable shape. Ceka also found Late

Bronze and Iron Age material in his excavations at

Margelliç.1538 MRAP survey results show that S041 was

occupied continuously from the Late Bronze into the Iron

Age.

1537
One tract from S041, M-069, is located in Zone 13; it will be
included in the discussion of Zone 10. Three tracts, L-095, L-096, and
L-097 are in Zone 10, but associated with S060 in Zone 11. They will
be included in of Zone 11.
1538
Ceka 1977-1978, 1986, 1987a.

785
 Twelve pre-Hellenistic sherds were found in Zone 10;

10 of these are from S041. Five of the 12 are specifically

Archaic, and one is Early Archaic. Four pieces came from

tract walking at S041; these include a Corinthian Type A

transport amphora, a pithos, and two black glaze cup

fragments that are probably Ionian imports. The transport

amphora can be closely dated to the late 7th century B.C.1539

The only other Early Archaic finds from the survey, which

total six, came from the necropolis of Apollonia (S007) and

the lower town of Margelliç (S055). The fragment from

S041, an Illyrian hill-fort, shows that imported Greek

material was moving inland to indigenous sites as soon as,

or shortly after, the colonists arrived.

Four Classical and three Archaic-Classical sherds were

also collected at S041. The Archaic-Classical pieces are

unusual shapes; two are possibly from architectural

terracottas (?acroteria), the third, a storage bin. One of

the Classical pieces is from a banded hydria; three other

closed fragments were found in the same tract, and all four

could be pieces of the same vessel.

Another Archaic transport amphora was found in an

isolated tract in the western part of the zone. It was

found with a Classical tile, and, except for an Archaic-

Hellenistic transport amphora in an adjacent tract, these

1539
AS86.

786
are the only pre-Hellenistic finds in the area. The only

other off-site sherd that is no later than the 4th century

B.C. is a Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphora,

probably Corinthian Type A, from an isolated tract in the

west of the zone.1540 The first three sherds were found in

association with a small quantity of Hellenistic tile and

are perhaps from a small agricultural field house.

Twelve other pieces from Zone 10, ten of which are

from S041, are, or could be, earlier than the 3rd century

B.C. One is a Late Classical-Early Hellenistic imitation

Type B transport amphora, perhaps of local manufacture.1541

Three additional sherds from Margelliç are decorated with

black glaze; one is a Classical-Early Hellenistic salt

cellar. The shapes of the other two could not be

identified; one is open, the other, a definite import, is

closed. Both are specifically 4th century B.C. in date.

Six sherds from S041 are Classical/Late Classical-

Hellenistic. One is from a transport amphora, one from a

black glaze open shape, one from a storage bin, and three

from plain closed shapes. All of the definite pre-

Hellenistic finds are from four tracts right below the

1540
AS87.
1541
AS84.

787
acropolis; only one of the possible pre-Hellenistic pieces

came from a tract further south.1542

There is an abundance of Hellenistic material in

comparison to earlier and later periods. Four hundred

ninety-seven sherds are definitely Hellenistic. Of these,

258 were found spread across S041. Two can be closely

dated to Middle Hellenistic, and nine are Late Hellenistic;

eight of the 11 are from black glaze table vessels. All

types of domestic vessels are present in the Hellenistic

assemblage from S041: cooking wares, transport amphoras,

and plain closed and open shapes.1543 Almost a quarter (22%)

of the sherds are from black glaze vessels, many of which

are associated with wine: skyphoi, kantharoi, and kraters.

Cooking ware accounts for 13% of the assemblage, and

storage jars 6%. These proportions are a clear indication

that S041 was a settlement site, as opposed to a burial

site like S007, where the amount of cooking ware is very

low and transport amphoras reused for enchytrismoi very

high. The number of sherds from vessels and bricks/tiles

is roughly equal. A conical loomweight, probably

Hellenistic in date, and two millstones were found at the

site. The presence of nine pieces that are definitely Late

1542
Tracts to the west are disturbed by a modern house complex.
1543
One of the Hellenistic transport amphoras, AS85, is an imitation
Type B.

788
Hellenistic shows that the site continued to be occupied

into the 1st century B.C.

The number of off-site Hellenistic finds in Zone 10,

although higher than those of any other period, is very

small in comparison to zones in the vicinity of Apollonia.

Only 26 definite sherds and three possible were found in

the zone. These were found throughout the catchment, and

some were the only find from their tracts. Most of the

fragments are bricks/tiles. The largest cluster is that

discussed above, around M-188, which consists of 11 sherds

from three tracts. Most of the finds are tiles, but there

are also a pithos and a transport amphora. It is unlikely

that this group represents anything other than the contents

of a small field house. The diffused nature of the

Hellenistic material in Zone 10 is evidence that the area

west of Margelliç was not permanently inhabited in the

Hellenistic period; there are no small farmsteads of the

type found in the zones nearer to Apollonia.

There was a demographic decline in Zone 10 at the end

of the Hellenistic period; very little Roman material was

found. Of the 16 fragments that are or might be Roman, 12

came from S041. There is no definite Early Roman from the

site, however, and only one fragment is Middle-Late Roman.

On the other hand, nine sherds are specifically Late Roman.

789
One other piece could be no more closely dated than Roman.

This dearth of Early and Middle Roman finds indicates that

the acropolis of Margelliç was sparsely settled, if at all,

after the 1st century B.C. and remained unoccupied until

the Late Roman period, at which time a fortification wall

was built around the citadel.1544

Only three off-site Late Roman sherds were found in

Zone 10. In two instances these were the only pieces found

in the tract. In the other case, the Roman piece was found

next to a tract with a Hellenistic-Roman fragment; the rest

of the material from both these tracts is exclusively

Hellenistic. It thus appears that Zone 10, with the

exception of S041, was little used in the Roman period; the

area west of the acropolis appears to have been abandoned

after the 1st century B.C. and remained so throughout Roman

times.

In conclusion, there was little pre-Medieval activity

in Zone 10 except at Margelliç, where 94% of the finds from

the zone were collected. Indigenous people began to occupy

the acropolis by the Late Bronze Age and continued to do so

into historic times. The Archaic Greek material that

reached Zone 10 was brought to the Illyrian site for their

use; the presence of the Early Archaic transport amphora at

S041 is evidence for trade between the natives and the

1544
Ceka (1985, 1987a) revealed part of this wall in his excavations.

790
Greeks from the inception of the apoikia at Apollonia. As

already noted, the scarcity of fine wares suggests that the

Illyrians were interested in the contents of the transport

amphoras. The acropolis was heavily used during the

Hellenistic period, at least into the 1st century B.C.,

after which time it was largely abandoned. It was

reoccupied on a smaller scale at some time during the 4th

and 5th centuries A.D.

Only four of the 24 definite or possible Archaic-

Classical sherds were found off-site. The largest body of

evidence for activity west of the citadel is Hellenistic;

however, there are no single-family farmsteads of the type

so ubiquitous in the zones around Apollonia. It appears

that the whole area west of Margelliç was abandoned during

the Late Hellenistic period and remained so for some time.

Zone 11

Zone 11 includes the area north, northwest, and east

of the acropolis of Margelliç. The catchment is roughly

2.165 sq km in area and is the eighth largest in the survey

area. The village of Rusinja is just inside the eastern

border, and the Zharezes river, which flows into the Aliut

north of the zone, is just outside. Much of Zone 11

consists of steep, badly eroded slopes, especially in the

791
western half. Parts of the eastern half have been heavily

damaged by excavations related to modern oil extraction.

Six sites were identified in Zone 11: S044, S045,

S046, S054, S055, and S060 (Fig. 8.9). S044 is located ca.

600 m east of S041; it is on a ridge in the Rusinja valley

below the Margelliç-Ruzhdia road. S045 is part of the

lower town of Margelliç (S055) but was collected and will

be treated as a separate site. It is at the eastern foot

of the acropolis. S046 is on a low ridge east of S044.

There is a small pre-Medieval component to the site but it

is otherwise Paleolithic and Mesolithic in date.

The assemblage from S054 is associated with two

tracts, one from Zone 11, the other from 12; both tracts

will be discussed in Zone 11.1545 The main component of the

site was probably located at the crest of a small hill

outside the survey area, just across the Ruzhdia road.

S055 is not well-bounded and consists of a large group of

tracts that fan out to the north, east, and south of the

citadel.1546 Margelliç's necropolis has been designated

S060; it follows the ridge that defines the border between

Zones 10 and 11, and then turns north where it constitutes

1545
L-245 is in Zone 12, but is considered here, since it is part of
S055.
1546
L-082.

792
most of the western border of Zone 11. S060 is the only

site located in the west half of the zone.1547

Nine hundred ninety-one pre-Medieval sherds were

collected from Zone 11, all but 14 from the eastern half of

the zone or from S060. One hundred seventy-six pieces

(18%) are not Hellenistic. Apart from S007, which

encompasses the entire eastern necropolis of Apollonia,

S055 is the largest site in the survey area. Like S007,

the site was tract walked, but not intensively collected.

As noted, S045 is a site within S055 that was treated as a

discrete unit and collected separately.

Sixty-three pieces of indigenous pottery were found in

Zone 11: one Bronze Age, one Middle-Late Bronze Age, 11

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, two Early Iron Age, and 19 Iron

Age. Only two were found off-site; one, an Early Iron Age

jar fragment, came from a tract contiguous with S060, and

the other, a Late Bronze-Early Iron Age cooking ware

fragment, was found in a tract between S044 and S046. The

latter appears to be an isolated find, and, apart from it,

no non-Greek material was found in the western half of the

zone. The rest of the indigenous material is from S045 or

S055.

1547
L-095, L-096, and L-097 are in Zone 10, but are discussed here,
since they are part of S060.

793
 S055 has the largest number of non-Greek sherds

collected at any site in the MRAP survey area except for

S038. Forty-one pieces were found, which range in date

from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age; most of them are or

could be Late Bronze Age. Two pieces, however, might be

earlier than Late Bronze Age; one is a Middle-Late Bronze

Age sherd which is the only potential Middle Bronze Age

find not from S038.1548 The other could be no more closely

dated than Bronze Age. Ten sherds are specifically Late

Bronze Age and 27 are Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. Two

others are Iron Age. All were found in contiguous tracts

on the hills north of S041. Eleven pieces were collected

in one tract, L-034, which is just inside the northern

boundary of S055 (and Zone 11).1549 Six sherds are from

identifiable shapes; two are from kantharoi, three from

jars, and one from a pan. The rest are from plain unknown

shapes. Two pieces in the assemblage, both from closed

shapes, are burnished; there is only one piece of cooking

ware.

Twenty indigenous sherds were collected at S045. In

contrast to S055, most of these are Iron Age, one

specifically Early Iron Age. Only one is Late Bronze Age

and one is Late Bronze-Early Iron Age. Twelve fragments

1548
This is Tract L-031.
1549
One of these is the Middle-Late Bronze Age sherd, one is Late Bronze
Age, and nine are Late Bronze-Early Iron Age.

794
came from the same tract, L-081, which is immediately below

the acropolis, and some of the pieces might have eroded

downslope from the summit. The recognizable fragments are

from jars, and one is from an amphora. The rest are from

unidentified shapes, mostly closed. There is one piece of

cooking ware in the assemblage.

Fifteen Archaic sherds were found in Zone 11; one of

these is specifically Early Archaic, and one Late Archaic.

This is the largest quantity of Archaic material in any

zone except for Zone 2. Most of the pieces are from the

lower town or tracts contiguous with it. The earliest

piece is from S055; it is a Corinthian Type A transport

amphora of ca. 650-600 B.C.1550 Six other Archaic sherds are

from S055, including a fragment with large red inclusions

from a plain closed shape, two pithos sherds, a black glaze

tile, and two transport amphoras, one of which is Late

Archaic and might be of Corinthian Type B. The pithos and

the tile are from two contiguous tracts just below S045.

Three Archaic pieces were found at S045: a black glaze

kylix that is likely to be an Ionian import, a pithos, and

a Corinthian Type A transport amphora. Three Archaic

sherds also came from S054, all from the same tract. Two

are pithos fragments and might be from the same vessel.

The other is from a plain closed shape. An imported

1550
AS76.

795
Corinthian black-figured fragment from a closed shape was

found at S060. Only one piece, an imported Corinthian Type

A transport amphora, was found off-site; it was in a tract

below S041 and contiguous with S045.

Seventeen sherds from Zone 11 are Archaic or

Classical: nine are Archaic-Classical, two are Early

Classical, four are Classical, and two are Late Classical.

Nine other pieces are no later than the end of the 4th

century B.C. Only one fragment, an Early Classical

Corinthian Type A' transport amphora, was found off-site

(it was in a tract next to S054).

Three Archaic-Classical and three Classical sherds are

from S045. The Archaic-Classical pieces were found in the

same tract as one of the Archaic pieces; two are cooking

ware, the other is a transport amphora. Another cooking

ware fragment and an Attic black glaze plate are Classical,

and a black glaze echinus bowl is specifically Late

Classical. Three other sherds are definitely no later than

the 4th century B.C. and nine might be. The definite

pieces, two Archaic-Early Hellenistic, the other Classical-

Early Hellenistic, are from imitation Corinthian transport

amphoras. Eight of the possible pieces are Classical-

Hellenistic (one specifically Late Classical); three of

these are black glaze fragments, one is cooking ware, and

796
four are from plain closed pots; an Archaic-Hellenistic

piece is also from a plain vessel.

Two transport amphoras, one a Corinthian Type A, and a

pithos from S055 are Archaic-Classical.1551 Two definite

Classical pieces were also found; one is an imported Early

Classical Corinthian Type A transport amphora, the other, a

black glaze skyphos.1552 Two other sherds, from a black

glaze closed shape and an imitation Corinthian Type B

transport amphora, are probably 4th century B.C.

(Classical-Early Hellenistic).1553 Seven additional

fragments might be earlier than the 3rd century B.C.: one

is Archaic-Hellenistic, five are Classical-Hellenistic, and

one is Late Classical-Hellenistic; five are from transport

amphoras, three possibly Corinthian.1554

The only finds from S060 that are definitely pre-

Hellenistic, apart from the Archaic piece mentioned above,

are a sherd from an Archaic-Classical Corinthian Type A

transport amphora and one from a Late Classical black glaze

krater. Three other transport amphoras fragments might be;

one is Archaic-Hellenistic and two are Classical-

Hellenistic. Two pithos fragments from the same tract are

also Classical-Hellenistic. Because of modern disturbance

1551
AS77.
1552
AS80.
1553
AS78.
1554
One of these is AS79.

797
to the site, the small amount of Archaic-Classical material

from S060 is unlikely to reflect accurately the number of

pre-Hellenistic interments at the site. It is also

possible that the indigenous inhabitants of the area used a

different, as yet unidentified, burial ground prior to the

3rd century B.C.

Five transport amphora sherds were found at S044 that

are, or might be, earlier than the 3rd century B.C. Three

are definitely no later than the 4th century B.C.; one,

which is similar to a Corinthian Type B, but an Ionian

form, is Archaic-Classical. Another is Classical, and a

third is Archaic-Early Hellenistic. Two other transport

amphora fragments, one Archaic-Hellenistic, the other Late

Classical-Hellenistic, might be pre-Hellenistic. The

earliest securely dated sherds found at S046 are from two

Late Classical-Early Hellenistic transport amphoras.1555

Another transport amphora sherd is Archaic-Hellenistic.

The paucity of Archaic-Early Hellenistic finds from both

S044 and S046 indicates that neither of these sites existed

prior to the Hellenistic period.

Only six other definite or possible pre-Hellenistic

pieces were found off-site in Zone 11; all except one, an

Early Classical Corinthian Type A' transport amphora found

1555
One, a "mixed" example, is AS88.

798
below S060, are from the eastern half of the zone.1556 They

include an Archaic-Classical tile, a Late Classical-Early

Hellenistic black glaze lekythos, and two Archaic-

Hellenistic sherds. These data demonstrate that there was

very little activity, and no permanent occupation, in the

area of Zone 11 outside of the lower town, the acropolis,

and the necropolis before the Hellenistic period.

As with other zones, there is a dramatic increase in

the amount of Hellenistic material from Zone 11, and this

was clearly the period that the area was most intensively

occupied. Eight hundred fifteen Hellenistic sherds were

collected here; 484 are from vessels, 331 are bricks/tiles.

There is evidence for settlement expansion beyond S041,

S045, and S055 at this time. At least one new site is

established farther east, S044, and there is an increased

quantity of Hellenistic material both on- and off-site.

The Hellenistic material at S045 is very dense; 250

fragments date to this period. Of these, 12 sherds could

be more closely dated: one is an Early-Middle Hellenistic

Corinthian Type B amphora;1557 one is a Middle Hellenistic

moldmade plate; two are Middle-Late Hellenistic sherds, one

a medallion with a gorgon head from the base of a moldmade

1556
AS81.
1557
AS101.

799
bowl,1558 and the other from a black glaze kantharos; and

nine are Late Hellenistic, all but two of which are from

black glaze vessels. A quarter of the finds are from black

glaze household shapes, many from drinking vessels, several

of which are imported. Cooking ware is also well

represented in the assemblage, but the number of storage

vessels is low. Bricks/tiles only account for 38% of the

sherds. A fragment from a female figurine, probably of

Hellenistic date, was also found at the site. Although the

Hellenistic material from S045 is domestic in nature, the

assemblage is of higher quality than those found at the

farmsteads in the immediate hinterland of Apollonia. The

quantity of Late Hellenistic material documents that the

site continued to be occupied into the 1st century B.C.

The nature of the Hellenistic assemblage from S055 is

also domestic, but it is quite different from that at S045.

Material was found dispersed throughout the site, and most

of the sherds are from plain closed unidentifiable vessels

or from cooking pots. Very few pieces of black glaze or

storage vessels were found. The domestic nature of S055 is

reinforced by the presence of a Hellenistic loomweight and

two millstones of unknown date. A rounded, pierced sherd,

probably a pessos, also came from the site.1559 Four pieces

1558
Only three moldmade vessels were found by the survey.
1559
See Kurke 1999; Papadopoulos 2002.

800
from S055 are specifically of the 1st century B.C.,

suggesting that parts of the lower town remained in use in

the Late Hellenistic period.

S044 is almost entirely Hellenistic in date. Three

hundred forty-nine sherds (44% of the entire Hellenistic

assemblage from Zone 11) date to this period; over half are

bricks/tiles. Only one piece from the site could be

closely dated; it is from a Middle Hellenistic black glaze

cup. Two Hellenistic tiles with "Nine Men's Morris" boards

inscribed on their surfaces were found at the site; the

game boards need not be Hellenistic in date, but they could

be.1560 The assemblage is domestic in nature, with plain

closed vessels predominating. A quarter of the sherds,

however, are cooking ware, and 12% are from storage

vessels. There are nine fragments of black glaze, all from

drinking or other open vessels. Single or multiple

Hellenistic sherds are found in the surrounding tracts and

form a low-density halo around the site. The assemblage

from S044 is similar to those of many single-family

farmsteads in the vicinity of Apollonia, but it is more

likely that the site represented an expansion of the lower

town around Margelliç that took place in the Hellenistic

period.

1560
See Vroom 1999.

801
 The small amount of Hellenistic material collected

from S046 consists almost exclusively of bricks/tiles.

There are no black glaze sherds, nor is there any cooking

ware. Other Hellenistic sherds were dispersed in tracts

west of the site that are almost contiguous to S044. It is

possible that the finds from S044, S046, and the tracts in

between represent a single large community that expanded

over the entirety of the eastern part of Zone 11 in the

Hellenistic period.

S054, which lies on a hill to the southeast of S044,

might also be part of this demographic expansion in the

Hellenistic period. Although most of the site lies outside

the MRAP survey territory, the finds from the tracts that

were collected are primarily Hellenistic. The sherds

consist almost entirely of cooking ware and transport

amphoras, consistent with a domestic assemblage.

A third of the finds from S060 are black glaze. There

is variation in shapes in keeping with the funerary nature

of the site. The other pieces are from plain closed

vessels except for a few fragments of cooking ware and one

from a transport amphora that were found in contiguous

tracts at the northern edge of the site. The absence of

transport amphoras at S060 is to be expected since

802
enchytrismos was no longer practiced in the Hellenistic

period (see Chapter 9).

Sixty-two Hellenistic sherds were found off-site in

Zone 11; all but 12 are from the eastern half of the zone.

Most of them were found around and between S045 and S044.

There is also a concentration of material in Tracts M-058

and M-059, which are just outside the eastern border of

S055; this cluster includes nine fragments of black glaze

from eight different shapes, one of which is specifically

Middle Hellenistic in date, and another, Late Hellenistic.

Given the quantity and quality of the material, it is

possible either that there are graves in these tracts or

the assemblage derived from a small, wealthy Hellenistic

residence. The find spots of the off-site sherds in such

close proximity to heavier concentrations from sites

support the conclusion that the lower town underwent a

period of major expansion during the Hellenistic period.

There is more Roman material in Zone 11 than in most;

42 pieces were collected. All were found in the eastern

half of the zone at sites or in adjacent tracts. Sixty

percent of the finds are Late Roman, and 29% could be no

more closely dated than Roman.

S045 is the only site in Zone 11 that has evidence of

continuity from Late Hellenistic into Roman times. A black

803
glaze plate fragment is Late Hellenistic-Early Roman, and a

cooking bowl fragment is Early Roman. There are six

additional pieces that could be no more closely dated than

Roman. Almost all of the other Roman material from the

site, however, is Late Roman in date, except for one Middle

Roman cooking ware sherd; these data suggest that S045 was

used primarily (almost exclusively) in the Late Roman

period. Given the presence of Late Hellenistic material,

however, it is possible that S045 was used on a very

limited scale during the 1st century B.C. and perhaps into

the 1st century A.D. The site would then have been

abandoned until sometime in the Late Roman period, when it

was reused on a limited scale.

There was also a Late Roman component at S044. The

earliest Roman sherd from the site is from an Early-Middle

Roman Terra Sigillata plate. This is the only piece of

Terra Sigillata found outside Zones 1-4. There is no Late

Hellenistic material from S044 or any other Early Roman.

On the other hand, ten Late Roman sherds were found, and

three additional pieces are Roman. Three other sherds, one

Late Roman and two Roman, were found in tracts contiguous

to the site (this is the only Roman material collected off-

site in Zone 11) and should be associated with the Late

Roman activity at S044. The sherds are all from cooking

804
pots, plain closed shapes, or tiles, which is consistent

with a small household assemblage. Evidence indicates that

S044 was abandoned by the end of the Hellenistic period and

not reoccupied before the beginning of the 4th century A.D.

As in the case of S045, the Late Roman component at S044

was much reduced in scale.

Only eight pieces of Roman pottery were found at S055;

these are all Late Roman in date. Five of these were

collected in three contiguous tracts in the north-central

part of the site; two are tiles, one is a pithos fragment,

and two are amphora/amphoriskos sherds. The other three

are from tracts contiguous to the boundaries of S045. All

the fragments are in keeping with a domestic assemblage.

The lack of Early and Middle Roman finds indicates that

S055 was abandoned at some time during the 1st century B.C.

and not reoccupied until Late Roman times. The localized

nature of the finds suggests that only two very small parts

of the site were reused: one area in the north, and the

area around S045.

Two pieces of Roman pottery were collected from S054;

one is Middle Roman, the other Roman. Since the rest of

the finds are principally Hellenistic, there is no reason

805
to assume site continuity, or anything other than sporadic

use in the Roman period.1561

In conclusion, the settlement pattern in Zone 11 is

different from that in other zones. The finds of all

periods are very localized and restricted to a small area;

the entire western half of the zone appears to have been

underutilized throughout pre-Medieval times. A large

quantity of indigenous material was found in a limited

area. During the Late Bronze Age, a rather dispersed

community existed in the lower town of Margelliç, but in

the Iron Age, this community contracted to an area nearer

Mali i Kalasë, the citadel of Margelliç.

The quantity of Early Greek finds from Zone 11 is

paralleled only in the necropolis of Apollonia. Except for

a few sherds from S045, most were found close to the

citadel. The quantity of 4th century B.C. finds from Zone

11 does not increase as much as it does in Zones 1-6.

Hellenistic sherds are the most plentiful, as is the

pattern throughout the survey area. Infilling of

previously under-exploited areas is evident in the eastern

part of the zone in the Hellenistic period, but appears to

be the result of an expansion of the lower town of

Margelliç rather than the establishment of dispersed

1561
Collection of the parts of S054 located outside of MRAP territory,
however, is necessary before anything conclusive can be said about the
site.

806
single-family farmsteads of the type found in Zones 1-6.

The whole area, with the possible exception of a small part

of S045, then appears to have undergone a serious

demographic decline before the beginning of the Roman

period; Zone 11 remained depopulated until at least the

beginning of the 4th century A.D. The limited reoccupation

of the area was probably contemporary with the construction

of the Late Antique fortification wall at S041 (See Chapter

7).

Zone 12

Zone 12 is the smallest catchment investigated by the

MRAP survey, less than 1 sq km in area. It is separated

from Zone 13 by a steep, maquis-covered ridge. The

landscape in the south part of the zone has been heavily

damaged by oil drilling. The catchment appears to be

devoid of sites, although one tract from S054 and one from

S055 are situated on its border with Zone 11 (Fig. 8.9).

Only 27 pre-Medieval sherds were collected from Zone 12,

all, except three, are Hellenistic.

One Late Bronze Age fragment was found in the

northwest corner of Zone 12 in a tract contiguous to S041.

An Archaic-Classical ridge tile and a Classical pithos

fragment are the only other pre-Hellenistic finds. The

807
tile was found in a tract adjacent to S054. The pithos

fragment came from the southwest corner of the zone.

Although the Hellenistic period is the best

represented in Zone 12, finds of this date are also sparse;

a mere 24 sherds were found in the entire zone. Most of

the material came from tracts immediately south of S054. A

Hellenistic conical loomweight was also found in this area.

The other Hellenistic sherds from Zone 12 were spread

throughout the catchment with no discernible pattern to

their distribution. Nothing of Roman date was found.

Although in close proximity to the settlement at

Margelliç, Zone 12 appears to have been unoccupied and

unexploited throughout pre-Medieval times.

Zone 13

Zone 13 is only slightly larger than Zone 12,

separated from it by a steep ridge. No sites were

identified by MRAP in this catchment, although one cluster

of sherds on several terraces in the southwest will be

discussed as group Z13 G1 (Fig. 8.9).1562 Fifty-nine pre-

Medieval sherds were collected from Zone 13.

No non-Greek or securely dated Archaic sherds were

found in Zone 13. The earliest finds, and the only

definite pre-Hellenistic sherds, came from Z13 G1 and a

1562
Tracts M-295, M-296, M-298, M-305, M-306.

808
contiguous tract. None of these five sherds is later than

the 4th century B.C. Three are, or might be, Corinthian;

two are from Late Archaic-Early Classical transport

amphoras, one a Corinthian Type A, the other an A'; and the

third is a coarse Archaic-Classical body sherd.1563 There is

also a Classical black glaze fragment from an unidentified

open shape and a possible Corinthian transport amphora of

Classical-Early Hellenistic date. Another piece, a

fragment of a Classical-Hellenistic black glaze plate found

near the border with Zone 12, could also be of 4th century

B.C. date.

Activity in Zone 13 reached its apex in the

Hellenistic period; 44 Hellenistic sherds were found

scattered throughout the catchment, a quarter of them

brick/tile fragments. The largest group of material is

from Z13 G1, 38% of the Hellenistic finds from the zone.

The assemblage includes cooking, plain, and banded

fragments, mostly from closed vessels. It is a very small

assemblage, but probably, nevertheless, represents the

remains of a small, short-lived field house. The rest of

the Hellenistic sherds from Zone 13, primarily from plain

closed vessels or storage jars, show no pattern in their

distribution.

1563
AS89 and AS90.

809
 Ten Roman sherds were collected in Zone 13. Two of

these, both Middle Roman in date, were found at Z13 G1.

Four Late Roman pieces came from Tract M-277, which

produced the highest field counts in the zone. Two other

Roman sherds were found in contiguous tracts. These tracts

are located on terraces along the edge of a hill next to

Z13 G1 and are bounded by a modern road – perhaps the

location of a Late Antique grave.

There was slightly more activity in Zone 13 than in

Zone 12 in pre-Medieval times, and it began at an earlier

date. Z13 G1 appears to have been occupied already in the

5th century B.C., or perhaps a bit before, and was used in

the Hellenistic period, although there are too few sherds

to be certain that there was continuity. Only two Roman

sherds were found, suggesting that Z13 G1 was hardly

visited after the Hellenistic period.

This concludes the detailed analysis by zone of the

survey data from MRAP. Chapter 9 provides a brief

synthesis by period of the settlement patterns that these

data elucidate.

810
811
 Chapter 9.

Settlement and Land Use Patterns:

A Diachronic Review

Townscapes and their populations

were (and are) of course closely bound
up with their hinterlands, territories,
road links, landscapes and fields,
woods, rivers and other natural
resources....Effectively, towns were
required to function in unison with the
countryside.1564

The indigenous peoples could be

assimilated entirely into the state;
they could be excluded from citizenship
but allowed to remain within the
state's territory on terms of peaceful
intercourse; they could be allowed to
remain as dependent serfs; or they
could be expelled altogether.1565

Introduction

As we have seen above, prior to MRAP, archaeological

investigations in Albania were confined to the

documentation and excavation of monuments, large settlement

sites, hill-forts, and burials.1566 Such targeted research

agendas provided detailed information about specific sites

and time periods, but were spatially and chronologically

restricted. This chapter provides a synthesis of the

1564
Christie 2004, p. 2.
1565
Snodgrass 1980, p. 91.
1566
As noted in Chapter 3, Hoxha (1985) used archaeology as part of his
nationalist program and emphasized the need to investigate Illyrian
monuments that demonstrated the ethnogenesis of the Albanian people.

812
various data about Apollonia and its hinterland that were

presented in Chapter 7 and summarized in Chapter 8, in

light of the discussion about the foundation of the apoikia

offered in Chapter 5. The examination of diachronic

regional surface artifact distribution patterns recorded by

MRAP allows more complete and global conclusions to be

drawn about changes in land use and rural settlement at

both small and large sites in the Mallakastra region (Fig.

9.1).

Certain zones in the MRAP survey territory constitute

natural geographical and topographical units and should be

discussed together: Zones 1-2, 3-6, 8-9, and 10-13 (see

Fig. 7.12). Zone 7 is unique. Settlement and land use

patterns within these groups are similar, any variation

being largely a reflection of location, most specifically

proximity to the "centers" at Apollonia and Margelliç.1567

The asty of the Greek colony was situated in parts of Zones

1 and 2, and consisted of the acropolis ridge (S008), some

of the coastal plain to the west, as far as the sanctuary

at S043, and the entire necropolis to the east (S007),

including everything as far south as the sanctuary at

Shtyllas (S061).1568 Zones 3-6 constituted the immediate

1567
Cf. Champion 1989; Rowlands, Larsen, and Kristiansen 1987 for
discussions about "center" and "periphery" interactions.
1568
In this chapter, "Apollonia" is here more specifically used to mean
the acropolis (S008) and the necropolis (S007).

813
hinterland of Apollonia. This area was controlled and in

its entirety was heavily exploited by the colony by the 4th

century B.C.

Zones 8 and 9, immediately west of the Gjanica river,

appear to have been a "no man's land" throughout antiquity;

very little material of any date was found in this area.

The distribution of artifacts in Zone 7 on the opposite

bank of the river is, however, different from all other

zones; the settlement pattern corresponds most closely to

that in the area around Margelliç. Zones 10-13 form a

separate unit, representing the community and the

hinterland of Margelliç. The settlement consists of the

acropolis (S041), the area on the slopes immediately below

the citadel (S045), the lower town (S055), and the

necropolis (S060). The remainder of Zones 10-13 form the

"hinterland" of Margelliç, and will normally be discussed

as a single unit.

The Neolithic Settlement and Land Use Patterns

Neolithic artifacts were almost entirely absent from

the study area. Only three definite sherds and one

possible of Neolithic date were found (see Table 1.1 for

dates).1569 One of these, Middle Neolithic in date, came

1569
Two are Middle Neolithic, one is Middle-Final Neolithic, and one is
Neolithic-Bronze Age.

814
from an excavated context at S038. Two others were located

in close proximity to each other, one in the northeastern

corner of Zone 6, the other in the southwestern corner of

Zone 3. A third fragment, Neolithic or Bronze Age in date,

was also found along the southern border of Zone 3. These

three sherds may derive from an as yet undetected Neolithic

"site."

The paucity of Neolithic sherds is surprising given

the large quantity of Paleolithic and Mesolithic stone

tools recovered in the same area: there was much activity

around Apollonia and farther inland prior to the Neolithic

period.1570 The scarcity is also odd given the proximity of

a large Middle Neolithic site at Cakran.1571 Ceramics of the

sort recovered at Cakran would be easily recognized on the

surface because of their decoration and/or highly burnished

surfaces, so it is unlikely that, if they existed in the

study area, field walkers overlooked them.

There are more Neolithic stone artifacts than sherds.

Of 27 pieces that are or might be Neolithic, there are 25

flint tools of various types, an axe made of green stone,

and a sandstone Neolithic or Bronze Age grinding stone.1572

None of the stone finds are from tracts in which the

1570
See Runnels et al. 2004.
1571
On excavations at Cakran, see Korkuti and Andrea 1974; Korkuti 1987.
1572
Seventeen are definitely Neolithic, nine are possibly, and one is
Neolithic or Bronze Age. Eighteen of the 27 pieces are from site
collections or revisitations.

815
Neolithic ceramics were found, but two are from nearby

sites.1573

The Bronze Age Settlement and Land Use Patterns

Later prehistoric pottery was also rare throughout the

survey area; except for their tumuli, the indigenous Bronze

and Iron Age inhabitants did not leave a lasting imprint on

the landscape (Fig. 9.2). Early Bronze Age artifacts are

completely absent, and Middle Bronze Age only slightly more

plentiful. The quantity of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age

finds is somewhat larger. Eight hundred twenty-six

indigenous vessel fragments of those periods were found in

the study area.

The highest concentration of indigenous pottery1574 was

found at S038, on the ridge over the Gjanica valley above

the village of Kraps. S038 is an entirely new prehistoric

site identified by MRAP. Moreover, it is the only Bronze

Age settlement site in the Mallakastra and Muzakia

districts that has been excavated.1575 As noted in Chapters

7 and 8, finds from the site range in date from the Middle

Bronze to Early Iron Age. The quantity of material

collected in the initial phase of tract walking was

1573
A Neolithic flake was found during site collection at S031 and a
truncation from S032 site collection.
1574
Six hundred seventy-four sherds = 82%.
1575
Papadopoulos (2006, p. 83) laments the lack of excavated Late
Bronze-Early Iron Age habitation sites in the area.

816
strikingly higher than anywhere else, and all other

clusters of non-Greek material from tract walking are

significantly smaller than this.

The only definite Middle Bronze Age sherds from the

study region were found at S038, most of them from the

excavation.1576 Middle Bronze pottery in general is often

distinguished by a high burnish, which would make it more

visible to walkers than later undecorated coarse wares;

this suggests that material of this date was not simply

overlooked by field walkers.1577 None of the sherds of this

period appear to be imports and most of the fragments are

from unknown vessel types; the only recognizable Middle

Bronze Age shapes are bowls, jars, and a kantharos.

All but one of the 72 possible Middle-Late Bronze Age

fragments are also from S038.1578 The other sherd was found

in the lower town of Margelliç (S055). Additionally, all

sherds that range in date from Middle Bronze-Early Iron Age

are from S038.1579 The paucity of definite and potential

Middle Bronze Age sherds from the study region, even from

excavated contexts, suggests that Muzakia and Mallakastra

were not permanently settled during this period.

1576
Fifteen of the 18 Middle Bronze Age sherds are from excavation
contexts, 14 found in the same trench; another is from site collection,
and two are from tract walking.
1577
Seven of the Middle Bronze Age fragments from S038 are burnished.
1578
Sixty-nine of the Middle-Late Bronze Age sherds are from excavation,
two from tract walking.
1579
Thirty-three Middle Bronze-Early Iron Age sherds are from
excavation, 69 from site collection.

817
The Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Settlement and Land Use

Patterns

Since the majority of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age

excavations in Albania have targeted burial mounds, very

little is known about settlements of this period, and

virtually nothing is known about prehistoric habitation

sites in Mallakastra.1580 It appears that our study area was

on the periphery of the mainstream Illyrian culture found

to the north around Shkodra and inland in the Korça basin.

Many of the artifacts characteristic of the Late Bronze-

Early Iron Age Glasinać culture, which are found in

northern and eastern Albania, are absent from the survey

area. No Devollian ware, which is highly recognizable by

its red and ochre geometric patterns, was found, nor was

any imported Mycenaean pottery.1581 Although a bronze knife

of Aegean type was recovered at S038, other bronze and iron

artifacts such as weapons and jewelry, so common throughout

Albania, were absent. MRAP, on the other hand, provides

the first evidence, however meager, about the nature of

Late Bronze-Early Iron Age settlement sites in Mallakastra.

1580
See Andrea 1990 for a discussion of Bronze Age levels in the Nezir
cave in the Mat valley, which is one of the few habitation sites
excavated in Albania.
1581
Because of its high visibility, Devollian ware sherds are unlikely
to have been missed by field walkers. Examples of it are found in
Maliq IIId levels. See Andrea 1976a, 1985.

818
 Late Bronze and Early Iron Age pottery was more widely

distributed throughout the survey area than Middle Bronze

Age finds, but was nonetheless not very plentiful (Tables

9.1, 9.2). In all cases sherds were small and badly worn,

identifiable only by their fabric, which is coarse and

distinct from that of later historical periods. Dating

them closely is impossible.1582 Except for those from the

necropolis of Apollonia, all Late Bronze/Early Iron Age

finds came from inland locations, at both high and low

elevations; settlements were not restricted to defensible

hilltop positions.1583 No sherds were found on the coastal

plain west of Apollonia, suggesting that, at this time,

indigenous people may not have been seafarers, and perhaps

did not exploit marine resources. The presence of Late

Bronze Age pottery in the necropolis does, however,

indicate that some indigenous mortuary activity took place

in the vicinity of Apollonia.

Two hundred and thirty securely dated Late Bronze Age

sherds were collected in the study area. One hundred

seventy-five came from S038.1584 Of the 55 pieces not from

S038, only 24 of these were found outside Zone 7.1585 Ten of

1582
The Middle Bronze-Early Iron Age covered more than 2000 years. See
Prendi 1982, p. 230.
1583
Contra Prendi 1982, pp. 232, 234.
1584
Of the sherds from S038, 39 are from excavation, 56 from site
collection, and 80 from tract walking or revisitation.
1585
Thirty-eight of the sherds were collected during the course of tract
walking; the remaining 17 were picked up during site collection.

819
these, however, should probably also be associated with

S038 since they are from tracts either adjacent to, or

downslope from, the site. Most of the sherds are from

unidentifiable open vessel types; the only recognizable

Late Bronze Ages shapes are bowls, jars, mugs, one cup, and

one kantharos; one piece of cooking ware and one burnished

sherd were also found.

Three hundred fifty-one vessel fragments are Late

Bronze-Early Iron Age in date; only 49 of these are not

associated with S038. Twenty-eight of the latter are from

Zone 11, and nine from the same tract.1586 The number of

securely dated Early Iron Age sherds drops drastically from

that of Late Bronze Age, especially at S038 where only four

pieces were found. A mere 14 pieces securely dated to this

period were collected from the entire survey area, and the

majority is from the immediate vicinity of the Margelliç

acropolis. The Early Iron Age fragments include sherds

from a wide-mouthed jar, a bowl, and a jar. The paucity of

Early Iron Age sherds is not merely a case of being

overlooked in the landscape; intensive site collection and

excavation indicate that they simply are not there.

Aside from S038, the largest concentrations of

indigenous pottery came from elsewhere in Zone 7 and from

1586
Of the 301 vessels from S038, 136 are from excavated contexts, 163
from site collection, and two from tract walking.

820
S055 in Zone 11. A cluster of Late Bronze and Early Iron

Age sherds was found in Zone 7 on two peaks to the south of

S038 at Z7 G1. Twenty-one definite or possible Late Bronze

Age sherds were collected from there; nine from the same

tract, and possibly from the same vessel.1587 The only

recognizable shape in this assemblage is a Late Bronze-Iron

Age amphora.

Another concentration of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age

material was located around Margelliç. The acropolis and

lower town of Margelliç are situated in a strategic

position along a major prehistoric road that followed the

tributaries of the Seman and ultimately connected the area

around Apollonia to the Korça basin.1588 Seven Late

Bronze/Early Iron Age sherds came from the acropolis

(S041).1589 Ceka, too, found both Late Bronze and Early Iron

Age material in his excavations on the summit.1590

In addition, the lower town of Margelliç (S055), where

no previous systematic exploration had been undertaken,

revealed pre-Greek material. Thirty-eight indigenous

sherds that could be Late Bronze Age in date were

1587
Three of the pieces are Late Bronze-Early Iron Age and three are
Late Bronze-Iron Age in date.
1588
Wilkes 2006, p. 172.
1589
One is Bronze Age, four Late Bronze Age, two Late Bronze-Early Iron
Age, and two Iron Age.
1590
Ceka 1977-1978, 1985, 1986, 1987a, 1990a.

821
collected.1591 Although S055 is very large, the material was

confined to a small area in the north-central part of Zone

11. No material was found in the east, west, or south of

the zone. The fact that so many sherds came from the

northern part of S055 indicates that the Late Bronze-Early

Iron Age settlement was not restricted to the acropolis,

but that a large part of the community was located in the

lowlands at some distance from the ridge. The presence of

the possible Middle Bronze Age sherd (mentioned above)

could mean that an indigenous community existed in this

locale prior to the Late Bronze Age. In any case, MRAP

data suggest that by the Late Bronze Age there was a

thriving community on the acropolis and in the lower town,

one that continued to be occupied into the Iron Age.1592

Bintliff and Snodgrass posed the question whether

"'two or three sherds gathered together' constitute a case

for the existence of a vestigial prehistoric site," noting

that this is all one would expect to remain from many

prehistoric assemblages given the dominance of coarse

wares, the poor preservation potential of the material, the

small number of artifacts in circulation, and the low

1591
The finds include 10 Late Bronze, 26 Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, and
two Iron Age sherds.
1592
The finds in the lower town contradict the premise that all Late
Bronze Age settlements were on naturally defensible hills.

822
visibility of the sites.1593 If we accept this hypothesis,

then MRAP located two other small Late Bronze-Early Iron

Age sites, both in Zone 4. Five sherds were found at S026,

at a high elevation inland from the Myzeqe plain.1594 A

second group consists of two Early Iron Age sherds from Z4

G1.

Aside from those two small clusters in Zone 4, all of

the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age settlements investigated by

MRAP are located east of the Gjanica river. The artifacts

from these sites were spread over relatively large areas.

The finds from the settlement at Margelliç stretch from the

acropolis to the northern edge of Zone 11. The material

from S038 extends beyond the defined borders of the site,

and artifacts from Z7 G1 were found below the twin peaks.

Although it is likely at both sites in Zone 7 that

geomorphological processes, especially erosion, have

transported some of the material downslope, it seems that

people also were occupying the areas below the summits.

Hammond suggests that the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age

Illyrians practiced transhumance as a way of life,

especially in areas around the Myzeqe plain.1595 Such a

lifestyle leaves little visible archaeological evidence,

1593
Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999, p. 146.
1594
The sherds include: one Prehistoric, one Late Bronze Age, two Late
Bronze-Early Iron Age, and one Early Iron Age.
1595
Hammond 1982a, pp. 623, 639, 1982b, 1992. See also Galaty 2002 and
Chapter 5.

823
since mobile groups possess few non-perishable goods. MRAP

survey results, however, provide evidence for at least

three, and possibly five, continuously occupied sites, one

of which began in the Middle Bronze Age. The finds from

S055 confirm the presence of a large permanent settlement

in the Mallakastra region. Although it is possible that

these sites were used on a seasonal basis over a long

period of time by transhumant pastoralists, the quantity of

material from S038 and S055 and the extent of its

distribution suggests otherwise.

Prior to MRAP, continuity between Bronze and Iron Age

in Mallakastra was documented only at Margelliç.1596 In

contrast, all Late Bronze Age settlements identified by us

continued to be occupied into the Early Iron Age, and most

of the Early Iron Age sites in our study region were

already occupied in the Late Bronze Age, if not the Middle.

Such longevity is known in Albania from sites in the Korça

basin like Maliq. The evidence for continuity at S038, Z7

G2, S041, and S055 also provides no support for the

hypothesis that there was an influx of new people into

west-central Albania between the Bronze and Iron Ages.

There is evidence of a demographic decline at the end

of the Early Iron Age at all sites east of the Gjanica

river valley when indigenous groups began to leave the

1596
Ceka 1977-1978.

824
lowlands and move to fortified hill-forts.1597 The Illyrians

began to abandon old settlements and relocate to new, more

nucleated sites when Greeks were first settling in the area

of Apollonia.

Although there is no evidence for indigenous

habitation in Zone 2, an impoverished group of pre-Greek

material was found along the southern edge of the

necropolis where several clusters of later tumuli are

located (Z2 G1). This group consisted of only three

sherds, two of which are from Late Bronze Age jars. The

third piece, Late Bronze-Early Iron Age in date, was found

just downslope from the other two, at S006. It is likely

that these three sherds were associated with one or more

Late Bronze Age burial tumuli.

Prehistoric sherds have also been found in excavations

in the necropolis in Tumulus 8 and Tumulus 10.1598 Late

Bronze Age pottery was found in disturbed levels in Tumulus

8, at first leading the excavators to conclude that this

material was present in earth that was brought from

elsewhere to be used as fill in the construction of the

tumulus.1599 Our evidence and that from Tumulus 10 suggest

otherwise.

1597
On the process of Illyrian urbanization, see Ceka 1983a, 1983c,
1985. See also Harding 1992, pp. 22-26.
1598
Cabanes et al. 1997, p. 856; Bejko and Amore (pers. comm.).
1599
The prehistoric finds do not appear to be associated with burials.

825
 As noted in Chapter 8, the excavators of Tumulus 10

found a Late Bronze Age grave in the lowest level that was

unrelated to the later Greek burials above.1600 The large

chronological gap between the Bronze Age and Greek material

makes it clear that there was a hiatus between the

deposition of these artifacts. A hiatus is also evident in

the history of Tumulus 8, where the earliest imported Greek

material consisted of early 6th century B.C. Corinthian

sherds.

The fact that Late Bronze Age pottery has now been

found in three locations in the necropolis, one of which is

irrefutably a grave, strongly suggests that this area was a

burial ground before Greek colonization. At this time,

S007 was, most likely, a tumulus field similar to those

found at Barç in the Korça basin, Çinamak in the Drin

valley, and Pazhok in the Devoll valley.1601 The earliest

tumuli in those places were constructed at the beginning of

the Late Bronze Age. Many of the mounds were set over a

single central warrior burial, and it is unlikely that such

interments would generate many visible surface artifacts.

In some, but not all cases, after a hiatus, secondary Iron

Age burials were placed around the edges of pre-existing

1600
Bejko and Amore (pers. comm.).
1601
Andrea 1976a, 1976b, 1977-1978, 1985; Bodinaku 1982; Prendi 1982;
Hammond 1982a; Aliu 2006. For Late Bronze-Early Iron Age tumuli, see
Hammond 1967; Korkuti 1981; Prendi 1982; Harding 1992, p. 18; Bejko
1999-2000, 2004; Papadopoulos 2006; Papadopoulos et al. 2007.

826
tumuli. Such tumuli and tumulus fields went out of use

throughout Albania during the Early Iron Age.1602 Finds

suggest that the necropolis at Apollonia conforms to this

pattern; indigenous interments had ceased at S007 by the

end of the 7th century B.C., the date of the earlier Greek

finds.1603

The rest of the Late Bronze or Late Bronze-Early Iron

Age finds from the MRAP survey appear to be randomly

distributed. Zones 1, 8, 9, and 13 were totally devoid of

indigenous material, only one piece was found in Zone 5,

and two in Zones 3 and 12. Apart from Z2 G1, there are

only two non-Greek sherds from Zone 2, which are from

widely separate locations. One sherd from a Bronze-Early

Iron Age cooking pot was found in Tract B-117 in

association with an Archaic-Early Hellenistic transport

amphora. Korkuti suggested during tract walking that this

place was a Late Bronze Age site, but since only these two

sherds were collected, it is impossible to say conclusively

whether or not this is the case. The other prehistoric

sherd from Zone 2 (Late Bronze Age in date) came from J-

1602
Wilkes 1992, p. 46; Harding 1992, p. 18.
1603
This is not the case at Lofkënd; the excavators have suggested that
the presence of 6th century B.C. Corinthian pottery in the fill of the
tumulus (not in graves) indicates that the tumulus was used
contemporaneously with the arrival of the Greeks. Papadopoulos 2006,
p. 81.

827
293, a tract that otherwise produced only a cooking ware

fragment of unknown date and shape.

All of the securely identified Late Bronze-Early Iron

Age settlements in the MRAP survey area were found east of

the Gjanica, while a contemporary burial ground seems to

have been located in Zone 2, at a low elevation closer to

the sea. As Hammond notes, no settlements of this period

have been located near tumuli anywhere in Albania.1604 MRAP

also did not find evidence for an indigenous settlement

associated with the burial ground at Apollonia or graves

associated with the prehistoric sites in Zones 7 and 11,

although the tumulus at Lofkënd is not far distant.

The Later Iron Age Settlement and Land Use Patterns

The quantity of Later Iron Age pottery found by MRAP

was much smaller than that of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age,

and two indigenous sites (S026 and S038) were abandoned by

the end of the Early Iron Age.1605 Only 29 sherds are dated

1604
Hammond 1982a, p. 655.
1605
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Iron Age ceramic chronology in the
study area is not well understood. The dates are neither firmly
grounded in radiometric dates nor in better known ceramic sequences
from the Aegean world. The Early Iron Age runs from 1050-750 B.C.,
ending shortly before Greek colonists arrived in the eastern Adriatic.
The Albanian Iron Age II phase, or the "Developed Iron Age," runs from
750-625 B.C. and roughly corresponds to the first half of the Early
Archaic period. The rest of the Archaic period overlaps with what
Albanian archaeologists refer to as the Illyrian Proto-Urban phase
(625-450), which is the same as Iron Age III. Such are the dates that
are traditionally assigned to the Iron Age by Albanian archaeologists.
As noted in Chapter 3, the Albanian periodization of the Iron Age
itself, however, reflects communist ideology and its desire to

828
to the Later Iron Age; six others are dated Late Bronze-

Later Iron Age. Like Late Bronze-Early Iron Age finds,

much of the Later Iron Age material came from inland and

upland areas, but, unlike some earlier sherds, none of the

later Iron Age were found at low elevations.

Z7 G1 is the only site in Zone 7 where there appears

to have been site continuity beyond the Early Iron Age.

Two definite and three possible Later Iron Age fragments

were found here, and there is a Late Bronze-Later Iron Age

sherd from an adjacent tract. The finds were localized

near the top of the southern peak. This material, although

limited, probably indicates that people continued to use Z7

G1 after the Early Iron Age, but suggests that the size of

the inhabited area and population of the community were

substantially reduced.

Only one Later Iron Age sherd was found at S038, in

addition to four definite Early Iron Age pieces; none of

these pieces came from excavated contexts. Such a dearth

of material suggests that this site was no longer occupied

demonstrate that there had been a substantial evolution in native

Illyrian society prior to the foundation of Greek apoikiai in Albania.
MRAP data discussed below suggest that it is likely that the latest
Illyrian pottery in Mallakastra is contemporary with the earliest
stages in the development of the colony at Apollonia. In the following
discussion I refer to pottery that was not specifically identified as
Early Iron Age as "Later Iron Age." The distribution patterns for
these sherds are different from those of securely dated Early Iron Age
sherds and "Later Iron Age" pieces were often found in association with
Archaic Greek ceramics. This suggests to me that such Illyrian and
Greek ceramics were being used contemporaneously.

829
after the mid-8th century B.C., and that most of Zone 7,

with the probable exception of Z7 G1, was then abandoned.

The largest cluster of Later Iron Age sherds (17

sherds) came from S045 at Margelliç. Ten of these were

found in one group of contiguous tracts and included a

cooking pot, an amphora, and five jar fragments. Two other

jar fragments were found upslope on the acropolis. In

contrast, only two Later Iron Age sherds came from S055.

Later Iron Age material is concentrated immediately below

the citadel, while Late Bronze-Early Iron Age pottery was

found some distance from the acropolis in the lower town.

Clearly, by the end of the Early Iron Age, the indigenous

community around Margelliç had contracted in size (and

probably also in population) and relocated to a position

closer to the acropolis. Although no fortification walls

were found at S045, the move was likely prompted by the

desire to assume a more defensible position.

MRAP survey data confirm what Albanian archaeologists

have demonstrated through investigations at Iron Age hill-

forts in and near our survey area: i.e., at Margelliç,

Klos, Mashkjeza, and Gurëzeza. After the Early Iron Age

the Illyrians preferred to occupy easily defensible sites

830
on summits, away from the sea.1606 Most hill-forts,

including Klos, Mashkjeza, and Gurëzeza, were not occupied

until late in the 6th century B.C., and there is no

evidence that these sites were used prior to the arrival of

the Greeks.1607 Imported Greek pottery, however, was used in

these Illyrian strongholds from their inception.1608 All the

new Iron Age sites discovered by MRAP had, however, an

earlier component, often as early as the Bronze Age.

Only four Later Iron Age sherds were found outside

Zone 7 or the area of Margelliç. One piece, along with a

Late Bronze Age-Iron Age sherd, came from the top of a

ridge near the northwest border of Zone 6. The rest of the

pottery from this tract consisted of coarse wares that were

not collected. It is possible that there was a small Iron

Age settlement on this summit.

A Later Iron Age sherd was found at S001, just upslope

from Z4 G1. These three fragments (including the two

indigenous sherds mentioned above) might be all that

remains of an indigenous site that began in, and continued

beyond, the Early Iron Age.

1606
For Klos, see Ceka 1977-1978, 1985, 1990a; Papajani 1976b; for
Mashkjeza see Ceka 1977-1978, 1983a, 1983b; for Gurëzeza, Praschniker
1922-1924; Anamali 1949; Ceka 1983a, 1985.
1607
Papajani 1976a, 1976b; Ceka 1977-1978, 1983a, 1983b, 1985; Korkuti,
Baçe, and Ceka 2008.
1608
Andrea 1984, p. 109.

831
 Only a single possible Later Iron Age sherd was found

on the Myzeqe plain, at S050. Such a dearth of Illyrian

material from Zone 1 suggests that the area west of the

acropolis of Apollonia was not settled by indigenous people

when the Greeks arrived. No material that is later than

the Early Iron Age has been found in the necropolis,

confirming that burial there ceased prior to the foundation

of the colony. Furthermore, no indigenous material has

come from recent excavations at S043 or on the acropolis.

As discussed in Chapter 5, ancient sources support the

conclusion that there was no indigenous settlement on or

around the acropolis of Apollonia when the colonists

arrived. The territory between the Apsus (Seman) and the

Aous (Vjosa) rivers is the only area in Illyria that was

not linked with a specific Illyrian tribe, nor do any of

the Greek geographers assign control of Apollonia to

anyone.1609 Strabo said nothing about any native inhabitants

in or near the asty of Apollonia and commented instead,

though not specifically in reference to Apollonia, on the

excellence of the Illyrian seaboard regarding harbors and

land fertility, but noted, however, that earlier

1609
As noted elsewhere, Apollonia is only noted as lying within the
territory of the "Illyrians." Pseudo-Scylax (28) notes that Oricum,
just south of the Aous, marked the end of Illyrian territory and the
beginning of Chaonia (Epirus), a fact already known in the 6th century
B.C. (Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F103). See Chapters 2 and 5, and Hammond
1966a, 1989b.

832
inhabitants made small use of the coastal plain either out

of ignorance or because of the wildness of the natives and

their piratical habits.1610 As mentioned in Chapter 3,

postulating a native Illyrian settlement on the site of the

colony is an example of the type of ideologically "correct"

argument that was encouraged under communism.1611

The lack of clarity reflected in ancient sources

indicates that there existed no single tradition in

antiquity about who controlled territory around Apollonia

when the Greeks arrived. MRAP data confirms what the

textual ambiguity suggests: the area was virtually

uninhabited during the Iron Age. As noted in Chapter 5, it

is likely that Apollonia occupied a border zone between the

Bylliones to the east and the Taulantii and/or Parthini to

the north. The colonists would have taken advantage of

this territorial vacuum and exploited the enmity between

these two rival Illyrian tribes.

In conclusion, very little Bronze-Early Iron Age

material was found in the MRAP survey region. The majority

of the sherds came from either Zone 7 or the area around

Margelliç. A few pieces were collected in the necropolis

of Apollonia and were likely associated with burial tumuli

of this date. Except for the Bronze Age burial at the

1610
Strabo 7.5.10 [C 317].
1611
Ceka 1984, p. 80, fig. 8; Anamali 1976b.

833
bottom of Tumulus 10, however, no unambiguous indigenous

graves have yet been located. This pattern suggests that

the indigenous inhabitants lived away from the coast, east

of the Gjanica river. The lack of Bronze Age and Early

Iron Age pottery is not simply a result of being overlooked

by field walkers because it was also rare in excavated

contexts. Since no ceramic imports of these periods have

been identified, it appears that the Bronze-Early Iron Age

Illyrians between Apollonia and Margelliç were not focused

on commercial activities, either with Greeks or with other

Illyrian tribes further inland. Rather, it is likely that

many of the indigenous people who might have used this area

were transhumant pastoralists who only occupied the

Mallakastra area on a seasonal basis.

MRAP data suggests that there was a substantial

demographic decline after the Early Iron Age. According to

Frano Prendi, there was a wave of Panono-Balkan migration

into Albania in the Late Bronze/Early Iron Age. This

influx of outsiders dislocated the Illyrian tribes and

resulted in an exodus to the east coast of Italy at the end

of the Early Iron Age. These Illyrian tribes became the

Italian Messapians, Iapyges, and Chonians.1612 The

similarity between the names of the western Italian

Chonians and the northern Epirote Chaonians, who lived just

1612
Prendi 1982, p. 229; Lamboley 1987; Hammond 1992, p. 34; Lomas 2000.

834
south of the Aous, suggests that members of that Albanian

tribe were among those Illyrians who migrated across the

Adriatic. One explanation for the population decrease in

the Mallakastra region might be that Illyrians from this

area were also among those who moved to Italy. The period

of movement and disruption among the Illyrians in Albania

coincided with the appearance of the Euboeans in the

Adriatic.1613

The Archaic Settlement and Land Use Patterns

Very little securely dated Archaic pottery was found

in the MRAP survey territory; only 54 sherds were collected

(Fig. 9.3; Tables 9.3, 9.4).1614 All of the Early Archaic

sherds are from transport amphoras; two definitely predate

the traditional foundation date of the colony, and a third

likely does. Four of the Early Archaic sherds came from

Zone 2, three from the necropolis, and one from S016. The

other two Early Archaic sherds are from the acropolis and

lower town of Margelliç.

Thirty-one of the Archaic sherds (57%) are from

storage jars, 17 from transport amphoras (Tables 9.5, 9.6.

See also Tables 6.1, 6.2). Five of the Early Archaic

pieces are imported Corinthian Type A transport amphoras;

1613
See Chapter 5.
1614
Of these, six are specifically Early Archaic in date and four, Late
Archaic.

835
the sixth, from Z2 G1, is an imitation.1615 Ten other

transport amphoras are broadly dated Archaic, and two more

are specifically Late Archaic. Most of these transport

amphoras are also Corinthian imports.1616 Fifteen Archaic

sherds are from pithoi or other large coarse vessels;

again, most, if not all, are Corinthian imports.

The second largest category of Archaic material

comprises 17 sherds with black glaze (31%); two are tiles

and one is the transport amphora mentioned above.1617 Four

in the group, all Corinthian imports, have black-figured

decoration. A mere four Archaic black glaze sherds were

found outside Zones 1 and 2, and all of these were from

around the Margelliç acropolis (two from S041, one from

S045, and one from S060). Many of the Archaic black glaze

pieces are from vessels associated with the consumption of

wine: cups, skyphoi, and kraters.1618 As noted in Chapter 8,

the paucity of Archaic finewares from the survey area is

very pronounced.1619

1615
The imitation Corinthian Type A, AS66, is an outlier when plotted on
both a nickel/chrome and potassium/calcium graph; it is unlikely,
however, that it is of local manufacture. See Chapter 6.
1616
Eight of the Archaic transport amphoras are also Type A, and the
Late Archaic pieces are both likely to be Corinthian Type B. The other
two Archaic transport amphoras are an imitation Type A and a black
glaze SOS form.
1617
Another tile, with a slipped surface, is also Archaic.
1618
The other Archaic sherds are three pieces of cooking ware and two
plain sherds.
1619
This scarcity of Archaic finewares makes it necessary to rely on
transport amphoras as chronological markers and indicators of trade.

836
 Twenty-three pieces of Archaic pottery were found in

Zone 2. Twenty-one of the sherds are specifically from the

necropolis of Apollonia (S007) or adjacent tracts.1620 The

two largest clusters, Z2 G1 and Z2 G2, each with Early

Archaic finds, are on opposite sides of the necropolis; Z2

G1 is near its southern boundary, and Z2 G2 its northern.

Smaller groups of Archaic finds came from S005, Z2 G3, and

Z2 G4. All of the Archaic material from the necropolis is

of Greek type, and most of it is imported.1621

The Archaic assemblage from Z2 G1 is the largest from

the necropolis. It consists of seven pieces, six of which

are from storage vessels.1622 The second largest group came

from Z2 G2 and, again, is composed primarily of transport

amphoras and pithoi.1623 Both assemblages, which are very

similar in nature, are consistent with a funerary context.

Two Archaic sherds were found at both S005 and Z2 G4; the

only cooking ware sherd from the necropolis came from S005.

Four Archaic pieces, three of which are from different

lamps, were found in the same tract in Z2 G3. Two other

1620
Included here are the two sherds from S016 and J-008; both locations
are adjacent to Z2 G2. See Chapter 8.
1621
As discussed in Chapter 5, only a single grave excavated in the
entire necropolis has produced native Illyrian Iron Age goods that are
contemporary with the Greek Archaic period. This is the grave of a
woman from Tumulus 9 who was interred with an iron spectacle fibula and
bronze bracelets, as well as with imported Corinthian skyphoi. The
ethnicity of this individual is unknown. See Amore 2005b, p. 310.
1622
This group includes sherds from S016 and J-008. Five of the sherds
are from transport amphoras, one from a pithos, and one from a closed
black-figured vessel.
1623
This group is composed of two Early Archaic transport amphoras, two
pithoi, a black glaze closed vessel, and a plain open vessel.

837
black glaze sherds that are no later than the 5th century

B.C. also came from here; one piece is from a fourth lamp.

It is possible, given the location of this group of tracts

at the extreme western edge of the necropolis and the

quantity of early lamps from here, that this area was used

for funerary rituals, rather than burials (see Chapter

8).1624

Two of the transport amphoras from Z2 G1 are

specifically Early Archaic; one is definitely a Corinthian

Type A and, as noted above, predates the traditional

foundation date of the colony.1625 The only Late

Bronze/Early Iron Age material from S007 is also from Z2

G1; it was found in the same tracts as the Early Archaic

and Archaic finds, or in tracts contiguous to them. As

mentioned above, a Late Bronze Age burial tumulus (or

tumuli) probably existed here when the first colonists

arrived at Apollonia. There is, however, no evidence for

continuity of use between the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age

and the foundation of the colony; as already noted, the

Illyrians had stopped using the Kryegjata valley for

burials by the mid-8th century B.C. The Greeks,

nevertheless, would have been familiar with this type of

1624
See below.
1625
AS22. The other, AS66, is an imitation Corinthian Type A.

838
funerary monument from Homer.1626 It is likely that the

Early Archaic colonists were drawn to an already

constructed mound and were thus inspired to adopt a Homeric

mode of burial for their dead.1627 Use of a pre-existing

tomb might have been a way for them to forge a link with a

projected Greek past in a foreign land and to stake a

visible claim to the new territory they were occupying.

The evidence from Z2 G1 and Z2 G2 makes it clear that

the colonists began to use the necropolis for burials as

soon as they arrived. Almost all of the Archaic material

from S007 was recovered in four non-contiguous areas, and

the specifically Early Archaic sherds were found on

opposite sides of the Kryegjata valley. This indicates

that the colonists did not start burying their dead in one

nucleated area within the cemetery and expand outward from

there. Rather, from the beginning, multiple tumuli were

constructed and disparate areas of the necropolis were in

use contemporaneously. No Archaic burials have been found

further into the hinterland of Apollonia; all seem to have

taken place in the necropolis, just below the asty.

1626
See Chapter 5 and Stocker and Davis 2006.
1627
As noted in Chapter 5, there was a precedent for this at Corinth
where burials began to occur in the 8th century B.C. (MG II) in the
North Cemetery around a Middle Helladic tumulus; this tumulus remained
visible and venerated until the Classical period. See Shear 1930;
Corinth XIII, pp. 1-12; Corinth XX, p. 78; Williams 1984, 1995; Rutter
1990, pp. 455-458; Dickey 1992, pp. 128-129; Morgan 1995, pp. 314-315.

839
 Elsewhere in Zone 2, a fragment of an Archaic black

glaze skyphos was found at S061 (the temple site at

Shtyllas). Although there is no evidence for a structure

of this date at Shtyllas, the sherd suggests that the

location of the later temple was being visited as early as

the Archaic period; it is possible that a shrine was

established on this spot already in the 6th century B.C.

The site might well have marked the southern territorial

limit of the early apoikia.

Three Archaic sherds were found in Zone 1; one of

these is from the lower acropolis of the asty, and one from

the foot of the slope of the acropolis, just inside the

later city wall. Both pieces are from black glaze vessels

associated with the consumption of wine.1628 A slipped tile

of Archaic date was found at S043. Although fragments of

transport amphoras are the only securely dated Early

Archaic sherds from the survey, we know from recent

excavations that other types of ceramics, specifically fine

imported black glaze vessels, were used on the acropolis,

at S043, and in the necropolis.1629 The absence of Early

Archaic black glaze sherds from other zones west of the

Gjanica river suggests that they were used exclusively at

Apollonia or S043 in this period.

1628
One is a krater, the other, a black-figured skyphos.
1629
See Amore 2003-2004, 2005b, 2005c; Stocker and Davis 2006; Davis et
al. 2006; Verger et al. 2007, pp. 232-237.

840
 Archaic finds were scarce in the triangular area

bounded by Levan in the south, the necropolis in the west,

and Fier in the east; except for two random sherds in both

Zones 4 and 6, the entire area was devoid of definite 6th

century B.C. material. The two sherds from Zone 4 are both

from cooking pots; these account for two of the three

exiguous fragments of Archaic cooking ware from the survey.

The two sherds found in Zone 6 are both from storage

vessels.1630 They were found along the northern border of

the zone at opposite ends of the ridge. There is no

securely dated Archaic material east of the Shtyllas

valley, and only the two pieces from Zone 6 were found to

the south; Zones 3 and 5 were devoid of Archaic finds, as

were Zones 8, 9, 12, and 13.

The scarcity of Archaic finds in Zones 3-6 and the

absence of evidence for graves outside the necropolis

suggests that the early colonists lived exclusively on the

acropolis and buried their dead in one well-defined area.

As mentioned above, one might speculate that S043, the

necropolis, and S061 delimited the territorial borders of

the colony in the Archaic period; it is unlikely that the

colonists securely controlled a larger hinterland at that

time.

1630
These are a transport amphora and a pithos.

841
 Apart from Apollonia, the largest quantity of Archaic

material came from the area of Margelliç; 15 sherds were

collected in Zones 10-11. As with the Iron Age sherds,

most of the Archaic pieces were found on or immediately

below the acropolis. Four sherds came from S0411631 and

three pieces were found downslope at S045.1632 Three other

Archaic pieces came from tracts in S055 that are adjacent

to S045,1633 and a transport amphora was found on the slope

of the acropolis just north of S045. As noted above, the

only four pieces of Archaic black glaze not from Apollonia

are from Margelliç; these were found on, or in close

proximity to, its acropolis.

A mere four Archaic sherds were found north of the

acropolis in the lower town of Margelliç. These were

clustered in three tracts in the easternmost part of the

site and include one of the imported Early Archaic

Corinthian Type A transport amphoras that predate the

traditional foundation of Apollonia. In contrast to S041

and S045, no black glaze pieces were found in S055. The

paucity of Archaic finds from the lower town, in contrast

to the quantity from around the acropolis, is consistent

1631
These are an Early Archaic transport amphora, a pithos, and two
black glaze cups.
1632
These are a transport amphora, a pithos, and a black glaze kylix
fragment.
1633
These are an Archaic pithos, transport amphora, and black glaze
tile.

842
with the hypothesis that the community at Margelliç

contracted and relocated to a site closer to the acropolis

after the Early Iron Age. Although occupation of the lower

town continued into the 6th century B.C. (and later), it

was on a much reduced scale.

All the Archaic ceramics from Margelliç were found in

conjunction with indigenous material (Figs. 9.3, 9.4).

Both of the securely dated Early Archaic pieces were found

in close proximity to indigenous Late Bronze-Iron Age

sherds.1634 Imported Early Archaic transport amphoras have

also been found in excavations on the acropolis.1635 The

presence of these vessels demonstrates that already in the

Early Archaic period the inhabitants of Margelliç were

receiving imported Corinthian goods.1636

The rest of the Archaic material from Margelliç was

also found in or near tracts that had indigenous sherds.

The three tracts in the eastern part of S055 with Archaic

finds are adjacent to ones with Illyrian material. As

noted above, the largest quantity of Later Iron Age

material was collected from S045 and S041. This is also

where the Archaic finds were concentrated.

1634
See Davis et al. 2003-2004, pp. 310-311.
1635
Ceka 1986, p. 86.
1636
See Whitehouse and Wilkins 1989, pp. 114-116 on the mechanisms of
trade between colonists and natives.

843
 The coexistence of Greek and indigenous finds in the

same places at Margelliç demonstrates that Archaic and

Later Iron Age sherds were most likely used

contemporaneously by the same people (in contrast to the

situation at Apollonia). The presence of 7th century B.C.

transport amphoras and imported Archaic black glaze pieces

at Margelliç show that the indigenous inhabitants were

interested in, and able to procure, high status Greek

commodities. The lack of evidence for Greek habitation

outside of Apollonia and the absence of most elements of

the typical Greek domestic assemblage make it improbable

that Greeks actually lived at Margelliç. Rather, it is

likely that Margelliç remained an Illyrian settlement for

some time after the apoikia was established at Apollonia.1637

The bulky nature of the Greek finds, i.e., pithoi and

transport amphoras, make it clear that Margelliç was

permanently occupied, since such cumbersome items are

unlikely to have belonged to a transhumant population.

A scarcity of early Greek material outside Margelliç

indicates that most of the Archaic pots moving inland from

Apollonia were used by people living there, rather than in

its hinterland; there was no other Illyrian occupation in

1637
As noted in Chapter 8, the Gjanica river valley appears to have been
the border of Illyrian territory. Zones 8 and 9 to the east of this
line were underutilized by Greeks, too, suggesting that the hinterland
of Apollonia did not even penetrate this far west.

844
Zones 10-13 at this time. Three Archaic sherds, two from

pithoi were found at S054, however, suggesting that, as at

Margelliç, there might have been an early, albeit very

small, component to this site. The only other Archaic

piece from Zones 10-13 is a transport amphora fragment from

the southwest part of Zone 10.

Elsewhere, only a meager eight Archaic sherds were

recovered, all in Zone 7. Three of these were found in the

southeastern part of zone. A pithos fragment was collected

at Z7 G1 in a tract that borders three with Later Iron Age

finds; another similar sherd was found in an adjacent

tract. The third piece, from a Corinthian Type A transport

amphora, was collected a short distance farther south. As

at Margelliç, the Archaic finds from Z7 G1 were commingled

with indigenous material, further supporting the hypothesis

that Greek material east of the Gjanica river was being

used by Illyrians rather than Greeks. The fact that the

Archaic finds from Z7 G1 are storage jars, which are large,

heavy, and difficult to transport, suggests that, at least

in the Archaic period, this too was a permanently occupied

Illyrian site.

Unlike Apollonia, none of the Archaic transport

amphoras from Z7 G1 or Margelliç were found in association

with burials. This makes it clear that vessels of the type

845
that moved inland to indigenous sites were reused for a

different purpose than those retained at the polis. At

Apollonia the contents of the amphoras were used by the

inhabitants in the city center, and then the vessels

themselves were reused in the necropolis for burials, while

at indigenous sites the pots probably continued to be used

as storage vessels long after the original contents were

consumed.

In conclusion, the quantity of Archaic sherds that was

found by MRAP is small. Well over half of the finds of

this date are from transport amphoras or pithoi. The

second largest category of Archaic sherds is from black

glaze vessels. Almost all of the transport amphoras, black

glaze vessels, and probably pithoi were imported from

Corinth. Although transport amphoras and pithoi were most

abundant in the necropolis, where they were reused for

enchytrismoi, some were also found in other zones in the

survey area. In Zones 3-6, which are in closest proximity

to Apollonia, they were most likely used for the collection

and transportation agricultural products. In contrast, in

the zones that are on the east side of the Gjanica river

valley (Zones 7 and 10-13), in areas that are some distance

from Apollonia, transport amphoras and pithoi were

frequently found in association with indigenous pottery and

846
it is likely the contents of the vessels, rather than the

containers themselves, were the desired objective. There

is no doubt, however, that the containers continued to be

used once the contents were gone. On the other hand, find

spots of black glaze sherds were much more localized than

storage vessels. Except for four sherds that were found

near Margelliç, all Archaic black glaze sherds came from

the immediate vicinity of Apollonia (i.e., S007, S008,

S043, and S050).

The Classical Settlement and Land Use Patterns

Although there are more sherds that are Classical in

date than Archaic, finds of this date are still rare in the

survey assemblage (Fig. 9.5). This is particularly true

for the Early Classical period, when the settlement pattern

differs little from that of the preceding period.

Expansion beyond the asty of Apollonia and settlement in

the surrounding countryside began to increase only in the

4th century B.C., in the Late Classical and Early

Hellenistic periods (Fig. 9.6).1638 In addition to the

Archaic finds (54), only 23 other sherds are no later than

1638
The Late Classical and Early Hellenistic periods will be discussed
together since settlement patterns in the 4th century B.C. are
different than earlier and later periods.

847
the 5th century B.C.1639 Sherds specifically dated to the

Classical period (92) are more plentiful than Archaic or

Archaic/Early Classical, and the quantity of possibly

Classical finds increases only slightly when sherds with an

Archaic-Classical date range are included (71). The

percentage of sherds from black glaze vessels and from

storage vessels in the Archaic-Classical/Classical

assemblage is similar: black glaze pieces account for 34%

(72) of the assemblage, and storage jars for 31% (66).

Eight pieces have red-figured decoration. The rest of the

assemblage is composed of tiles (28), plain ware vessels

(22), and cooking pots (12).

As with Archaic finds, the largest concentrations of

Classical sherds were found in close proximity to the city

center, especially in the necropolis and the rest of Zone

2. Besides the necropolis, evidence for continuity at

sites with an Archaic component has been noted almost

exclusively in Zone 1, inside the city walls of Apollonia

(S008) and at the Bonjakët sanctuary (S043), and on the

other side of the Gjanica river valley, on the acropolis

and in the lower town of Margelliç. Apollonia and

Margelliç, however, supported very different types of

settlements in the Classical period.

1639
Four are Archaic-Early Classical, 11 Late Archaic-Early Classical,
and eight are Early Classical.

848
 As with Archaic finds, the majority of Classical

sherds were found in association with graves and tumuli in

the necropolis. Fourteen (61%) of the Archaic/Early

Classical pieces came from Zone 2, as did 45% of the

Archaic-Classical/Classical finds.1640 Classical black glaze

vessels outnumber all other categories in the necropolis:

34 of 59 were found there (58%), and seven others have red-

figured decoration. A minimum of 10 vessel shapes are

represented, but the vast majority of the sherds are from

kraters and skyphoi.

The parts of S007 that were utilized in the Archaic

period continued to receive burials in the Early Classical

period, and few new areas were put to use. Most of the

securely dated 5th century B.C. sherds were found in the

same tracts or contiguous to those that had Archaic finds.

In only two instances were Early Classical pieces found in

previously unused areas of the necropolis: one of these,

however, is from a tract with Archaic-Classical and

Classical finds. In this case, it is likely that the

sherds represent the beginning stages in the use of a new

tumulus in the 5th century B.C. The other Early Classical

1640
Seventy-seven sherds are definitely no later than 5th century B.C.
In addition to the Archaic material, there are four Archaic-Early
Classical pieces, 11 Late Archaic-Early Classical, and eight Early
Classical. Fifteen of the Archaic/Early Classical pieces are imported
Corinthian transport amphoras, and six are black glaze; two others,
both possibly Attic imports, preserve red-figured decoration.

849
piece, in contrast, is from a tract with no other pre-

Hellenistic sherds, making it unlikely that this location

was used for burials at this time. The presence of

securely dated Archaic-Early Classical sherds from tumuli

in use prior to the 5th century B.C. provides unequivocal

evidence for continuity at these locales, and the absence

of securely dated 5th century B.C. sherds from new

locations in the necropolis indicates that the same

discrete areas continued to be targeted as burial spots at

this time.

Sherds from S007 that are dated generally to the

Classical period are more plentiful than those with an

Early Classical terminus ante quem and were found in places

without securely dated Archaic finds. This indicates that

new dispersed locations within the necropolis began to be

used in the Classical period, but probably not before the

end of the 5th century B.C. In all cases, tracts with

Archaic sherds also have, or are contiguous to, tracts with

Classical finds. Conversely, some tracts with Archaic-

Classical/Classical sherds are located in areas that lack

conclusive evidence of pre-5th century B.C. use: at least

some of these broadly dated sherds are likely to be Late

Classical.

850
 The types of graves found in the necropolis include

sarcophagus burials; enchytrismoi (see Chapter 7); tile

graves; and pit graves.1641 Interment in sarcophagi was the

most elaborate form of burial used by the colonists and was

used almost exclusively in the Archaic and Classical

periods. The presence of sarcophagus burials in the

necropolis suggests an affinity with funerary practices at

Corinth, where interment in stone sarcophagi had become the

standard form of burial by 700 B.C.1642 Enchytrismos in

transport amphoras and pithoi was also predominately an

Archaic and Classical form of burial that fell into disuse

in later periods.1643 The earliest burials that Rey

excavated were in pithoi, some of which he dated as early

as 650-575 B.C.1644 Inhumations in transport amphoras or

pithoi was a customary burial practice in many Greek cities

and colonies.1645

The majority of the excavated burials in the

necropolis of Apollonia are Hellenistic in date. In

1641
For the types of burials found in the necropolis, see Praschniker
1922-1924, cols. 51-53; Amore 2005b, 2005c.
1642
Pfaff 2007. Recent excavations show that sarcophagus burials began
in Corinth in the 9th century B.C. See Dickey 1992 for more about
Corinthian burial practices.
1643
On the date of enchytrismoi, see Mano 1971, 1977-1978; Dimo and
Fenet 1996. Some of the earliest burials from Tumulus 9 were in
storage vessels, and 24% of all graves are enchytrismoi. See Amore
2005b, p. 308.
1644
Rey 1932, p. 7.
1645
See Morris 1998, p. 41. Pithos burials are also common at
Epidamnus, which was founded by Corcyraeans, but burial in sarcophagi
was not practiced there. For burial practices at Epidamnus, see Ceka
1995; Hidri 1996, 1997.

851
Tumulus 9, 15% of the graves are Archaic, 27% are

Classical, and 36% are Early Hellenistic.1646 Tumulus 1,

excavated by Mano in 1958-1959, contained 136 burials. She

distinguishes three levels: 6th-early 5th century B.C.,

5th-4th century B.C., and 4th-early 2nd century B.C.

Twenty-five percent of the burials (34) are from the lower

two strata, and 75% (102) are from the upper. Mano notes a

lack of mid-5th century B.C. burials, an increase in the

4th-3rd centuries B.C., and a steep decline in the 2nd

century B.C.1647

The chronological distribution of the MRAP ceramic

assemblage from the necropolis is similar to that from

Albanian excavations (see also Chapter 8). The percentages

by date of MRAP's pre-Roman assemblage from S007 fall

somewhere between Amore and Mano's figures. MRAP data

confirm that burial in the eastern necropolis was at its

height during the Hellenistic period. Only 19% of the

assemblage from S007 is Archaic/Classical, while 50% of the

finds are certainly Hellenistic in date, and an additional

31% could be: only 2% of the Hellenistic sherds are

definitely 2nd or 1st century B.C.

Changes in burial practices are evident in the

necropolis beginning in the 4th century B.C.: more areas

1646
Amore 2005b, p. 308. The date of a fifth of the burials is unknown.
1647
Mano 1977-1978.

852
were used, the number of burials increased, and the nature

of the ceramic assemblage changed. The type and quantity

of finds from Z2 G1 illustrate these differences between

the Archaic/Early Classical and Late Classical/Early

Hellenistic periods. Ten securely dated late 6th-5th

century B.C. sherds were found in the tracts in this

cluster; six are from transport amphoras. Also, 18

Archaic-Classical/Classical pieces, almost all transport

amphoras or sherds with black glaze were found in the same

tracts. In the Late Classical/Early Hellenistic

assemblage, on the other hand, all of the 28 sherds are

from black glaze vessels, with the exception of one

transport amphora. The number of definite sherds of the

4th century B.C. is the same as the number of

Archaic/Classical pieces, for which the time span is much

greater, and some of the broadly dated pieces are probably

also Late Classical. These data indicate that the number

of burials in Z2 G1 increased during the 4th century B.C.,

that the quantity (and variety) of black glaze vessels used

as grave goods increased, and that the number of

enchytrismoi decreased.1648 The size of the tumulus in Z2 G1

grew and began to expand into S006 during this time (there

is no conclusive evidence that S006 was used prior to the

4th century B.C., and 70% of the finds that predate the
1648
As noted above, excavation data show a similar pattern.

853
Middle Hellenistic period are specifically Late

Classical/Early Hellenistic, and the rest could be).1649

The situation was similar on the opposite side of the

necropolis at Z2 G2 and S016. The quantity of Classical

finds in both assemblages is larger, and these two sites

begin to merge. The increased number of certain and

possible Classical sherds from this area demonstrates that

it, too, remained in use throughout and received an

increasing number of burials during the Classical period.

Elsewhere in Zone 2, at S061 and Z2 G3, there is

evidence for ritual activity that is not directly

associated with tumuli. There appears to be increased

activity at S061, and it is possible that the first temple

was constructed in the 5th century B.C.1650 Although only

five pre-Medieval sherds were found at S061, four of these

are, or could be, Archaic/Classical.

The assemblage from Z2 G3 indicates that this area on

the western edge of the necropolis also continued to serve

a function that was different from the rest of S007 in the

Classical period. Two late 6th-5th century B.C. black

glaze sherds came from this group of tracts, as did two

1649
All of the 4th century B.C. sherds from S006 are black glaze. Only
six transport amphoras were collected at S006, two of which might
predate the Late Classical period. Although seven Archaic-
Classical/Classical sherds were found, they do not necessarily need to
predate the 4th century B.C.
1650
Quantin 1999.

854
Classical pieces, both from vessels associated with wine

consumption.1651 The fact that there are no transport

amphoras in the assemblage, and that all the sherds are

from black glaze lamps or vessels associated with the

symposium, defines this group of tracts as something other

than a burial site.1652 The assemblage would be in keeping

with a ritual context; the lack of cooking ware and plain

ware vessels demonstrates that Z2 G3 did not have a

domestic function.

In contrast to Zone 2, very few sherds were found in

Zone 1 that predate the Late Classical period. Indeed,

only two certain 5th century B.C. sherds were collected:

one on the upper acropolis of Apollonia, the other at S050.

Both sherds are from Corinthian Type A transport amphoras.

With the exception of an Archaic-Classical tile from S049

(probably 4th century B.C.), all the broadly dated Archaic-

Classical/Classical material in this zone is from S008,

S043, or S050.

S050 is the only site on the plain that has produced

securely dated Classical finds; most of these, however, are

more likely to be Late Classical than Early. Almost all of

1651
One sherd was from a red-figured krater, the other a black glaze
skyphos.
1652
Only eight lamp fragments were found in the necropolis. Half of
these are from the same tract in Z2 G3 and they are all 5th century
B.C. or earlier. The other four are from various locales in the
necropolis and are 4th century B.C. or later.

855
the finds that do, or might, predate the Middle Hellenistic

period are from imported transport amphoras, suggesting

that if the site was being used in the Classical period, it

was probably for the collection and transportation of

agricultural products, rather than for permanent

occupation. Although an Archaic-Classical sherd was found

at S049, there are only two other certain pre-Middle

Hellenistic sherds, both of which are 4th century B.C.

This scarcity of finds makes it unlikely that S049 was

intensively used until after the Early Hellenistic period.

Indeed, the small quantity of pre-Hellenistic finds from

Zone 1 in general demonstrates that the Archaic and

Classical colonists preferred to live inside the walls of

the asty rather than on the plain.

Most of the pre-Hellenistic finds found through survey

at S043 are also specifically of 4th century B.C. date.

Except for two transport amphoras, all of these are from

black glaze vessels, primarily shapes associated with

drinking and eating (i.e., skyphoi and plates). The

quantity of Classical, and specifically 4th century B.C.,

sherds from S008 is also larger than that of material from

previous centuries. In contrast to S043, however, this

assemblage includes more sherds from transport amphoras and

cooking ware vessels than from black glaze vessels.

856
 The distribution of finds in Zones 3-6 suggests that

the agricultural land closest to Apollonia, particularly in

the Shtyllas valley, was first exploited by the colonists

in the 5th century B.C.; more widespread utilization,

however, did not begin until the Late Classical period.

Small scatters of sherds in Zones 3, 4, and 6 are mostly

from transport amphoras or pithoi. Again, these vessels

were probably used for the collection and storage of

agricultural products. All of the 5th century B.C. sherds

were found near roads, on low cultivatable terraces, or in

valley bottoms. There is no evidence for habitation in

Zones 3-6 before 300 B.C. The lack of evidence for

permanent occupation outside the asty in the Classical

period supports further the notion that farmers resided in

the city and traveled from there to their land.

The majority of the evidence for land use in the

hinterlands of Apollonia prior to the Hellenistic period

was found in Zone 4. Much of the Archaic/Late Classical

pottery collected from this zone was not found at locations

that later became habitation sites; almost as many sherds

were found off-site as on-site (47% versus 53%). Sherds

from storage vessels comprise 56% of the pre-Hellenistic

assemblage from Zone 4, and only 12% are black glaze. The

largest quantity of closely dated pre-Hellenistic sherds

857
(24) are specifically of the 4th century B.C., and the rest

could also be of this date.

S001 is anomalous among the Archaic-Early Classical

sites in the vicinity of Apollonia, and is most similar in

character to sites on the east side of the Gjanica river

valley. As noted above, several 6th-5th century B.C. Greek

sherds were found in conjunction with an Early Iron Age

sherd. Other Archaic/Classical sherds were found just

downslope at Z4 G1, in a tract adjacent to two that also

had indigenous material. Early Greek finds were often

found in conjunction with non-Greek sherds at Illyrian

sites. Very little of the material from Z4 G1 is

definitely Hellenistic, however, but the majority from S001

is. It is likely, therefore, that the pre-Hellenistic

sherds from S001/Z4 G1 are associated with an indigenous

site where a typical Hellenistic farmstead was established

after the 4th century B.C.

S031 in Zone 4 might have been visited on a temporary

basis in the Early Classical period, although the evidence

is slight. S002, S014, and S032 also have small amounts of

loosely dated Classical material, but it is unlikely that

they were extensively used before the 4th century B.C.

S010, S022, and S026 have sherds that are either Classical

or Early Hellenistic, and these sites, too, might have had

858
a 4th century B.C. origin. It is clear, however, that

there was no habitation in Zone 4 in the 6th and 5th

centuries B.C., but only sporadic visitation. There is

more evidence by the Late Classical period for the use of

some sites, but permanent occupation began only after the

4th century B.C.

The uplands and valleys between Radostina and Vadhiza

in Zone 3 were also little utilized before the Hellenistic

period. The only definite 5th century B.C. sherd was found

in a tract adjacent to S014 in Zone 4 which, as noted

above, had other finds of this date. Most of the 5th-4th

century B.C. finds from Zone 3 were collected on-site; only

28% were not. The majority of these sherds are from

transport amphoras (68%); only two are black glaze. Sites

S019, which borders Zone 2, and S033 are the only locations

with small pre-Hellenistic components, but again, most of

the sherds are from storage jars, indicating that these

sites were used as storage facilities and/or field houses

in the 4th century B.C.

Zone 5, which borders Zone 4, has the fewest Archaic/

Late Classical finds and the fewest storage vessels (58%)

from any of the zones in the vicinity of Apollonia. It

also has the largest quantity of off-site finds. Although

S028 might have first been used in the 4th century B.C.,

859
the rest of Zone 5 was only sporadically visited prior to

the 3rd century B.C. Only two securely dated Classical

sherds were found; both are black glaze fragments from

contiguous tracts located above S028. Several pieces from

S028 are no later than Early Hellenistic. It is

interesting to note that S028 is the only place in Zone 5

where an indigenous sherd was found. Since this piece,

however, is Late Bronze-Early Iron Age, it is unlikely that

there is a chronological overlap in site use.

In Zone 6, 63% of the Archaic/Classical finds were

collected off-site; 74% are from transport amphoras. Most

of the closely datable sherds are of the 4th century B.C.

The largest quantity of pre-3rd century B.C. sherds was

found at S032; all of these are from transport amphoras.

Only one is definitely no later than 400 B.C., and the rest

could not be closely dated. There are a few pre-

Hellenistic finds from S034 which, given their quality,

might be from a Classical grave. This is the only

potential pre-Hellenistic Greek burial that was found

outside the necropolis.

Although the standard reading of the victory monument

at Olympia suggests that the colonists had begun to enlarge

the size of the territory they controlled by the mid-5th

century B.C., no archaeological evidence indicates that

860
their settlement pattern became more dispersed at this

time.1653 Nothing resembling a permanent settlement outside

the asty before the Late Classical period has been

documented, and little land beyond the Shtyllas valley

seems to have been intensively exploited throughout the

Classical period. As noted in Chapter 4, the importance of

animal husbandry in the 5th century B.C. is reflected in

the story about Evenios, and the area in close proximity to

Apollonia was probably used for pasturage in Archaic-Early

Classical times.1654 Herodotus's passage also hints at a

more specific pattern of land holdings that likely obtained

in the early 5th century B.C.; Evenios asked for the two

finest kleroi outside the city, as well as the best house

in the town. Although the hinterland of Apollonia was

almost certainly divided into lots in the Early Classical

period, the land owners themselves would have resided in

the city.1655

More 4th century B.C. pottery was found in Zones 1 and

3-6 than Archaic/Early Classical. There are 152 sherds

that are Late Classical/Early Hellenistic, and 139 sherds

that are broadly dated Archaic/Early Hellenistic: many of

these, including definite Classical sherds, are probably of

1653
See Chapter 5 for a discussion of the victory monument.
1654
Hdt. 9.93-95.
1655
Cf. Hdt. 9.94; ML 5, 13, 49; Syll. 141.

861
the 4th century B.C. rather than earlier, given other

evidence for settlement expansion at this time.

As noted, the majority of the 4th century B.C. or

earlier sherds from Zones 3-6 are from storage jars (63%).

Only 13% of the finds are black glaze. The quantity of

storage vessels found at locations with a pre-Middle

Hellenistic component suggests these rudimentary sites were

used as temporary field houses, rather than as dwellings.

The absence of the complete household kit typical of Greek

farmsteads (storage jars, cooking ware, plain fine wares,

and decorated table wares) prior to the beginning of the

3rd century B.C. is also evidence that these rural

locations did not function at domiciles before the Early

Hellenistic period.

No Archaic-Classical/Classical sherds were found in

Zone 8, and only one sherd was found in Zone 9. Four

sherds from Zone 8 are no later than 4th century B.C., as

are two from Zone 9: all of these are from storage vessels,

most Corinthian imports or imitations of Corinthian types.

The paucity of definitely pre-Hellenistic sherds from these

zones clearly shows that the western side of the Gjanica

river valley continued to be unexploited.

The pattern of land use in Zone 7 prior to the 3rd

century B.C. has close parallels with that of the zones

862
around Margelliç. Thirty-two sherds from Zone 7 are of the

4th century B.C. or earlier. Most of these were found in,

or in close proximity to, Z7 G1. Seventy-two percent of

the pre-Hellenistic assemblage consists of storage vessels.

Two out of the four black glaze sherds found in the zone

are specifically of the 4th century B.C., and the only

other two could be.

It is likely that Z7 G1 remained an indigenous

habitation site through the Classical period. Apart from

the concentration of sherds at Z7 G1, there is no apparent

pattern in the distribution of other Archaic/Classical

finds in Zone 7 and it is unlikely that this zone was

densely populated or intensively utilized before the Early

Hellenistic period.

In contrast to Apollonia, the quantity of Classical

finds from Margelliç is smaller than Archaic; the size of

the settlement in the lower town contracted in the 5th

century B.C. A mere four Archaic/Early Classical sherds

were found in Zones 10-13. Unlike other zones, 5th century

B.C. finds were almost always associated with Archaic

finds, and, apart from Z13 G1, there is no evidence for an

increase in the extent of occupation around Margelliç.

Only one definite 5th century B.C. sherd was found at S055,

and that in a tract contiguous to ones with Iron Age

863
sherds. It was found with an Archaic fragment on the north

slope of the acropolis. Such data suggest that there was a

demographic decline at Margelliç in the Classical period.

The size of the lower town contracted and the population

relocated to habitations closer to the acropolis.

Apart from sites associated with Margelliç, there is

no evidence for occupation in Zones 10–13 during the

Archaic and Classical periods. The largest quantities of

Archaic/Classical finds are from S041, S045, and S055.

This Greek material was used by indigenous peoples, rather

than by Greek settlers. There is no evidence for

habitation or exploitation of land outside the lower town.

Nothing indicates that the agricultural land west of

Margelliç was used by the indigenous population during the

Archaic and Classical periods, and Zone 12 to the southeast

is entirely devoid of finds.

In conclusion, although Classical finds are more

numerous than Archaic, they are still rare and were found

in fairly restricted areas. The percentages of transport

amphoras and black glaze sherds in the Archaic/Classical

assemblage are roughly equal, where as the percentage of

storage vessels is much higher in the Archaic assemblage.

This decrease in Classical storage vessels and increase in

black glaze sherds is most pronounced in the necropolis and

864
probably signals the shift away from enchytrismoi and

towards the use of more elaborate grave goods. MRAP data

show that the same areas in the necropolis that were used

in the Archaic period continued to be used in the Classical

period and the number of burials increased in these places

during this time. Moreover, new tumuli were constructed in

other areas of the necropolis in the 4th century B.C.

Although the largest body of material is still from

the necropolis, there is an increase in the quantity of

Classical sherds that were found in Zones 3-6. Transport

amphoras continued to be the dominate vessel type used in

the hinterland, but the quantities of tiles, plain wares,

and cooking wares also increased, especially in the Late

Classical period. It is unlikely, however, that there was

any permanent occupation outside the asty during the

Classical period. Rather, all of the data suggest that

seasonal or temporary field houses were constructed during

the 4th century B.C.

In Zone 7, most of the pre-Hellenistic finds are from

storage jars. Many of these, as noted above, were found in

conjunction with indigenous sherds. The only black glaze

sherds probably date to the 4th century B.C., and it is

unlikely that there were Greeks living in this area before

that time. Zones 8 and 9 were unoccupied.

865
 The pattern at Margelliç is different from that found

elsewhere. At Margelliç there are fewer Classical finds

than Archaic. Evidence suggests that size of the site

contracted during the 5th and 4th centuries B.C., and

people abandoned the low lands in favor of a nucleated area

immediately below the acropolis. There is no occupation in

Zones 10-13 apart from Margelliç.

The Hellenistic Settlement and Land Use Patterns

The vast majority of sherds in the MRAP assemblage are

Hellenistic in date (Tables 9.7, 9.8). The total number of

pieces from this period is 20,240; 14,332 (71%) of these

are bricks/tiles. Of the total sherds, 7,901 are from the

excavation at S034, 7,345 of which are tiles.

Settlement patterns changed radically in the

Hellenistic period and an abundance of small farmsteads

appeared in the countryside around Apollonia (Fig. 9.7).

Survey data indicate that the landscape was intensively

exploited at this time and that large numbers of people

took up residence outside the city walls. As noted above,

this evolution of rural settlement was already underway by

the beginning of the Hellenistic period. It is only after

the 4th century B.C., however, that the demographic shift

is consummated. The shear quantity of finds of Hellenistic

866
date documents a transformation from a sparsely occupied

landscape into a well-settled countryside, full of people.

Almost all of the Hellenistic sites in Zones 1 and 3-6 were

probably small, single-family farmsteads, and many of them

had a single-period of occupancy. The sites in Zones 11

and 12, in contrast, do not appear to have been independent

farmsteads, but rather small settlements or satellite

agricultural facilities associated with an enlarged

Margelliç.

The dissemination of large numbers of Greek artifacts

into the hinterland was most pronounced in the Hellenistic

period, probably beginning in Middle Hellenistic. The

uplands in the triangular area bounded by Levan in the

south, the Apollonia necropolis in the west, and Fier in

the east (Zones 3-6), in which the best agricultural land

is found, came then to support a particularly dense

patchwork of small rural sites, most of them with no prior

Classical components.

The vast majority of the finds from Zone 2 are also

Hellenistic. During the 3rd century B.C., the entire area

inside the borders of S007 was used as a burial ground.

Burial was, however, no longer restricted to the necropolis

of Apollonia as it apparently had been in the Archaic-

Classical periods and graves of this date are found in the

867
countryside, too. The quantity of Hellenistic storage

vessels from the necropolis decreases noticeably and the

quantity of tile is exponentially larger. These data

confirm that enchytrismoi were no longer fashionable after

the 4th century B.C. and that tile graves became the norm.

There is also a discernible decline in the quantity and

quality of black glaze vessels and an upsurge in plain

wares, suggesting a pronounced shift in the types of grave

goods that accompanied the dead.

The quantity of definite and possible Hellenistic

sherds is 10 times greater in Zones 1 and 3-6 than the

combined total from earlier periods. In addition to the

appearance of numerous new sites, Hellenistic sherds are

ubiquitous in the landscape, forming a dense background

scatter of artifacts.1656

Eight sites with Archaic/Classical components expanded

in size in the 3rd century B.C.: S050 in Zone 1, S019 and

S033 in Zone 3, and S001, S002, S014, S031, and S032 in

Zone 4 (see Fig. 7.1). Four sites that began in the 4th

century B.C. also grew larger: S010, S022, and S026 in Zone

4 and S028 in Zone 5. All sites with earlier components

were permanently occupied during the Middle Hellenistic

1656
For a discussion of possible causes of off-site scatters in the
landscape see Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988; Wright et al. 1990, pp. 607-
608; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, pp. 50-52; Osborne 1992, pp.
21-22; Alcock, Cherry, and Davis 1994; Snodgrass 1994c; Barker, 1995,
p. 46; Bintliff, Howard, and Snodgrass 1999, 2000; Bintliff 2000.

868
period. Eighteen new Hellenistic farmsteads were

established in Zones 1 and 3-6: two in Zone 1 (S047, S049),

four in Zone 3 (S018, S020, S023, S029), eight in Zone 4

(S009, S011, S012, S015, S021, S051, S052, and S057), and

four in Zone 6 (S027, S034, S040, and S056). Most of these

sites were located on ridges and hills above valleys,

rather than in the lowlands themselves, and are situated

along major and minor transportation routes. All are near

water sources and adjacent to arable land.

More Hellenistic sites were located in the Shtyllas

valley than in any other zone. Among these are some of the

largest sites: S001, S014, S015, and S021. S019, which is

just outside Zone 2 (in Zone 3), and S032, which straddles

Zones 4 and 6, are two other large, independent farmsteads.

S023 and S029 on the slopes above the Vadhiza valley, on

the other hand, were probably part of clusters of

homesteads in the 3rd century B.C. that formed small

hamlets.

Although most of the Hellenistic sites were single-

family farmsteads, the quality and quantity of finds from

them differs. For example, S029 and S019 in Zone 3 were

different from other farmsteads in the area. The

assemblages include more fine wares and the sherd scatters

covered a larger area. S018, on the other hand, is

869
slightly smaller, but the paucity of vessel sherds,

especially fine wares, suggests that it was more

impoverished than the other two sites. Diversity in the

nature of the finds from different farmsteads is also

evident in Zone 4. Although S021 and S031 are among the

largest sites, only one Hellenistic black glaze sherd was

found at each. In contrast, 15 pieces of black glaze were

found at S015, which is approximately the same size as the

others, and five pieces were found at S022, one of the

smallest sites in the zone.

The assemblages from the farmsteads are unlike the

finds from Apollonia itself or from the sanctuary at

Bonjakët (S043): the rural sites had fewer pieces of black

glaze, less variety in shapes, and higher percentages of

plain and cooking wares. There is also more tile at the

farmsteads, the quantities of which are paralleled only in

the necropolis, where the tile served a different function.

Storage vessels are well represented in all the assemblages

from the farmsteads in Zones 3-6, but most of these might

have been produced locally, rather than imported. In

general, very few certain imported transport amphoras of

Hellenistic date were found. This is in marked contrast to

the Archaic and Classical periods, when the vast majority

of these vessels found in the countryside were Corinthian

870
imports. This shift away from imported transport amphoras

in favor of what are perhaps local ones is evident by the

beginning of the 3rd century B.C. and suggests that some

commodities that were once imported were now produced

locally.

The pattern of settlement around Peshtan and Pluk

(Zone 7) is entirely different in the Hellenistic period

from that in the immediate hinterland of Apollonia;

although some few sherds were found scattered in the

landscape, few sites were identified in this zone and those

have lower artifact densities than sites closer to

Apollonia. Additionally the quantity and quality of black

glaze and imported vessels is significantly lower in Zone 7

than in Zones 1-6 and in the immediate vicinity of

Margelliç.

As with the zones around Apollonia, the majority of

the finds from Zones 10-13 are Hellenistic. During this

period, occupation in, and utilization of, locales farther

away from the acropolis of Margelliç increased. All of the

existing sites in Zones 10-13 reached their peak during the

3rd century B.C. and several new ones emerged. There is a

consistent scatter of Hellenistic artifacts throughout

Zones 10, 11, and 13, suggesting that the countryside was

more intensively cultivated than in the past. Hellenistic

871
finds were rare in Zone 12, however, and this territory was

devoid of habitation sites.

The number of Greek sherds at S041, S045, and S055

increased during the Hellenistic period and the pattern of

land tenure around Margelliç appears to have been radically

altered. There is an upsurge in the number of artifacts

found on, and just below, the acropolis. By the 3rd

century B.C. the hinterland around the citadel was occupied

by people using non-indigenous ceramics: it appears that in

terms of material culture, the native Illyrians had become

"Hellenized" by this time. Although many of the ceramics

were locally produced, perhaps even by indigenous potters,

the products were all of Greek type.

In stark contrast to the hinterlands of both Apollonia

and Margelliç, the zones immediately west of the Gjanica

river remained underexploited throughout the Hellenistic

period. Finds of this period, which are so ubiquitous

elsewhere, were rare in Zones 8 and 9, and only a few

sherds were randomly dispersed in the landscape.

Stability in the countryside around the centers at

Apollonia and Margelliç seems to have been maintained until

the end of the 3rd century B.C. A transformation is

evident at this time, and people began to abandon domiciles

in the countryside in favor of urban dwellings. The shift

872
away from rural living and the demise of the small

farmstead is best illustrated at S034: there the closely

dated pottery from the excavation indicates that the site

was occupied only in the Middle Hellenistic period and was

abandoned around 200 B.C., perhaps in conjunction with an

escalation of Roman military involvement in the eastern

Adriatic.1657

Over half of the closely dated Late Hellenistic sherds

in the survey assemblage are from Apollonia and Margelliç,

specifically, the asty and S043, and the acropolis and

lower slopes of Margelliç. Other sherds of this date came

almost exclusively from S008 or "fusha e Qoramidhës

(S049)."

It is unclear when the demographic shift that had

taken place by the beginning of the Early Roman period was

set in motion, although it is likely that it was towards

the end of the Middle Hellenistic period. There is

evidence for continuity into the Late Hellenistic at only

three sites in Zones 3 and 4-6: S012 and S051 in Zone 4,

and S027 in Zone 6. One or two Late Hellenistic sherds

were found at a few other sites in the vicinity of

Apollonia: S020 in Zone 3, and S001, S002, S015, S031, and

S052 in Zone 4. Most of the farmsteads in these zones,

however, appear to have been abandoned during, or by the

1657
See Chapter 2 and Galaty et al. 2004.

873
end of, the Hellenistic period. This is certainly the case

for S047 and S050 in Zone 1; S018, S020, and S033 in Zone

3; S009, S010, S011, S022, S026, and S032 in Zone 4; S028

in Zone 5; and S034, S040, and S056 in Zone 6. Of the

sites that were abandoned at this time, some were

reoccupied later in the Roman period, but others were not.

Burial in the eastern necropolis at Apollonia ceased

in the Late Hellenistic period; in contrast to the vast

quantities of earlier Hellenistic finds, only one Late

Hellenistic sherd was collected from S007. The presence of

three Late Hellenistic sherds at S005 and two Late

Hellenistic-Early Roman sherds in contiguous tracts, might

indicate that this site, at least, continued in use

(perhaps even into the Early Roman period); it may, of

course, have assumed a different function by this time

(i.e., as a workshop or small domestic site). There is

also one Late Hellenistic sherd that was found just

downslope from S005 at S058, one of the few places in Zone

2 with Roman finds.

Hellenistic sites in Zone 7 were also abandoned before

or during the Late Hellenistic period. Only two Late

Hellenistic sherds were found in the entire catchment, one

each at S037 and S039. Nothing at all of Late Hellenistic

date was collected in Zones 8 or 9.

874
 Late Hellenistic sherds in Zones 10-13 came from the

vicinity of Margelliç, most on the acropolis or its lower

slopes. It is evident that the countryside around

Margelliç was also being drained of residents by the 1st

century B.C., as people relocated to larger regional

centers. It is possible that manpower at inland

settlements was depleted as farmers abandoned their land in

favor of military careers or other more lucrative

opportunities elsewhere. There is no doubt, however, that

the hinterland was depopulated by the Late Hellenistic

period.

In conclusion, the vast majority of the finds from all

zones and most sites are of Hellenistic date. By the

beginning of the 3rd century B.C. there was an enormous

increase in the exploitation of the countryside and an

upsurge in the number of small rural farmsteads in the

hinterland of Apollonia, especially in Zones 1 and 3-6. In

addition to numerous new sites, MRAP found a consistent

background scatter of Hellenistic sherds throughout the

countryside. The largest number of sites were identified

in the Shtyllas valley, the fertile zone closest to

Apollonia. The number of sites decreases, the farther away

one moves from the polis center. Most of the Hellenistic

farmsteads were situated on hilltops, ridges, or terraces

875
and took advantage of water sources and transportation

routes; very few sites were located in valley bottoms. The

percentages of different categories of ceramics (i.e.,

black glaze, fineware, cooking ware, and storage vessels)

vary from site to site.

There was also a drastic increase in the number of

burials in the necropolis of Apollonia during the

Hellenistic period. Tile graves were the preferred form of

burial, and more plain ware vessels were used as grave

goods at the expense of black glaze. In sharp contrast to

earlier periods, transport amphoras of Hellenistic date are

rare in the S007 assemblage.

Zones 8 and 9 remained unoccupied during the

Hellenistic period. Zone 7, too, appears to have been

underutilized. Moreover, the character of the finds from

the few farmsteads that were found in Zone 7 suggests that

they were more impoverished than those nearer to Apollonia.

It is possible that these zones (7-9) were too remote from

the urban centers at Apollonia and Margelliç to have been

attractive for permanent settlement.

The community around Margelliç also expanded during

the Hellenistic period. The settlement pattern, however,

is quite different from that around Apollonia. At

Margelliç, a continuous urban sprawl extends out into the

876
area below the acropolis. The sites a short distance away

from the acropolis appear to be satellite hamlets, while

the small single-family farmsteads found around Apollonia

seem to be absent.

As we have seen in Chapter 5, it is impossible to

determine the ethnicity of the people living at Margelliç

on the basis of material culture alone. It is likely that

this center remained an Illyrian stronghold, in spite of

the fact that Greek material culture replaced indigenous

types. There is no evidence that Margelliç ever developed

into a polis, like Byllis, or that any of the civic

institutions associated with that type of political

organization, such as a boule, ekklesia, or state cults,

developed there. Moreover, Margelliç was never included on

the theorodokoi lists, even when Byllis and Amantia were.

Another transformation, equally as radical, took place

towards the end of the Middle Hellenistic period, probably

during the 2nd century B.C. There was widespread

abandonment of the countryside and a move back to urban

center. There is only a small amount of evidence for site

continuity between the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman

periods. Moreover, burial in S007 ceased by the Late

Hellenistic period (see Chapters 7 and 8). It is possible

877
that this second shift coincided with the appearance of

Romans in the eastern Adriatic.

The Roman Settlement and Land Use Patterns

The Roman period is twice as long as the Hellenistic

period, yet the number of finds from MRAP only totals 4% of

the number of Hellenistic sherds (Fig. 9.8).1658 Only 821

pieces of Roman ceramics were collected, among them 302

tiles (Tables 9.9, 9.10). Thirty-seven percent of the

finds can be no more closely dated than Roman.

Changes in settlement patterns that almost certainly

had begun by the Late Hellenistic period can be

convincingly documented. There was a significant decrease

in the number of rural sites, and those that did survive

the Hellenistic to Roman transition contracted in size; the

Roman component is always much smaller when both periods

are represented at a site. Roman finds were collected

mostly at sites located at low elevations and along major

roads.

The Roman sherds from Zone 1 were largely confined to

tracts inside the polis walls and S043.1659 Both sites were

in continuous use throughout the Roman period. Very few

tiles were found at S043, and the number of storage vessels

1658
The percentage is slightly higher (7%) if sherds from the excavation
at S034 are excluded from the calculation.
1659
N. Ceka 1982a; Anamali 1992.

878
is larger than in earlier periods. There is also an

increase in the quantity of cooking and plain ware sherds,

certainly indicating that the function of the site changed–

as is clear from the excavation.

Twenty-three percent of the finds from S008 are Roman

in date. This is the highest percentage of Roman material

from any site with an earlier component; it is noteworthy

that only 4% of the ceramics are tiles. Elsewhere in Zone

1, there is a substantial Roman component at S049, a site

which also spans the Hellenistic-Roman transition. Most of

the finds from there, however, are Late Roman in date. A

couple Late Roman sherds from S050 possibly represent small

scale reuse since there is no evidence for continuity

between the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The rest

of the sites in Zone 1 also appear to have been uninhabited

in the Early Roman period. This is certainly the case for

S047 and S050 where no Roman sherds were found at all.

The eastern necropolis (S007) ceased to function as a

cemetery before the Late Hellenistic period. Mano suggests

that the burial ground was relocated to the plain west of

the acropolis during the 1st century B.C., her western

necropolis, which almost completely replaced S007 as

Apollonia's principal burial site.1660 Mano's western

necropolis forms part of MRAP site S049, but the survey

1660
Mano 1975.

879
found very little evidence of mortuary activity there. The

eastern necropolis might not have been entirely supplanted,

though. Although Praschniker excavated a Roman funerary

monument in the modern village of Kryegjata, almost no

evidence of its existence remains today.1661

As noted above, there is very little evidence in Zone

2 for continuity between the Hellenistic and Early Roman

periods. Only two sites in the zone, S016 and S058,

produced Roman finds. Most of the sherds from S016 are

pieces of Late Roman cooking pots. The assemblage from

S058 is similar, although there are a few Middle Roman

tiles. S058 appears, however, to have been exclusively a

Roman site, without a substantial Hellenistic component.

Roman sherds were also recovered in several tracts around

the periphery of the site, making this the largest

concentration of Roman artifacts from Zone 2. S058,

located just above the bottom of the Kryegjata valley, was

situated next to the Via Egnatia.

Apollonia remained a major center into the Late Roman

period. The city was a starting point of the Via Egnatia,

the large Roman road that ran from the coast of the

Adriatic to Thessalonica.1662 The road from Apollonia

1661
Praschniker 1922-1924, col. 60.
1662
Praschniker (1922-1924) was the first to document its route. See
also Praschniker and Schober 1919; Hammond 1974b; and Fasolo 2002, pp.
192-173. For maps of the route, see Talbert 2000, Illyricum 49; Amore

880
converged with the road from Epidamnus at Ad Quintum,

somewhere around modern Elbasan, and then continued

eastward through the valley of the Shkumbi river.1663 The

Via Egnatia was constructed after Macedonia was

incorporated as a Roman province in 148 B.C., and, as noted

elsewhere, it is likely that it followed the course of a

much older road.

Sections of the Via Egnatia traversed areas that were

surveyed by MRAP.1664 After passing through the city walls

of Apollonia, the road ran through the Kryegjata valley

(Zone 2), through the modern village of Radostina, and

across the plain to Fier.1665 The road veered south at Fier

to avoid a swamp, continued west to Stephanaphana, skirting

the village of Mbyet and completely bypassing the Gjanica

river valley and Margelliç. The construction of the road

had profound effects on settlement patterns both in areas

that it traversed and in those that it bypassed.1666

et al. 2001; Fasolo 2002, pp. 170-172. For more about the Via Egnatia,
see O'Sullivan 1972; Hammond 1974b, 1986; MacKay 1977; Adams 1982,
1986; Gounaropoulou 1985; Walbank 1986; Pothecary 1995; Fasolo 2002;
Lolos 2008.
1663
The Via Egnatia project, directed by Bejko, Amore, and Gjipali has
investigated the remains of the road around Elbasan. See Amore and
Bejko 2001; Amore et al. 2001. See Ceka and Papajani 1972 for Ad
Quintum.
1664
See Deniaux 1999; Fasolo 2002.
1665
Praschniker (1922-1924) reported seeing the remains of a bridge over
the Gjanica river at Fier.
1666
For the Via Egnatia and the consequences of its construction on the
territories through which it passed and bypassed, see Amore et al. 2001
and Fasolo 2003.

881
 Another major Roman thoroughfare ran north from

Apollonia to Epidamnus and south to Vlora, whence it

continued down the coast to Nicopolis. This road

intersected the Via Egnatia at Apollonia.1667 The route

south skirted the edge of the coastal plain between

Apollonia and Levan (Zones 4, 5, and 6), passing by the

temple at Shtyllas. A Roman mile marker found at Levan

confirms its trajectory.1668 This road almost certainly

followed the course of the modern Shtyllas-Levan road, and

geological investigations suggest that an ancient riverbed

of the Vjosa ran parallel to it. By ca. A.D. 286 when the

Antonine Itinerary was composed, Vlora had become the major

port in central western Albania.1669 When the course of the

Vjosa river changed in the Late Roman period, Apollonia

lost its strategic position as the southern terminus of the

Via Egnatia.1670

Large areas of Zones 3-6 appear to have been abandoned

throughout the Early and Middle Roman periods. Sites that

did survive beyond the 1st century A.D. were greatly

reduced in size. S019 is the only site in Zone 3 where

there is a substantial Roman component; all phases are

represented. S019 enjoyed a prominent location on the Via

1667
See Hammond 1974b, p. 190.
1668
CIL iii, 7365; Patsch 1904, p. 195; Praschniker 1922-1924, col. 53;
Fasolo 2002, p. 49.
1669
Itineraria Romana 329, I. See Hammond 1974b, p. 193.
1670
Wilkes 2006, p. 170.

882
Egnatia, and for this reason appears to have remained

important. Only one entirely new site was established in

Zones 1-6 in the Roman period: the villa at Levan (S042) in

Zone 6. It, too, lay on a Roman road–that from Shtyllas to

Levan. The other sites in Zone 6, S023 and S029, had been

abandoned before the Early Roman period and were not

reoccupied until Middle or Late Roman times.

Early Roman sherds were found in Zones 4-6 at S015,

S027, and in several tracts between S015 and S051.

Although there are substantial Roman components at S015 and

S027, the majority of the finds could not be closely dated,

making it difficult to determine if these sites were

continuously occupied. Late Roman is the most well

represented phase at both. S015 is located just above the

major thoroughfare through the Shtyllas valley and S027

next to the road to Vlora. There are also Roman sherds

from S014 (Zone 4) and S028 (Zone 5).

Large Roman latifundia of the type found in Italy

probably began to be introduced along the eastern seaboard

of the Adriatic following the dramatic events of 167 B.C.

when Aemilius Paullus and his army devastated parts of

Epirus and southern Illyria at the end of the Macedonian

War.1671 Many urban centers were destroyed and large parts

1671
On latifundia, see Crawford 1985, p. 225; Horden and Purcell 2000,
pp. 278-286.

883
of the countryside were depopulated; changes in land tenure

occurred at this time, as people retreated to urban

dwellings. The decrease in rural occupation and the

disappearance of small single-family farmsteads was abetted

by the creation of vast estates worked by slaves.

Latifundia probably were influential in redefining the

use of rural space around Apollonia. By the 1st century

A.D., the countryside had been transformed and small

farmsteads had disappeared. There was an increasing

emphasis on urbanization as people reverted to city life.

The reduction in the number of Roman sites corresponds to

an increase in the size of the community at Apollonia.

Apollonia will have been typical of the Balkans in

this period. Frequent military incursions by Roman and

Macedonian armies will have produced instability and

turmoil in the countryside, and the Early Roman period was

one of further decay in the rural landscape. The

ubiquitous small farmsteads of the Hellenistic period did

not reappear even after stability returned with the

establishment of a Roman provincial administration.1672 The

few rural sites that did survive near Apollonia were those

1672
Alcock (1993, ch. 2) discusses the radical changes that took place
in the countryside in the wake of Roman conquest and the subsequent
redistribution of land.

884
situated along major transportation and communication

arteries.1673

It is clear that latifundia existed in Albania in the

Early Roman period: the correspondence between Cicero and

Atticus attests to the practice at Butrint.1674 It is likely

that these types of farms were established in Mallakastra

and Muzakia, too, resulting in the consolidation of

individual parcels of land into sizeable estates.1675 On the

other hand, villas, common elsewhere during the Roman

period, are rare in the countryside of Apollonia; the only

known example in the survey area is S042 at Levan. If

these large slave-managed estates existed at Apollonia,

many owners must have lived in the city, rather than on

their land.

Another transformation in the rural landscape occurred

in the Late Roman period, and there seems to have been an

infilling of the countryside–on a much smaller scale,

however, than in the Early Hellenistic period. The shift

from urban-dwelling probably began at the end of the Middle

1673
Ceka (2001, pp. 54-55) notes in other parts of Albania a shift in
habitation from upland areas to the plains in close proximity to major
cities during the Roman period.
1674
Cicero Ad Att. 15.29.3. See Bergmann 1998 for Roman Butrint.
1675
There is, however, no evidence as yet for Apollonia, either textual
or archaeological, that points to the Roman practice of centuriation,
the implantation of "new" Roman colonies with war veterans, each of
whom received a small parcel of land. This practice is, however,
documented at Butrint, Phoinike, and elsewhere in southern Albania.
See Brunt 1971 for veteran colonies in general. See Shpuza 2006 for
centuriation in southern Albania.

885
Roman period and accelerated in Late Roman times. A

redefinition of rural space and a change in the system of

land tenure may have encouraged greater exploitation of the

countryside. Late Roman sherds were found at S012, S021,

S023, S029, S031, and S032.

Territory outside the immediate vicinity of Apollonia,

with the exception of the few sites along Roman roads,

remained unpopulated until the Late Roman period. An

increased exploitation of the hinterland then is detectable

in the reuse of a number of sites in Zones 1-6, as

mentioned above, but also in the number of sherds of that

date that were found in tracts, even in previously

depopulated areas such as Zones 1, 7, 10, and 13. At this

time, Apollonia itself was becoming less important, its

demise perhaps hastened by an earthquake that altered the

course of the Vjosa river.1676 Such an urban decline is,

however, visible in many other parts of the Mediterranean

in the Late Roman period.1677

All sites in Zone 7 were abandoned before the

beginning of the Early Roman period. The few Roman sherds

found in Zone 7, are Late Roman. There is no evidence for

permanent occupation or agricultural exploitation in the

zone during the Roman period. Very little Roman material

1676
Hammond 1992.
1677
Cf. Alcock 1993; Christie 2004, and other papers in the same volume.

886
was found in Zones 8 and 9 and those zones continued to be

uninhabited.

Margelliç (S041, S044, S045, S055), an area

continuously occupied from the Bronze Age through the

Hellenistic period, appears to have experienced a dramatic

demographic decline in the Early and Middle Roman periods.

The disruption and depopulation of the area may largely

have been a consequence of the construction of the Via

Egnatia, which shifted the route from Apollonia into the

interior of the Balkans to the north, completely bypassing

the area of Margelliç.

The revival in rural occupation underway by the Late

Roman period in Zones 3-6 also occurred in Zones 10-13,

however. Middle Roman sherds were found in Zone 13 and at

S045, where there is evidence for the reoccupation of a

small part of the site. The only indication of a Roman

presence on the acropolis is also Late Roman. S044, too,

was reused for domestic purposes in the Late Roman period.

The quantity of Roman sherds from the survey area is

astonishingly small, especially given the length of the

period. As we have seen, the countryside had been

depopulated during the Late Hellenistic period. The exodus

from the hinterland was paralleled by an increase in urban

residency. The multitude and magnitude of Roman buildings

887
and houses inside the walls at Apollonia attest to this

transformation. Although Apollonia was perhaps an

educational and cultural hub in the Early Roman period,1678

this does not mean that its chora prospered. The lack of

Roman transport amphoras in the countryside and the vast

quantities of them at S008, the asty, also underscores this

demographic shift.

Conclusion

This chapter has documented the diachronic changes in

settlement patterns in and around the Greek apoikia at

Apollonia and the Illyrian center at Margelliç. Apart from

a few sherds in the necropolis, there is little evidence

for a prehistoric presence around Apollonia. The most

significant evidence for Illyrians in the hinterland of

Apollonia is from east of the Gjanica river valley in Zone

7 and around Margelliç. It is possible that both of these

areas were used already in the Middle Bronze Age, but they

were certainly occupied during the Late Bronze-Early Iron

Age. Greek material culture began to appear in these zones

already in the Early Archaic period, probably

contemporaneously with the foundation of the colony at

Apollonia.

1678
Cf. Plut. Ant. 16, Brut. 22.

888
 During the Archaic and Classical periods the Greek

colonists lived in the polis center and worked the land in

the chora from there, perhaps setting up temporary or

seasonal structures outside the asty during the 4th century

B.C. It was during the Hellenistic period, however, that

the rural landscape was most intensively exploited, and

there was a proliferation of small, permanently occupied,

single-family farmsteads. The pattern changed once again

after the Middle Hellenistic period and perhaps coinciding

with an intensification of Roman military activity in the

eastern Adriatic. This shift produced a pattern in the

Early and Middle Roman periods that was similar to that of

the Archaic and Classical periods and urban residency again

gained favor at the expense of rural occupation. Another

shift occurred again in the Late Roman period when field

houses or small farmsteads were once again established

outside the city center.

889
 Chapter 10.

Apollonia and Its Hinterland: A Retrospect

The countries composing Albania,

seem, in parts, to have been peopled by
an almost uninterrupted succession of
barbarians. Illyricum and Epirus are
not often mentioned by historians,
without a notice of the peculiar
ferocity of their inhabitants. It was
not until the reign of Tharrytas, king
of the Molossians and Thesprotians,
from whom Pyrrhus was fourth in
descent, that the Greek manners and
language were introduced into the
country; which, as it was divided into
several petty principalities and
republics, could, after all, never have
been more than partially civilized.1679

The master-narrative of
"colonialism" in antiquity is a classic
instance of a problem of historical
focus: it derives from a myopic reading
of ancient literature, a long-sighted
failure to discern the patterns which
archaeology revealed, and an astigmatic
preoccupation with colonial locations
outside the geographical frame of
discussion. The simple story of
foundation and survival is extremely
artificial. The colonial onset is part
of the world of self-legitimating
political persuasion. The legitimating
narratives of the foundations of Greek
apoikiai have been read for decades
astonishingly literally.1680

The Euboeans were the first post-Mycenaean Greek

seafarers and traders in the Adriatic. They interpreted

1679
Broughton 1813, p. 125.
1680
Purcell 2005, p. 134.

890
this foreign coast in ways comfortable to them and imbued

their ports of call with familiar overtones by grafting

Greek nostoi onto the peoples and lands they encountered.

At Apollonia these early Greek mariners encountered a

deserted landscape filled with abandoned tumuli, burial

mounds they read as monuments of their Homeric ancestors.

Thus, by the time an apoikia was founded at Apollonia,

southern Illyria had become, in one sense, "Hellenized" and

incorporated into the Greek oikumene.

Apollonia was almost certainly founded by Corinth in

the second half of the 7th century B.C. The precise date

of 588 B.C., generally repeated by historians and

archaeologists for the foundation of the apoikia, is a

relic of 17th and 18th century scholarship that sought to

order antiquity by assigning exact dates to as many events

as possible. The textual evidence, however, cannot

substantiate such a late foundation date, and

archaeological evidence, too, suggests that it must be

entirely discarded.

The apoikia at Apollonia was a Corinthian foundation.

Its ktisis appears to have been altered in antiquity,

probably centuries after the foundation of the colony, to

accommodate Corcyra’s increased regional significance and

evolving political circumstances in the Adriatic. This

891
resulted in confusion in Hellenistic and Roman sources

about what had been the metropolis of the colony. The use

of limestone sarcophagi for burials, not usual in other

Greek colonies or on the island of Corcyra, but a common

practice at Apollonia in the Archaic and Classical periods,

had become a standard practice at Corinth by the beginning

of the 7th century B.C.1681 This fact lends credence to the

hypothesis that Corinth was the metropolis of Apollonia.

The study of imported Corinthian transport amphoras

has provided new and essential information about both Greek

and indigenous settlement patterns in the hinterland of

Apollonia. Charting the diachronic distribution of this

category of artifacts documents the spread of Greek

material culture from the apoikia into the surrounding

countryside and pinpoints the date at which this occurred.

Transport amphoras have also been valuable for determining

changes in the relationship between apoikia and metropolis.

Most of the Archaic vessels of this type are Corinthian

imports and the earliest examples are found exclusively in

the necropolis of Apollonia and at Margelliç, an indigenous

regional center and Illyrian hillfort. By the end of the

4th century B.C., on the other hand, the number of imports

from the metropolis had drastically decreased and non-

1681
Sarcophagi were also used at Syracuse. See Chapter 5.

892
Corinthian transport amphoras are ubiquitous in the

landscape.

The survey data presented in Chapter 7 and discussed

in Chapters 8 and 9 support textual evidence in suggesting

that the colonists encountered a very underutilized

landscape when they arrived at Apollonia. Apollonia was on

the border of the territory belonging to several different

Illyrian tribes and was thus situated in a "no-man's land."

The colonists took advantage of this opportunity: the easy

availability of fertile land, without the need to wrest it

from indigenous inhabitants by force, was probably one of

the principal attractions in settling Apollonia.

The Illyrians were not initially a seafaring people.

Strabo also notes that they did not take advantage of

marine resources. These observations may in part explain

why there were no indigenous people living in the immediate

vicinity of Apollonia when Greek colonists arrived. Native

settlement in Mallakastra at the time the apoikia was

founded appears to have been confined to locations east of

the Gjanica river valley.

There is nothing in our data to suggest an influx of

Illyrians into the apoikia, or that attests to mingling of

Illyrians and Greeks in the Archaic and Classical periods;

the material culture found in the zones near Apollonia is

893
typically and exclusively "Greek." Greeks were not the

only ones who used Greek-style products, however. The

zones west of the Gjanica demonstrate this most clearly:

although imported Archaic products, specifically transport

amphoras and black glaze vessels, moved across the river,

the fact that they are found in conjunction with

contemporary indigenous ceramics argues that they were used

by natives, rather than by Greek settlers. Rigid

territorial boundaries and distinctions between Greeks and

non-Greeks appear to have maintained until the Hellenistic

period.

There was little or no permanent occupation in the

hinterland of Apollonia during the Archaic and Classical

periods, possibly because the colonists felt unsafe living

far from the city center. For whatever reason, the

colonists and their ancestors chose largely to reside

inside the city walls throughout the 5th century B.C. and

probably few Greeks, if any, resided in the countryside

before the end of the 4th century B.C. Many of the

inhabitants of the polis probably engaged in trade, which

might have further anchored them to the asty. Others,

however, as indicated by Herodotus, were pastoralists or

farmers. Yet they, too, lived in the city, rather than on

or near their land.

894
 Greek exploitation of the hinterland around Apollonia

increased in the Late Classical period: the first

conclusive evidence for agricultural intensification in the

countryside is from the 4th century B.C. There is an

upsurge in the number of sites at this time, particularly

in the Shtyllas valley. It is likely that, as the

population increased, there was a higher demand for surplus

crops, which in turn led to exploitation of lands in areas

farther away from the asty. Even during the Late Classical

period, however, most farmers probably continued to live in

the city and travel from there to their plots; the majority

of the sherds found outside the city are from storage

vessels, suggesting that they were used for transporting

and/or storing farm products.1682

Burial was held sacred in the Greek world and was a

custom that helped define social and ethnic unity. The

importance of death rituals is evident in the poems of

Homer, and Herodotus, too, discussed the disposal of the

1682
The situation in parts of southern Italy is similar in some
respects. At Taras and Metapontum almost all of the Archaic Greek
artifacts from non-Greek contexts were found in tombs, where the most
common shapes are black glaze vessels associated with the consumption
of wine. Few sherds were found in native settlements, where indigenous
ceramics predominate. As at Apollonia, there are no early Greek sites
in the hinterland of the chora, and all Greek finds outside of the
immediate territory of the apoikiai are always found in association
with native. In contrast, however, numerous Archaic farmhouses have
been identified within the chora at Metapontum. See Whitehouse and
Wilkins 1989, pp. 107-113.

895
dead as a defining factor in "the Greek" character.1683 The

Greek colonists at Apollonia were doubtless attracted to

the area southeast of the acropolis by the presence of

indigenous tumuli there, which they then imitated. Except

for two Late Bronze Age sherds, however, all finds

collected by our project in the necropolis of Apollonia are

of Greek type.

The colonists began to bury their dead in the

necropolis in the Archaic period, at least by the early 6th

century B.C. Since the Archaic artifacts are from non-

contiguous areas, it is clear that the colonists did not

initially employ only one nucleated burial place within the

cemetery. Rather, multiple disparate tumuli were used

contemporaneously. These tumuli expanded in size over

time, often merging to form larger mounds—a trend

documented in the case of Tumulus 9. Small mounds built

near to one another were gradually incorporated into a

large tumulus. The colonists probably imagined both the

Illyrians and themselves to be practicing burial rituals

that, in some sense, were Homeric.

Patterns in burial at Apollonia in the Archaic and

Classical periods mirror those of settlements. In the

earliest decades of the apoikia, the dead were buried in

close proximity to the world of the living in the asty.

1683
Morris 1998, p. 9.

896
Greeks did not live outside the city walls, nor were they

buried in locations other than in the necropolis. This

pattern is the opposite of that in the Hellenistic period,

when there was widespread occupation and burial in the

countryside; people began to be buried near their fields or

in local cemeteries.

At the end of the 4th century B.C., evidence of

activity rises markedly in all the zones around Apollonia

and also in the area around Margelliç. It is at this time

that there was a proliferation of small, single-family

farmsteads in Zones 1, and 3-6. In contrast to earlier

finds, which almost exclusively consisted of transport

amphoras and pithoi, the Hellenistic assemblages contain

all the characteristic domestic components typically found

at farmsteads: tiles, plain and cooking wares, black glaze

vessels, and storage jars. Sites around Margelliç appear

to be of a different type. They were larger and were

perhaps satellite villages around the nucleated center.

An exodus from the countryside is evident late in the

Middle Hellenistic period, probably around the beginning of

the 2nd century B.C. This shift is visible in all zones

and is likely a result of an increased presence of

Macedonian and Roman armies. Settlement contracts further

in the Early Roman period, and it is only in Late Roman

897
times that there was a small revival in the number of

individual dwellings outside the polis centers.

Apollonia in the Mediterranean World

As noted in Chapter 2, Albania, and its coastal areas

in particular, have been subject to various outside

influences throughout the past. In keeping with this more

general trend, patterns of settlement in the area of

Apollonia have been shaped and re-shaped profoundly through

contact with foreign cultures and more powerful societies.

The effect of such influences are archaeologically evident

in the rural landscape explored by the Mallakastra Regional

Archaeological Project, from the time of the foundation of

the colony throughout the remainder of antiquity—the time

frame that has been a concern to me in this thesis.

Over the moyenne durée of three centuries, between the

7th and 4th century B.C., the rural settlement pattern at

Apollonia underwent only gradual changes. The apoikia was

a node on trade routes, perhaps even on an amber route from

the north, but still it occupied a position on the fringes

of the Greek world and remained fairly isolated. The lack

of knowledge and textual information about this part of the

Adriatic coast even as late as the 4th century B.C. is

evident in the misleading descriptions that have survived

898
from various Greek geographers. Thus, although Apollonia

belonged to a Greek cultural milieu in the Archaic and

Classical periods and even could play a major role in the

international arena from time to time, as at the beginning

of the Peloponnesian War, it remained outside the scope of

the familiar.

An intensification in rural land use in Hellenistic

times is perhaps to be expected, given the increasingly

important role that Apollonia came to play in international

affairs. With the death of Alexander, unity imposed by

Macedonia in the Balkans began to break down. As

Macedonian despots vied for strategic locations and

territorial expansion, an anchorage on the Adriatic was of

immense importance. Various rulers, beginning with

Cassander, sought to control important Greek ports in

southern Illyria. Thus Apollonia entered the mainstream.

The closer incorporation of the Adriatic in the larger

Hellenistic world is also evidenced by the many Illyrian

cities now included in the theorodokoi lists. But even in

the 3rd and 2nd century B.C., when evidence for rural land

use and settlement in the chora of Apollonia was at its

height, the existence of certain “dead zones” suggest the

boundaries between Greek and indigenous lands remained

firmly fixed.

899
 In 229 B.C. circumstances combined with individual

agency to irrevocably alter the coast of the Adriatic and

to put in motion a chain of events that led ultimately to

the Roman conquest of Greece. The execution by Teuta of

two ambassadors sent by Rome set the stage, and Apollonia

became embroiled in battles that continued until southern

Illyria was finally incorporated as a Roman province. The

individual actions of Demetrius of Pharos, Scerdilaidas,

Philip V, Perseus, and Aemilius Paullus, and the

consequences of their choices, demonstrate the essential

power of agency in the determination of historical

trajectories. The incorporation of Apollonia within the

Empire marked another shift in patterns of rural settlement

and land use—this time a contraction back to the asty and

perhaps an accompanying extensification in agricultural

production as Alcock has argued occurred in other parts of

the Greek world at that time.1684

The slender threads of a history summarized so briefly

in this chapter are the hard-won product of five years of

fieldwork in Albania, both surface survey and excavation.

As a result of this research, which I helped plan and

conduct, it is possible for the first time to gain a broad

and diachronic view of the development of a Greek colony in

1684
Alcock 1993.

900
the eastern Adriatic, including its hinterland. Through

the efforts of literally dozens of colleagues and

associates, a rich body of information about the landscape

of central Albania was collected, verified, and stored, one

that it has been my privilege here to analyze in depth.

Hundreds of pages of analysis have been required to

substantiate only a few pages of conclusions and for this I

must apologize to those readers whose patience I have

tried. Only in this way has it been possible, however, to

write a history for a Greek colony that is based as much on

archaeological evidence as on textual criticism.

The advantage of such an approach should be clear.

The archaeological data seemed to challenge traditional

interpretations. This in turn led me to reconsider the

latter—and, in so doing, to reject the substantive basis

for much earlier scholarship. Whether the new ktisis and

settlement history of Apollonia that I here propose will

stand the test of time, god only knows. It is my hope, at

least, that the way in which I have approached my subject

will encourage others to design similar research strategies

in other parts of the ancient world.

901
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agora XII = B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott. Black and Plain

Pottery from the 6th, 5th, and 4th Centuries B.C.,

Princeton 1970.

Ancient Greeks West and East = G. R. Tsetskhladze, ed.

1999. Ancient Greeks West and East, Leiden.

Ancient Macedonia I = V. Laourdas and Ch. Makaronas, eds.

1970. Ancient Macedonia: Papers Read at the First

International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, 26-29

August 1968, Thessaloniki.

Ancient Macedonia II = 1977. Papers Read at the Second

International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, 19-24

August 1973, Thessaloniki.

Ancient Macedonia IV = Papers Read at the Fourth

International Symposium Held in Thessaloniki, 21-25

September 1983, Thessaloniki.

Apoikia = B. D'Agostino and D. Ridgway, eds. 1994.

Apoikia: Scritti in Onore di Giorgio Buchner (Annali

di Archeologia e Storia Antica, NS No. 1), Naples.

Apollonia d'Illyrie = V. Dimo, P. Lenhardt, and F. Quantin,

eds. 2007. Apollonia d'Illyrie I: Atlas

Archéologique et Historique, Athens.

902
The Archaeology of Colonialism = C. L. Lyons and J. K.

Papadopoulos, eds. 2002. The Archaeology of

Colonialism, Los Angeles.

The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation = G. R. Tsetskhladze

and F. de Angelis, eds. 1994. The Archaeology of

Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir John

Boardman, Oxford.

BNP = Brill's New Pauly.

BUST = Buletin i Universitetit Shetëror të Tiranës, Tirana.

Colonisation eubéennes = 1975. Contribution à l'étude de

la société et de la colonisation eubéennes, Naples.

Complex Past of Pottery = J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, and

G. J. van Wijngaarden, eds. 1999. The Complex Past

of Pottery: Production, Circulation and Consumption of

Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth

Centuries B. C.). Proceedings of the ARCHON

International Conference, Held in Amsterdam, 8-9

November 1996, Amsterdam.

Corinth VII.2 = D. A. Amyx and P. Lawrence, Archaic

Corinthian Pottery and the Anaploga Well, Princeton

1975.

Corinth XIII = C. W. Blegen, H. Palmer, and R. S. Young,

The North Cemetery, Princeton 1964.

903
Corinth XV.1 = A. N. Stillwell, The Potters' Quarter,

Princeton 1948.

Corinth XV.3 = A. N. Stillwell and J. L. Benson, The

Potters' Quarter: The Pottery, Princeton 1984.

Corinth XX = C. K. Williams and N. Bookidis, eds. Corinth,

the Centenary 1896-1996, Princeton 2003.

Corinto = Corinto e l'occidente: Atti del trentaquattresimo

convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 7-11

Ottobre 1994, Naples 1995.

Cultural Poetics = C. Dougherty and L. Kurke, eds. 1993.

Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance,

Politics, Cambridge.

DNP = Der Neu Pauly.

Editorial 1976 = "Arkeologjia Shquitare dhe detyrat e saj

aktuale (L'Archéologie Albanaise et ses tâches

actuelles)," Iliria 6, 1976, pp. 13-16 (17-20).

Editorial 1984 = Problems of the Formation of the Albanian

People, their Language and Culture, Tirana.

Épire, Illyrie, Macédoine = D. Berranger, ed. 2007.

Épire, Illyrie, Macédoine: Mélanges offerts au

Professeur Pierre Cabanes, Clermont-Ferrand.

Euboica = M. Bats and B. d'Agostino, eds. 1998. Euboica:

L'Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in

Occidente (Collection Centre Jean Bérard 16), Naples.

904
FGrH = F. Jacoby. 1923-. Fragmente der griechischen

Historiker, Berlin.

FHG = K. Müller. [1841-1938] 1978. Fragmenta historicorum

graecorum, Frankfurt.

GGM = K. Müller. 1855-1882. Geographi Graeci Minores,

Paris.

Grecs et Illyriens = P. Cabanes, ed. 1993. Grecs et

Illyriens dans les inscriptions en langue grecque

d'Epidamne-Dyrrachion et d'Apollonia d'Illyrie: Actes

de la Table ronde internationale, Paris.

Greek Colonists = J.-P. Descoeudres, ed. 1990. Greek

Colonists and Native Populations: Proceedings of the

First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology

Held in Honor of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall,

Sydney, 9-14 July, 1985, Oxford.

LIMC = 1981-1999. Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae

Classicae, Zurich.

L'Illyrie méridionale I = P. Cabanes, ed. 1987. L'Illyrie

méridionale et l'Épire dans l'Antiquité: actes du

Colloque international de Clermont-Ferrand, 22-25

Octobre 1984, Clermont-Ferrand.

L'Illyrie méridionale II = P. Cabanes, ed. 1993.

L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Épire dans l'Antiquité II:

905
 actes du IIe Colloque international de Clermont-

Ferrand, 25-27 Octobre 1990, Paris.

L'Illyrie méridionale III = P. Cabanes, ed. 1999.

L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Épire dans l'Antiquité III:

actes du IIIe Colloque international de Chantilly, 16-

19 Octobre 1996, Paris.

L'Illyrie méridionale IV = P. Cabanes and J.-L. Lamboley,

eds. 2004. L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Épire dans

l'Antiquité IV: actes du IVe Colloque international de

Grenoble, 10-12 Octobre 2002, Paris.

Mediterranean Pilot = Mediterranean Pilot 35, 1955.

ML = R. Meiggs and D. Lewis. 1988. A Selection of Greek

Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth

Century BC, rev. ed., Oxford.

New Directions = L. Bejko and R. Hodges, eds. 2006. New

Directions in Albanian Archaeology: Studies Presented

to Muzafer Korkuti, Tirana.

Nouvelle contribution = 1981. Nouvelle contribution à

l'étude de la société et de la colonisation eubéennes,

Naples.

OCD3 = S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds. 2003. The

Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., rev., New York.

Perspectives on Albania = T. Winnifrith, ed. 1992.

Perspectives on Albania, New York.

906
PECS = R. Stillwell, ed. 1976. The Princeton Encyclopedia

of Classical Sites, Princeton.

Adams, J. P. 1982. "Polybius, Pliny, and the Via

Egnatia," in Philip II, Alexander the Great and the

Macedonian Heritage, ed. W. L. Adams and E. Borza,

Washington, D.C., pp. 269-302.

—————. 1986. "Topeiros Thraciae, the Via Egnatia and the

Boundaries of Macedonia," in Ancient Macedonia IV,

Thessaloniki, pp. 2-42.

Alcock, S. E. 1991. "Urban Survey and the Polis of

Phlius," Hesperia 60, pp. 421-463.

—————. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman

Greece, Cambridge.

Alcock, S. E., and J. F. Cherry, eds. 2004. Side-By-Side

Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the

Mediterranean World, Oxford.

Alcock, S. E., J. F. Cherry, and J. L. Davis. 1994.

"Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice, and the

Classical Landscape of Greece," in Classical Greece:

Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, ed. I.

Morris, Cambridge, pp. 137-170.

Aliu, S. 2006. "Recent Prehistoric Research in Southeast

Albania: A Review," in New Directions, pp. 43-55.

907
Allain, M. L. 1977. "The Periplous of Skylax of Karyanda"

(diss. Ohio State Univ.).

Amore, M. G. 2003-2004. "Necropolis of Apollonia: New

Results from Tumulus 9," Iliria 31, pp. 267-291.

—————. 2005a. "Preliminary Report. Apollonia Necropolis

Project: Tumulus 10." Unpublished report on file at

the International Center for Albanian Archaeology,

Tirana.

—————. 2005b. "Necropolis of Apollonia: Tumulus 9," in

L'Illyrie méridionale IV, pp. 307-310.

—————. 2005c. "Settlement and Burial in Apollonia and its

Area (Albania)" (M.A. thesis, Univ. of Cincinnati).

Amore, M. G., C. Balandier, P. Cabanes, N. Ceka, O.

Deslondes, V. Dimo, J. Espagne, A. Fenet, É. Fouache,

L. Koço, J.-L. Lamboley, P. Lenhardt, S. Muçaj, J.-C.

Poursat, F. Quantin, R. Spahia, and B. Vrekaj. 1995.

"Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 119, pp. 761-781.

Amore, M. G., and L. Bejko. 2001. "Recent Rescue

Excavations in Albania," Antiquity 75, pp. 269-270.

Amore, M. G., L. Bejko, Y. Cerova, and I. Gjipali. 2001.

"The Via Egnatia (Albania) Project and the Bridge at

Topçias," JRA 14, pp. 381-390.

Amyx, D. A. 1958. "The Attic Stelai: Part III," Hesperia

27, pp. 163-310.

908
—————. 1988. Corinthian Vase-Painting of the Archaic

Period 2, Berkeley, pp. 397-434.

Anamali, S. 1949. "Vjosa dhe qendrat antike në luginën e

saj," Buletin i Institutit të Shkencave 4, pp. 53-65.

—————. 1956. "Të dhëna mbi elementin ilir në qytetet

antike Epidamn dhe Apolloni," Buletin i Shkencave

Shoqërore 1, pp. 3-39.

—————. 1970. "Les villes de Dyrrachion et d'Apollonie et

leurs rapports avec les Illyriens," Studia Albanica

7.2, pp. 89-98.

—————. 1972. "Amantia (Amantie)," Iliria 2, pp. 67-148.

—————. 1976a. "L'Etat illyrien, sa place et son rôle dans

le monde Méditerranéen," Iliria 4, pp. 71-88.

—————. 1976b. Të dhënat mbishkrimore në disa qytete të

Ilirisë së Jugut (Données épigraphiques sur quelques

cités de l'Illyrie du Sud)," Iliria 6, pp. 125-130

(131-138).

—————. 1984. "The Problem of the Formation of the

Albanian People in the Light of Archaeological Data,"

in Problems of the Formation of the Albanian People,

their Language and Culture, Tirana, pp. 65-93.

—————. 1992. "Santuari dell'area illirico-epirotica," in

La Magna Grecia e i grandi santuari della madrepatria,

Taranto: atti del trentunesimo Convegno di studi sulla

909
 Magna Grecia, Taranto, 4-8 Ottobre 1991, ed. A. Stazio

and S. Ceccoli, pp. 123-136.

Anamali, S., and M. Korkuti. 1971. "Les Illyriens et la

genèse des Albanais à la lumière des recherches

archéologiques Albanaises," in Les Illyriens et la

genèse des Albanais, ed. M. Korkuti, S. Anamali, and

J. Gjinari, Tirana, pp. 11-39.

Andrea, Z. 1976a. "La civilisation des tumuli du bassin

de Korçë et sa place dans les Balkans du sud-est,"

Iliria IV, pp. 133-155.

—————. 1976b. "Tumat e Kuçit të Zi (Les tumuli de Kuç i

Zi)," Iliria VI, pp. 165-201 (202-233).

—————. 1977-1978. "Tumat e Kuçit të Zi (Les tumuli de Kuç

i Zi)," Iliria VII-VIII, pp. 127-155.

—————. 1984. "Archaeology in Albania, 1973-1983," AR 30,

pp. 102-119.

—————. 1985. " Mbi gjenezën dhe vijimësinë e kulturës së

Matit në epokën e bronzit (À propos de la genèse et de

la continuité de la culture de Mat à l'époque du

Bronze)," Iliria 15, pp. 163-174.

—————. 1990. "Vendbanimi shpellor i Nezirit (Epoka e

bronzit)," Iliria, 1990.2, pp. 5-63.

—————. 1992. "Archaeology in Albania, 1984-1990," AR 38,

71-88.

910
Andrewes, A. 1963. The Greek Tyrants, New York.

Antonaccio, C. 1994. "Contesting the Past: Hero Cult,

Tomb Cult, and Epic in Early Greece," AJA 98, pp. 389-

410.

—————. 1995. An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and

Hero Cult in Early Greece, Lanham, MD.

—————. 2001. "Ethnicity and Colonization," in Ancient

Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin,

Cambridge, MA, pp. 113-158.

—————. 2002. "Warriors, Traders, and Ancestors: The

"Heroes" of Lefkandi," in Images of Ancestors, ed. J.

M. Højte, Oxford, pp. 13-42.

—————. 2003. "Hybridity and the Cultures within Greek

Culture," in The Cultures within Ancient Greek

Culture: Contact, Conflict, and Collaboration, ed. C.

Dougherty and L. Kurke, Cambridge, pp. 57-74.

—————. 2005. "Excavating Colonization," in Ancient

Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity, and Difference,

ed. H. Hurst and S. Owen, London, pp. 97-113.

Antonelli, L. 2000. Kerkyraiká: Ricerche su Corcira alto-

arcaica tra Ionio e Adriatico, Rome.

Antonetti, C. 2007. "Epidamno, Apollonia e il santuario

olimpico: convergenze e discontinuità nella mitologie

911
 delle origini," in Épire, Illyrie, Macédoine, pp. 89-

112.

Arafat, K. W. 1996. Pausanias' Greece: Ancient Artists

and Roman Rulers, Cambridge.

Arafat, K. W., and C. Morgan. 1989. "Pots and Potters in

Athens and Corinth: A Review," OJA 8, pp. 311-346.

—————. 1995. "In the Footsteps of Aeneas: Excavations at

Butrint, Albania 1991-2," Dialogos 2, pp. 25-40.

Arnold, B. 1996. "The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian

Archaeology in Nazi Germany," in Contemporary

Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, ed. R. Preucel and I.

Hodder, Oxford, pp. 549-569.

Astin, A. E. 1968. Politics and Policies in the Roman

Republic, Belfast.

Aubet, M. E. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West:

Politics, Colonies and Trade, 2nd ed., trans. M.

Turton, New York.

Aura Jorro, F., and F. R. Adrados. 1985. Diccionario

micénico, Madrid.

Austin, M. M., and P. Vidal-Naquet. 1977. Economic and

Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction,

Berkeley.

Badian, E. 1952. "Notes on Roman Policy in Illyria," PBSR

20, New York, pp. 72-93.

912
—————. 1968. Roman Imperialism in the Late Republic,

Ithaca.

Bagnall, R. S., and P. Derow. 2004. The Hellenistic

Period: Historical Sources in Translation, Oxford.

Bakhuizen, S. 1976. Chalcis-in-Euboea, Iron and

Chalcidians Abroad (Chalcidian Studies III, 5),

Leiden.

—————. 1986. "Between Illyrians and Greeks: The Cities of

Epidamnos and Apollonia," Iliria 16, pp. 165-177.

—————. 1987. "The Continent and the Sea: Notes on Greek

Activities in Ionic and Adriatic Waters," in L'Illyrie

méridionale I, pp. 185-194.

Balandier, C. 2000. "Un rempart en briques cuites à

Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)? Problèmes de datation

et de défìnition," in La brique antique et médiévale:

production et commercialisation d'un matériau: actes

du colloque international organisé par le Centre

d'histoire urbaine de l'Ecole normale supérieure de

Fontenay/Saint-Cloud et l'Ecole française de Rome,

Saint-Cloud, 16-18 novembre 1995, ed. P. Boucheron, H.

Broise, and Y. Thébert, Rome, pp. 77-85.

Balandier, C., V. Bereti, P. Cabanes, J. -M. Cuda, V. Dimo,

S. Épelly, J. Espagne, A. Fenet, É. Fouache, S.

Gjongecaj, J.-L. Lamboley, P. Lenhardt, S. Muçaj, P.

913
 Naipi, M. Olszewski, J.-F. Pastre, Y. Pépin, O.

Picard, I. Pojani, F. Quantin, L. Rauzier, E.

Villeneau, and B. Vrekaj. 1996. "Apollonia d'Illyrie

(Albanie)," BCH 120, pp. 971-993.

Balandier, C., and L. Koço. 1999. "L'enceinte urbaine et

les portes d'Apollonia. Tentative d'approche

chronologique," in L'Illyrie méridionale III, pp. 205-

216.

Balandier, C., L. Koço, and P. Lenhardt. 2007. "Les

fortifications d'Apollonia," in Apollonia d'Illyrie,

pp. 159-186.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. 1954. "Rome and Macedon, 205-200

B.C.," JRS 44, pp. 32-40.

Barker, G. 1995. A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape

Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley,

London.

Barletta, B. A. 1990. "An 'Ionian Sea' Style in Archaic

Doric Architecture," AJA 94, pp. 45-72.

Bauslaugh, R. A. 1979. "The Text of Thucydides IV 8.6 and

the South Channel at Pylos," JHS 99, pp. 1-6.

Bearzot, C. 2002. "Filisto di Siracusa," in Storici greci

d'Occidente, ed. R. Vattuone, Bologna, pp. 91-136.

Beaumont, R. 1936. "Greek Influence in the Adriatic

before the Fourth Century B.C.," JHS 61, pp. 159-204.

914
—————. 1952. "Corinth, Ambracia, Apollonia," JHS 72, pp.

62-73.

Bejko, L. 1998. Vështrim mbi mendimin arkeologjik

shqiptar dhe kontekstin e tij social (An Overview of

the Albanian Archaeological Thought and its Social

Context)," Iliria, 1998.1-2, pp. 195-208.

—————. 1999-2000. "Zakone mortore në bronzin e vonë të

Shqipërisë Juglindore (Mortuary Customs in the Late

Bronze Age of South-Eastern Albania)," Iliria 24, pp.

129-181.

—————. 2004. "The Iron Age Tumulus at Kamenica

(Albania)," in L'Illyrie méridionale IV, pp. 39-44.

Beloch, J. von. 1886. Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-

römischen Welt, Leipzig.

Bender, B. 1998. Stonehenge: Making Space, Oxford.

Benson, J. L. 1964. "Review of T. J. Dunbabin and others:

Perachora: The Sanctuaries of Hera Akraia and Limenia,

Oxford, 1962," Gnomon 36, pp. 399-406.

—————. 1985. "Mass Production and the Competitive Edge in

Corinthian Pottery," in Greek Vases in the J. Paul

Getty Museum (J. Paul Getty Museum Occasional Papers

on Antiquities 3), pp. 17-20.

915
Bérard, J. 1957. La colonisation grecque de l'Italie

méridionale et de la Sicile dans l'antiquité:

l'histoire et la légende, 2nd ed., rev., Paris.

—————. 1960. L'expansion et la colonisation grecques

jusqu'aux guerres médiques, Paris.

Bereti, V., V. Dimo, J.-L. Lamboley, and B. Vrekaj. 2007.

"La céramique d'Apollonia," in Apollonia d'Illyrie,

pp. 129-146.

Bergemann, J. 1998. Die römische Kolonie von Butrint und

die Romanisierung Griechenlands, Munich.

Bertelli, L. 2001. "Hecataeus: From Geneaology to

Historiography," in The Historian's Craft in the Age

of Herodotus, ed. N. Luraghi, Oxford, pp. 67-94.

Berve, H. 1951. Griechische Geschichte 1, Freiburg.

—————. 1967. Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen, Munich.

Bianchetti, S. 2007. "Frammenti di storici nella

Geografia di Eratostene" in Historische Geographie der

Alten Welt: Grundlagen, Erträge, Perspektiven:

Festgabe für Eckart Olshausen aus Anlass seiner

Emeritierung, ed. U. Fellmeth, P. Guyot, and H.

Sonnabend, Hildesheim, pp. 11-26.

Bickermann, E. J. 1968. Chronology of the Ancient World,

London.

916
Biers, W. R. 1992. Art, Artefacts, and Chronology in

Classical Archaeology, London.

Biffi, N. 1986. "Elefenore e il Nóstos degli Abanti,"

Invigilata Lucernis 7-8 (1985-1986), pp. 77-98.

Billerback, M., and C. Zubler. 2007. "Stephanos von

Byzanz als Vermittler antiker Kulturgeschichte" in

Historische Geographie der Alten Welt: Grundlagen,

Erträge, Perspektiven: Festgabe für Eckart Olshausen

aus Anlass seiner Emeritierung, ed. U. Fellmeth, P.

Guyot, and H. Sonnabend, Hildesheim, pp. 27-41.

Bintliff, J. 2000. "The Concepts of 'Site' and 'Off-Site'

Archaeology in Surface Artefact Survey," in Non-

Destructive Techniques Applied to Landscape

Archaeology. The Archaeology of Mediterranean

Landscapes 4, ed. M. Pasquinucci and F. Trément,

Oxford, pp. 200-215.

Bintliff, J., P. Howard, and A. Snodgrass. 1999. "The

Hidden Landscape of Prehistoric Greece," JMA 12, pp.

139-168.

—————. 2000. "Rejoinder," JMA 13, pp. 116-120.

Bintliff, J., and A. Snodgrass. 1985. "The

Cambridge/Bradford Boeotian Expedition: The First Four

Years," JFA 12, pp. 123-161.

917
—————. 1988. "Off-Site Pottery Distributions: A Regional

and Interregional Perspective, CurrAnthr 29, pp. 506-

513.

Bishop, R. L., R. L. Rands, and G. R. Holley. 1982.

"Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological

Perspective," in Advances in Archaeological Method and

Theory 5, ed. M. B. Schiffer, pp. 275-330.

Blakeway, A. 1932-1933. "Prolegomena to the Study of

Greek Commerce with Italy, Sicily and France in the

Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.," BSA 33, pp. 170-

208.

—————. 1935. "Demaratus; A Study in Some Aspects of the

Earliest Hellenization of Latium and Etruria," JRS 25,

pp. 129-149.

Bland, W. 1992. "Albania after the Second World War," in

Perspectives on Albania, pp. 123-136.

Blavatsky, V. D. 1962. "Ausgrabungen in Apollonia in

Illyrien (1958), Klio 40, pp. 271-291.

—————. 1966. "Fondation de l'Apollonie illyrienne,"

Vjesnik Arheološkog Muzeja u Zagrebu (Bulletin of the

Archaeological Museum in Zagreb) 68, pp. 143-146.

—————. 1971. "Apollonia et les Illyriens (avant 229 av.

notre ère)," in Actes du VIIIe congrès international

des sciences préhistoriques et protohistoriques, I

918
 (Béograd 9-15 Septembre 1971), ed. M. Garašanin, A.

Benac, and N. Tasic, Beograd, pp. 235-239.

Blavatsky, V., and S. Islami. 1960. "Gërmimet në Apolloni

dhe Orik gjatë vitit 1958," BUST 1, pp. 65-74.

Boardman, J. 1957. "Early Euboean Pottery and History,"

BSA 52, pp. 1-29.

—————. 1964. The Greeks Overseas, Baltimore.

—————. 1990. "Al Mina and History," OJA 9, pp. 169-190.

—————. 1994. "Orientalia and Orientals on Ischia," in

Apoikia, pp. 95-100.

—————. 1999a. The Greeks Overseas: Their Early Colonies

and Trade, 4th ed., New York.

—————. 1999b. "The Excavated History of Al Mina," in

Ancient Greeks West and East, pp. 135-161.

—————. 2004. "Copies of Pottery: By and for Whom?," in

Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in

Honour of Brian Shefton, ed. K. Lomas, Leiden, pp.

149-162.

Bodinaku, N. 1982. "Varreza tumulare e Pazhokut (La

nécropole tumulaire de Pazhok)," Iliria, 1982.1, pp.

49-101.

Boesch, P. 1908. Θεωρός: Untersuchung zur Epangelie

griechischer Feste, Berlin.

919
Bogdani, J., and E. Giorgi. "Ricerche, ricognizioni e

saggi stratigrafici nella città alta," in Phoinike IV:

Rapporto preliminare sulla campagne di scavi e

ricerche 2004-2006, ed. S. De Maria and S. Gjongecaj,

Bologna, pp. 13-30.

Bond, G. C., and A. Gilliam, eds. 1994. Social

Constructions of the Past: Representation as Power,

London.

Bonnet, G., and M.-C. Ferriès. 2007. "Les sources

littéraires Latines," in Apollonia d'Illyrie, pp. 56-

76.

Boshnakov, K. 2004. Pseudo-Skymnos (Semos von Delos?): Τα

αριστερά του Πόντου: Zeugnisse griechischer Schriftsteller

über den westlichen Pontosraum, Stuttgart.

Boulat, A. 2000. "Eyewitness Kossovo," National

Geographic 197.2, pp. 72-83.

Bradeen, D. W. 1947. "The Lelantine War and Pheidon of

Argos," TAPA 78, pp. 223-241.

Braudel, F. 1966. La Méditerranée et le monde

méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II, Paris.

—————. 1972. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean

World in the Age of Philip II, trans. S. Reynolds, New

York.

920
Brinkmann, V. 1985. "Die aufgemalten Namenbeischriften am

Nord- und Ostfries des Siphnierschatzhauses," BCH 109,

pp. 77-130.

Brodie, N. 1997. "The Chemical Analysis of Archaeological

Ceramics at the Intra-regional Level: The Case of

Early Iron Age Cyprus," in Archaeological Sciences

1995. Proceedings of a Conference on the Application

of Scientific Techniques to the Study of Archaeology,

Liverpool, July 1995 (Oxbow Monograph 64), ed. A.

Sinclair, E. Slater, and J. Gowlett, Oxford, pp. 55-

61.

Broughton, J. C. Hobhouse. 1813. A Journey through

Albania and Other Provinces of Turkey in Europe and

Asia, to Constantinople, during the Years 1809 and

1810, London.

Brown, T. S. 1958. Timaeus of Tauromenium, Berkeley.

Bruce, I. A. F. 1967. An Historical Commentary on the

Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, Cambridge.

Brunt, P. A. 1971. Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.-14 A.D.,

London.

Buchner, G. 1975. "Nuovi aspetti e problemi posti dagli

scavi di Pithecusa con particolari considerazioni

sulle oreficerie di stile orientalizzante antico," in

Colonisation eubéennes, pp. 59-86.

921
—————. 1979. "Early Orientalizing Aspects of the Euboean

Connection," in Italy Before the Romans: The Iron Age,

Orientalizing, and Etruscan Periods, ed. D. Ridgway

and F. Ridgway, London, pp. 129-143.

Buchner, G., and D. Ridgway. 1983. "Pithekoussai 944,"

Annali Instituto Orientale, Napoli: Archeologia e

Storia Antica 5, pp. 1-9.

—————. 1993. Pithekoussai, Rome.

Buda, A. 1984. "The Ethnogenesis of the Albanian People

in the Light of History," in Problems of the Formation

of the Albanian People, their Language and Culture,

Tirana, pp. 9-34.

Bunbury, E. H. 1883. A History of Ancient Geography among

the Greeks and Romans from the Earliest Ages till the

Fall of the Roman Empire, London.

Burgess, R. W. 1999. Studies in Eusebian and Post-

Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart.

Burn, A. R. 1935. "Dates in Early Greek History," JHS 55,

pp. 130-146.

Busolt, G. 1893a. Griechische Geschichte: bis zur

Schlacht bei Chaironeia 1, Gotha.

—————. 1893b. "Die korinthischen Prytanen," Hermes 28,

pp. 312-320.

922
Cabanes, P. 1969. "A propos de la liste Argienne de

théarodoques," REG 82, pp. 550-551.

—————. 1976. L'Épire de la mort de Pyrrhos à la conquête

romaine (272-167 av. J.-C.), Paris.

—————. 1978. "Les recherches archéologiques en Albanie

dans les trentes dernières années," Dialogues

d'Histoire Ancienne 28, pp. 319-345.

—————. 1981. "Société et institutions en Épire et en

Macédoine à l'époque classique et hellénistique,"

Iliria 11.2, pp. 75-94.

—————. 1983. "Notes sur les origines de l'intervention

romaine sur la rive orientale de la mer Adriatique

(229-228 avant J.-C.)," in L'Adriatico tra

Mediterraneo e penisola balcanica nell'antichità:

Lecce-Matera, 21-27 ottobre 1973, Taranto, pp. 187-

204.

—————. 1986a. "Les modifications territoriales et

politiques en Illyrie méridionale et en Épire, au IIIe

siècle et dans la première moitié du IIe siècle av. n.

ère," Iliria 16, pp. 75-99.

—————. 1986b. "Recherches archéologiques en Albanie 1945-

1985," RA 1986.1, pp. 107-142.

—————. 1988a. Les Illyriens de Bardylis à Genthios: IVe-

IIe siècles avant J.-C., Paris.

923
—————. 1988b. "Le développement des villes en Illyrie

méridionale à partir du IVe siècle avant J.-C.,"

Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de

France, pp. 198-221.

—————. 1993a. "L'apport des sources littéraires à

l'onomastique d'Épidamne-Dyrrhachion et Apollonia

d'Illyrie," in Grecs et Illyriens, pp. 7-21.

—————. 1993b. "Apollonie et Épidamne-Dyrrhachion:

épigraphie et histoire," in L'Illyrie méridionale II,

pp. 145-153.

—————. 1994. "Apollonia d’Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 118,

pp. 521-529.

—————. 2000. "La présence Grecque sur la côte Orientale

de l'Adriatique en Illyrie du sud," in Les cultes

polythéistes dans l'Adriatique Romaine, ed. C.

Delplace and F. Tassaux, Bordeaux, pp. 51-62.

—————. 2001. Histoire de l'Adriatique, Paris.

—————. 2002. "Apollonia d'Illyrie," in Greek Archaeology

without Frontiers, ed. J. A. Todd, D. Komini-Dialeti,

and D. Hatzivassiliou, Athens, pp. 175-194.

—————. 2003-2004. "L'oeuvre de Léon Rey en Albanie (1924-

1939), Iliria 31, pp. 15-30.

—————. 2005. "Les interventions grecques en Grande Grèce

et en Sicile aux IVe-IIIe siècles av.," in Le canal

924
 d'Otrante et le Méditerranée antique et médiévale:

colloque organisé à l'Université de Paris X - Nanterre

(20-21 novembre 2000), ed. E. Deniaux, Paris, pp. 23-

30.

—————. 2007a. "Thétis et Achille à Apollonia d'Illyrie,"

REA 109, pp. 529-540.

—————. 2007b. "Les sources littéraires Grecques," in

Apollonia d'Illyrie, pp. 39-56.

Cabanes, P., and N. Ceka. 1997. Études épigraphiques 2:

Corpus des inscriptions greques d'Illyrie méridionale

et d'Épire I.2. Inscriptions d'Épidamne-Dyrrhachion

et d'Apollonia, Athens.

Cabanes, P., and F. Drini. 1995. Études épigraphiques 2:

Corpus des inscriptions grecques d'Illyrie méridionale

et d'Épire I.1. Inscriptions d'Épidamne-Dyrrhachion

et d'Apollonia, Athens.

—————. 2007. Études épigraphiques 2: Corpus des

inscriptions grecques d'Illyrie méridionale et d'Épire

2. Inscriptions de Bouthrôtos, Paris.

Cabanes, P., F. Drini, J.-L. Lamboley, B. Vrekaj, V.

Bereti, S. Épelly, B. Lahi, S. Legrand, M. Olszewski,

I. Pojani-Dhamo, F. Quantin, P. Lenhardt, C.

Balandier, J. Espagne, É. Fouache, G. Gruda, S. Muçaj,

P. Nikolli, L. Koço, S. Aliu, V. Dimo, J.-C. Poursat,

925
 A. Fenet, B. Jubani, G. Derrien, M. Marquet, A. Muçaj,

A. Rabot, and P. Naipi. 1997. "Apollonia d'Illyrie

(Albanie)," BCH 121, pp. 848-870.

Cabanes, P., J.-L. Lamboley, and B. Vrekaj. 2000.

"Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 124, pp. 620-630.

—————. 2001. "Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 125,

pp. 701-715.

—————. 2002. "Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 126,

pp. 646-658.

—————. 2003. "Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 127, pp.

610-621.

Cabanes, P., B. Vrekaj, J.-L. Lamboldy, P. Lenhardt, C.

Balandier, G. Bonnet, V. Dimo, J. Espagne, É. Fouache,

L. Koço, S. Muaj, P. Naipi, P. Neury, Y. Pépin, I.

Pojani, F. Quantin, and A. Skenderaj. 1999.

"Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie)," BCH 123, pp. 569-580.

Çabej, E. 1970. Hyrje në historinë e gjuhës Shqipe;

fonetika historike e Shqupes, Prishtina.

—————. 1976. "Le problème du territoire de la formation

de la langue albanaise," Iliria 5, pp. 7-22.

Calligas, P. G. 1982. "Κέρκυρα, αποικισµός και έπος," ASAtene 60,

pp. 57-68.

Caravale, A., and I. Toffoletti. 1997. Anfore antiche:

conoscerle e identificarle, Formello.

926
Camelot, P. Th. 1962. Éphèse et Chalcédoine, Paris.

Carras, C. 2004. "Greek Identity: A Long View," in Balkan

Identities: Nation and Memory, ed. M. Todorova, New

York, pp. 294-326.

Cartledge, P. 2002. The Greeks: A Portrait of Self and

Others, 2nd ed., Oxford.

Casevitz, M., J. Pouilloux, and A. Jacquemin, trans. 1999.

Pausanias: Description de la Gréce, vol. V, Paris.

Casson, S. 1926. Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria: Their

Relations to Greece from the Earliest Times down to

the Time of Philip Son of Amyntas, Oxford.

Catling, H. W., E. E. Richards, and A. E. Blin-Stoyle.

1963. "Correlations between Composition and

Provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery," BSA 58,

pp. 94-115.

Caven, B. 1990. Dionysius I: War-Lord of Sicily, New

Haven.

Cawkwell, G. 1992. "Early Colonisation," CQ 42, pp. 289-

303.

—————. 1995. "Early Greek Tyranny and the People," CQ 45,

pp. 73-86.

Ceka, H. 1965. Probleme të Numismatikës Ilire, Tirana.

927
—————. 1972. Questions de numismatique illyrienne, avec

un catalogue des monnaies d'Apollonie et de

Durrhachium, Tirana.

—————. 1982. "Mendime rreth mbishkrimit të Rabies

(Observation sur l'inscription de Rabie)," Iliria,

1982.2, pp. 71-89.

Ceka, H., and N. Ceka. 1971. "La développement de l'etat

chez les Illyriens," in Les Illyriens et la genèse des

Albanais, ed. M. Korkuti, S. Anamali, and J. Gjinari,

Tirana, pp. 139-146.

Ceka, N. 1977-1978. "Vendbanime protourbane në Ilirinë

e jugut (Agglomérations protourbaines d'Illyrie du

Sud)," Iliria VII-VIII, pp. 249-262.

—————. 1982a. Apolonia e Ilirisë, Tirana.

—————. 1982b. "Vula antike mbi tjegulla në trevën ndërmjet

Aosit dhe Genusit (Timbres antiques trouves dans la

conntree entre Aoos et Genus), Iliria 1982.2, pp. 103-

130.

—————. 1983a. "Lindja e jetës qytetare tek Ilirët e jugut

(La naissance de la vie urbaine chez les Illyriens du

sud)," Iliria 13.2, pp. 135-192.

—————. 1983b. "Gërmimet arkeologjike të vitit 1983-

Mashkjezë (Cakran), Iliria 13.2, pp. 251-254.

928
—————. 1983c. "Processi di transformazioni nell'Illiria

del sud durante il periodo arcaico," in Modes de

contacts et processus de transformation dans les

sociétés anciennes: actes du colloque de Cortone (24-

30 mai 1981), Rome, pp. 203-218.

—————. 1984. "Le Koinon de Bylliones," Iliria 1984.2, pp.

79-89.

—————. 1985. "Kultura protoqytetare ilire (La

civilisation protourbaine illyrienne)," Iliria 15.1,

pp. 111-150.

—————. 1986. "Amfora antike nga Margëlliçi," Iliria 16.2,

pp. 71-89.

—————. 1987a. "Arkitektura e qytezës së Margëlliçit,"

Monumentet 1, pp. 5-25.

—————. 1987b. Le koinon des Bylliones (Koinoni i

Bylinëve), in L'Illyrie méridionale I, pp. 135-149.

—————. 1990a. "Fortifikimet antike të bashkësisë byline

(Les fortifications antiques du koinon des

Bylliones)," Iliria 20 (1990.1), pp. 99-146.

—————. 1990b. "Periudha Paraqytetare në Trevën Byline,"

Iliria 21 (1990.2), pp. 137-160.

—————. 1995. "Corinto e l'Occidente: l'area dell'odierna

Albania," in Corinto e l'Occidente. Atti del

trentaquattresimo convegno di studi sulla Magna

929
 Grecia, Taranto 7-11 Ottobre 1994, Taranto, pp. 453-

456.

—————. 1998. "Pesëdhjet vjet studime për qytetet ilire,"

Iliria 1998 (1-2), pp. 121-125.

—————. 1999. Butrint: A Guide to the City and Its

Monuments, 1999.

—————. 2001. Ilirët, Tirana.

—————. 2003-2004. Sur la correspondance de Léon Rey avac

Hasan Ceka, Iliria 31, pp. 67-82.

—————. 2005. The Illyrians to the Albanians, Tirana.

—————. 2006. "Recent Excavations at Butrint (2004-5):

Notes on the Growth of the Ancient City Centre," in

New Directions, pp. 177-185.

Ceka, N., and L. Papajani. 1972. "Nymfeu dhe termet e

stacionit Ad Quintum," Monumentet 4, pp. 29-57.

Champion, T. C., ed. 1989. Centre and Periphery:

Comparative Studies in Archaeology, London.

Chandler, R. 1776. Travels in Asia Minor, London.

Charneux, P. 1966a. "Liste Argienne de théarodoques," BCH

90, pp. 156-239.

—————. 1966b. "Premières remarques sur la liste Argienne

de théarodoques," BCH 90, pp. 710-714.

Cherry, J. F. 1983. "Frogs Round the Pond: Perspectives

on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the

930
 Mediterranean Region," in Archaeological Survey in the

Mediterrnaean Area (BAR International Series 155), ed.

K. R. Keller and D. W. Rupp, Oxford, pp. 375-416.

Cherry, J. F., 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 Long-Term History: The Landscape of

Northern Keos in the Cyclades, Los Angeles.

Childe, V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization,

London.

Christesen, P. 2007. Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient

Greek History, Cambridge.

Christie, N. 2004. "Landscapes of Change in Late

Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Themes,

Directions and Problems," in Landscapes of Change:

Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early

Middle Ages, ed. N. Christie, Burlington, pp. 1-37.

Clarke, K. 1999. Between Geography and History:

Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World, Oxford.

931
Clare, R. J. 2002. The Path of the Argo: Language,

Imagery and Narrative in the Argonautica of Apollonius

Rhodius, Cambridge.

Coldstream, J. N. 1968. Greek Geometric Pottery, London.

—————. 1977. Geometric Greece, London.

—————. 1983. "Some Problems of Eighth-Century Pottery in

the West, Seen Through the Greek Angle," in La

Ceramique grecque ou de tradition grecque au VIIIe

siècle en Italie centrale et méridionale, Naples, pp.

31-33.

—————. 1993. "Mixed Marriages at the Frontiers of the

Early Greek World," OJA 12, pp. 89-107.

—————. 1994. "Prospectors, and Pioneers: Pithekoussai,

Kyme and Central Italy," in The Archaeology of Greek

Colonisation, pp. 47-59.

—————. 1995. "Euboean Geometric Imports from the

Acropolis of Pithekoussai," BSA 90, pp. 251-267.

—————. 2003. Geometric Greece, 2nd ed., London.

Cole, S. G. 1994. "Demeter in the Ancient Greek City and

its Countryside," in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and

Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock and

R. Osborne, New York, pp. 199-216.

—————. 2004. Landscapes, Gender, and Ritual Space: The

Ancient Greek Experience, Berkeley.

932
Cook, J. M. 1973. The Troad, Oxford.

—————. 1988. "Cities in and around the Troad," BSA 83,

pp. 7-19.

Cook, R. M. 1937. "The Date of the Hesiodic Shield," CQ

31, pp. 204-214.

—————. 1960. Greek Painted Pottery, London.

—————. 1962. "Reasons for the Foundation of Ischia and

Cumae," Historia 11, pp. 113-114.

—————. 1969. "A Note on the Absolute Chronology of the

Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.," BSA 64, pp. 13-15.

—————. 1972. Greek Painted Pottery, London.

Cooley, W. D. 1844. Larcher's Notes on Herodotus:

Historical and Critical Comments on the History of

Herodotus, with a Chronological Table, London.

Coppola, A. 1993. Dimetrio di Faro, Rome.

Corcella, A. 2007. "Book IV," in Commentary on Herodotus:

Books I-IV, ed. O. Murray and A. Moreno, Oxford, pp.

545-721.

Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and

Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (1000-264

B.C.), New York.

Counillon, P. 2004. Pseudo-Skylax: le périple du Ponte-

Euxine, Ausonius.

933
Crawford, M. H. 1985. Coinage and Money under the Roman

Republic: Italy and the Mediterranean Economy,

Berkeley.

Crielaard, J. P. 1996. "How the West Was Won: Euboeans

vs. Phoenicians," in Die Akten des Internationalen

Kolloquiums "Interactions in the Iron Age:

Phoenicians, Greeks and the Indigenous Peoples of the

Western Mediterranean," in Amsterdam am 26. und 27.

März 1992, ed. H. G. Niemeyer, Amsterdam, pp. 235-260.

—————. 1999. "Production, Circulation, and Consumption of

Early Iron Age Greek Pottery (Eleventh to Seventh

Centuries B.C.)," in The Complex Past of Pottery:

Production, Circulation, and Consumption of Mycenaean

and Greek Pottery (Sixteenth to Early Fifth Centuries

B.C.), ed. J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, and G. J. van

Wijngaarden, Amsterdam, pp. 49-81.

Cross, G. N. 1932. Epirus: A Study in Greek

Constitutional Development, Cambridge.

Curtius, E. 1876. "Studien zur Geschichte von Korinth,"

Hermes 10, pp. 215-243.

D'Agostino, B. 1994. "Pitecusa–Una apoikía di tipo

particolare," in Apoikia, pp. 19-28.

—————. 1996. "Pithekoussai and the First Western Greeks,"

JRA 9, pp. 301-309.

934
—————. 1999. "Euboean Colonisation in the Gulf of

Naples," in Ancient Greeks West and East, pp. 207-227.

D'Andria, F. 1986. "Nuovi sulle relazioni tra gli Illiri

e le popolazioni dell'Italia méridionale," Iliria 16

(1986), pp. 43-51.

—————. 1987. "Problèmes du commerce Archaïque entre la

mer Ionienne et l'Adriatique," in L'Illyrie

méridionale I, pp. 35-38.

—————. 1990a. "Greek Influence in the Adriatic: Fifty

Years after Beaumont," in Greek Colonists, pp. 281-

290.

—————. 1990b. Archeologia dei Messapi, Bari.

Danforth, L. 1995. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic

Nationalism in a Transnational World, Princeton.

Darnton, R. 1984. The Great Cat Massacre and Other

Episodes in French Cultural History, New York.

Daux, G. 1949. "Listes Delphiques de théarodoques," REG

62, pp. 1-30.

—————. 1965. "Note sur la liste Delphique des

théarodoques," BCH 89, pp. 658-664.

—————. 1967. "Théores et théarodoques," REG 80, pp. 292-

297.

935
—————. 1971. "Sur quelques inscriptions (anthroponyms,

concours a Pergame) serment éphébique," REG 84, pp.

350-383.

—————. 1980a. "La grande liste Delphique des

théarodoques," AJPh 101, pp. 318-323.

—————. 1980b. "Trois remarques de chronologie delphique,"

BCH 104, pp. 115-125.

Davis, J. L. 2000. "Warriors for the Fatherland: National

Consciousness and Archaeology in 'Barbarian' Epirus

and 'Verdant' Ionia, 1912-1922," JMA 13.1, pp. 76-98.

—————. 2007. "Memory Groups and the State: Erasing the

Past and Inscribing the Present in the Landscapes of

the Mediterranean and Near East," in Negotiating the

Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in

Archaeological Research, ed. N. Yoffee, Tucson, pp.

227-256.

Davis, J. L., S. E. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. G. Lolos, and C.

W. Shelmerdine. 1997. "The Pylos Regional

Archaeological Project. Part I: Overview and the

Archaeological Survey," Hesperia 66, pp. 391-494.

Davis, J. L., V. Dimo, I. Pojani, S. R. Stocker, K. M.

Lynch, T. Gerke, and E. Gorogianni. 2006. "Bonjakët

Excavations, Apollonia: 2004-2005," in New Directions,

pp. 89-98.

936
Davis, J. L., A. Hoti, I. Pojani, S. R. Stocker, A. D.

Wolpert, P. E. Acheson, and J. W. Hayes. 2003. "The

Durrës Regional Archaeological Project: Archaeological

Survey in the Territory of Epidamnus/Dyrrachium in

Albania," Hesperia 72, pp. 41-119.

Davis, J. L., M. Korkuti, L. Bejko, M. L. Galaty, S. Muçaj,

and S. R. Stocker. 2003-2004. "The Hinterlands of

Apollonia," Iliria 31 (1-2), pp. 305-314.

—————. 2007. "The Hinterlands of Apollonia," in Apollonia

d'Illyrie, pp. 13-23.

Davis, J. L., S. R. Stocker, and J. Wallrodt. 2009.

"Vrojtimi Intensiv Sipërfaqësor," in Manual mbi

Praktikat Arkeologjike në Terren, ed. V. Hysa and N.

Molla, Tirana, pp. 12-42.

De Angelis, F. 1994. "The Foundation of Selinus:

Overpopulation or Opportunities," in The Archaeology

of Greek Colonisation, pp. 87-110.

—————. 2003. Megara Hyblaia and Selinous: The

Development of Two Greek City-States in Archaic

Sicily, Oxford.

De la Coste-Messelière, P. 1936. Au Musée de Delphes:

Recherches sur quelquesmonuments archaïques et leur

décor sculpté, Paris.

937
—————. 1944-1945. "Nouvelles remarques sur les frises

siphniennes," BCH 68/69, pp. 5-27.

Dell, H. J. 1967a. "The Origin and Nature of Illyrian

Piracy," Historia 16, pp. 344-358.

—————. 1967b. "Antigonus III and Rome," CP 62, pp. 94-

103.

—————. 1970a. "Demetrius of Pharos and the Istrian War,"

Historia 19, pp. 30-38.

—————. 1970b. "The Western Frontier of the Macedonian

Monarchy," in Ancient Macedonia I, pp. 115-126.

—————. 1977. "Macedonia and Rome: The Illyrian Question

in the Early Second Century B.C.," in Ancient

Macedonia II, pp. 305-315.

Delouis, O., J.-L. Lamboley, P. Lenhardt, F. Quantin, A.

Skenderaj, S. Verger, and B. Vrekaj. 2007. "La ville

haute d'Apollonia d'Illyrie: Étapes d'une recherche en

cours," in Épire, Illyrie, Macédoine, pp. 37-53.

De Maria, S., ed. 2001. Phoinike. La città e il suo

territorio, Bologna.

—————. 2004. "Nuove ricerche Archeologiche nella città e

nel territorio di Phoikikè," in L'Illyrie méridionale

IV, pp. 323-344.

938
—————. 2007. "Butrinto e Fenice a confronto," in Roman

Butrint: An Assessment, ed. I. L. Hansen and R.

Hodges, Oxford, pp. 175-188.

De Maria, S., and S. Gjongecaj, eds. 2002. Phoinike I:

Rapporto preliminare sulla campagna di scavi e

ricerche 2000, Florence.

—————. 2003. Phoinike II: Rapporto preliminare sulla

campagna di scavi e ricerche 2001, Bologna.

—————. 2005. Phoinike III: Rapporto preliminare sulla

campagne di scavi e ricerche 2002-2003, Bologna.

—————. 2007. Phoinike IV: Rapporto preliminare sulla

campagne di scavi e ricerche 2004-2006, Bologna.

Den Boer, W. 1957. "The Delphic Oracle Concerning

Cypselus (Hdt. V, 92β, 2)," Mnemosyne 10, p. 339.

Deniaux, E. 1988. "Ciceron et la protection des cités de

l'Illyrie du sud et d'Épire (Dyrrachium et Buthrote),"

Iliria 18, pp. 143-155.

—————. 1999. Mélanges de l'École Française de Rome,

Antiquité 111.1, pp. 167-189.

—————. 2005a. "L'Epigraphie de la colonie romaine de

Byllis à l'époque Augustéenne," in Contributi

all'Epigrafia d'Età Augustea. Actes de la XIIIe

Rencontyre Franco-Italienne sur l'Epigraphie du Monde

Romain, ed. G. Paci, Rome, pp. 115-128.

939
—————. 2005b. "Le canal d'Otrante et la Méditerranée

antique et médiévale," in Le canal d'Otrante et le

Méditerranée antique et médiévale: colloque organisé à

l'Université de Paris X - Nanterre (20-21 novembre

2000), ed. E. Deniaux, Paris, pp. 7-14.

De Polignac, F. 1994. "Mediation, Competition, and

Sovereignty: The Evolution of Rural Sanctuaries in

Geometric Greece," in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries

and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, ed. S. E. Alcock

and R. Osborne, New York, pp. 3-18.

—————. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the

Greek City-State, J. Lloyd, trans., Chicago.

D'Ercole, M.-C. 2000. "La légende de Diomède dans

l'Adriatique preromaine," in Les Cultes polythéistes

dans l'Adriatique Romaine, ed. C. Delplace and F.

Tassaux, Bordeaux, pp. 11-26.

Derow, P. S. 1970. "Rome and the Greek World from the

Earliest Contacts to the End of the First Illyrian

War" (diss. Princeton Univ.).

—————. 1973. "Kleemporos," Phoenix 27, pp. 118-134.

—————. 1989. "Rome, the Fall of Macedon, and the Sack of

Corinth," in CAH2 8: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133

B.C., ed. A. E. Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W.

940
 Frederiksen, and R. M. Olgivie, Cambridge, pp. 290-

323.

—————. 1991. "Pharos and Rome," ZPE 88, pp. 261-270.

—————. 1994. "Historical Explanation: Polybius and His

Predecessors," in Greek Historiography, ed. S.

Hornblower, Oxford, pp. 73-90.

—————. 2003. "The Arrival of Rome: From the Illyrian Wars

to the Fall of Macedon," in A Companion to the

Hellenistic World, ed. A. Erskine, Oxford, pp. 51-70.

Descoeudres, J.-P. 1990 = Greek Colonists.

De Vries, I. 2003. "Eighth-Century Corinthian Pottery:

Evidence for the Dates of Greek Settlement in the

West," in Corinth XX, pp. 141-156.

Dhima, A. 1983. "Notes anthropologiques sur la formation

du peuple albanais," Iliria 13 (1983), pp. 251-260.

—————. 1985. "Vështrim mbi tiparet antropologjike të

ilirëve (Aperç u sur les traits anthropologiques des

Illyriens)," Iliria 15.2, pp. 293-300 (300-301).

Diaz-Andreu, M., and T. Champion, eds. 1996. Nationalism

and Archaeology in Europe, Boulder.

Dickey, K. 1992. Corinthian Burial Customs ca. 1100-550,

(diss. Bryn Mawr College).

Dickie, M. 1990. "Talos Bewitched: Magic, Atomic Theory

and Paradoxography in Apollonius Argonautica 4.1638-

941
 88," in Papers of the Leeds International Latin

Seminar 6, ed. F. Cairns and M. Heath, Leeds, pp. 267-

296.

Dietler, M. 1999. "Consumption, Cultural Frontiers, and

Identity: Anthropological Approaches to Greek Colonial

Encounters," in Confini e frontiera nella grecità

d'Occidente (Atti del trentasettesimo convegno di

studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 3-6 ottobre, 1997,

Tarento, pp. 475-501.

Diller, A. 1938. "The Tradition of Stephanus Byzantius,"

TAPA 69, pp. 333-348.

—————. 1952. The Tradition of the Minor Greek

Geographers, Lancaster.

—————. 1955. "The Authors Named Pausanias," TAPA 86, pp.

268-279.

—————. 1956. "Pausanias in the Middle Ages," TAPA 87, pp.

84-97.

—————. 1957. "The Manuscripts of Pausanias," TAPA 88, pp.

169-188.

Dillon, M. 1997. Pilgrims and Pilgrimage in Ancient

Greece, London.

Dimo, V. 1977-1978. "Puse dhe stera në Apoloni," Iliria

7-8, pp. 317-323.

942
—————. 1984. "Gërmime të reja në murin rrethues të

Apolonisë," Iliria 17.1, pp. 199-213.

—————. 1987. "Gërmimet arkeologjike të vitit 1987

Apoloni," Iliria 1987.2, pp. 245-246.

—————. 1988. "Gërmimet arkeologjike të vitit 1988

Apoloni," Iliria 1988.2, pp. 253-254.

—————. 1991. "Qeramika korintike, atike me figura të zeza

dhe ajo me figura të kuqe të gjetura në nekropolin e

Apolonisë," Iliria 21.1-2, pp. 65-90.

—————. 2004. Apollonia e Ilirisë, Tirana.

Dimo, V., and A. Fenet. 1999. Nouvelles recherches sur la

nécropole tumulaire d'Apollonia," in L'Illyrie

méridionale III, pp. 217-223.

Dimo, V., A. Fenet, and A. Mano. 2007. "Les nécropoles,"

in Apollonia d'Illyrie, pp. 300-316.

Dimo, V., J.-L. Lamboley, P. Lenhardt, and F. Quantin.

2007. "Le centre monumental," in Apollonia d'Illyrie,

pp. 186-217.

Dimo, V., F. Quantin, and B. Vrekaj. 2007. "Histoire des

recherches archéologiques à Apollonia," in Apollonia

d'Illyrie, pp. 25-38.

Di Vita, A. 1990. "Town Planning in the Greek Colonies of

Sicily from the Time of Their Foundation to the Punic

Wars," in Greek Colonists, pp. 343-364.

943
Dodwell, E. 1819. A Classical and Topographical Tour

through Greece, during the Years 1801, 1805, and 1806,

London.

Dodwell, H. 1702. Annales Thucydidei et Xenophontei:

Praemittitur apparatus, cum vitae Thucydidis synopsi

chronologica, London.

Domi, M. 1984. "Problems of the History of the Formation

of the Albanian Language, Achievements and Tasks," in

Problems of the Formation of the Albanian People,

their Language and Culture, Tirana, pp. 35-63.

Domínguez, A. 2002. "Greeks in Iberia: Colonialism

without Colonization," in The Archaeology of

Colonialism, pp. 65-95.

Donlan, W. 1970. "Archilochus, Strabo and the Lelantine

War," TAPA 101, pp. 131-142.

—————. 1985. "The Social Groups of Dark Age Greece," CP

80, pp. 293-308.

Dontas, G. 1965. Ἀνασκαφὴ ἀρξαίας οἰκίας εἰς τὸ ἐν Κερκύρᾳ κτῆµα

Εὐελπίδη," ArchDelt 18, 1963 B'2 [1965], pp. 180-186.

—————. 1967. "Κέρκυρα· Ἀνασκαφὴ οἰκοπέδου Εὐελπίδη," ArchDelt

20, 1965, B'2 [1967], pp. 391-397.

—————. 1968. "Κέρκυρα· Ἀνασκαφὴ οἰκοπέδου Εὐελπίδη," ArchDelt

21, 1966, B'2 [1968], pp. 321-324.

944
Dougherty, C. 1993a. The Poetics of Colonization: From

City to Text in Archaic Greece, New York.

—————. 1993b. "It's Murder to Found a Colony," in

Cultural Poetics, pp. 178-198.

Dougherty, C., and L. Kurke. 1993. "Introduction," in

Cultural Poetics, pp. 1-12.

Drejtshkrimi i gjuhës Shqipe, Tirana, 1973.

Drews, R. 1962. "Diodorus and His Sources," AJP 83, pp.

383-392.

—————. 1963. "Ephorus and History Written KATA GENOS,"

AJP 84, pp. 244-255.

Drini, F. 1985. Bibliografi e arkeologjisë dhe historisë

së lashtë të Shqipërisë: 1972-1983, Tirana.

Droit, R.-P., ed. 1998. Greeks and Romans in the Modern

World, Boulder.

Ducat, J. 1962. "L'archaisme à la recherche de points de

repére chronologiques, BCH 86, pp. 165-184.

Ducellier, A. 1981. La facade maritime de l'Albanie au

moyen age: Durazzo et Valona de XIe au XVe siècle,

Salonica.

Dueck, D. 2000. Strabo of Amasia: A Greek Man of Letters

in Augustan Rome, New York.

Dunbabin, T. J. 1948a. The Western Greeks, Oxford.

945
—————. 1948b. "The Early History of Corinth," JHS 68, pp.

59-69.

Dyson, S. L. 1981. "A Classical Archaeologist's Response

to the 'New Archaeology,'" BASOR 242, pp. 7-13.

—————. 1989. "Complacency and Crisis in Late Twentieth

Century Classical Archaeology," in Classics: A

Discipline and Profession in Crisis, ed. P. Culham and

L. Edmunds, New York, pp. 211-220.

—————. 1993. "From New to New Age Archaeology:

Archaeological Theory and Classical Archaeology – A

1990s Perspective," AJA 97, pp. 195-206.

Earle, T. K. 1982. "Prehistoric Economics and the

Archaeology of Exchange," in Contexts for Prehistoric

Exchange, ed. J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle, New York,

pp. 1-12.

Eckstein, A. M. 1999. "Pharos and the Question of Roman

Treaties of Alliance in the Greek East in the Third

Century B.C.E.," CP 94, pp. 395-415.

Edelstein, L., and I. G. Kidd. 1972. Posidonius 1: The

Fragments, Cambridge.

Ehrenberg, V. 1937. "When Did the Polis Rise?," JHS 57,

pp. 149-159.

—————. 1969. The Greek State, 2nd ed., London.

946
Eiring, J., M.-C. Boileau, and I. Whitbread. 2002. "Local

and Imported Transport Amphorae from a

Hellenistic Kiln Site at Knossos: The Results of

Petrographic Analyses," in Céramiques

hellénistiques et romaines Productions et

diffusion en Méditerranée orientale (Chypre,

Égypte et côte syro-palestinienne) (Travaux de la

maison de l'Orient Méditerranéen 35), ed. F.

Blondé, P. Ballet, and J.-F. Salles, Lyon, pp.

59-65.

Empereur, J. -Y., and Y. Garlan. 1987. "Bulletin

archéologique: amphores et timbres amphoriques," REG

100, pp. 58-109.

—————. 1992. "Bulletin archéologique: amphores et timbres

amphoriques," REG 105, pp. 176-220.

—————. 1997. "Bulletin archéologique: amphores et timbres

amphoriques," REG 110, pp. 161-209.

Errington, R. M. 1972. The Dawn of Empire: Rome's Rise to

World Power, Ithaca.

—————. 1977. "The Nature of the Macedonian State under

the Monarchy," Chiron 8, pp. 77-133.

—————. 1989a. "Rome against Philip and Antiochus," in CAH2

8: Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., ed. A. E.

947
 Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, and R. M.

Olgivie, Cambridge, pp. 244-289.

—————. 1989b. "Rome and Greece to 205 B.C.," in CAH2 8:

Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., ed. A. E.

Astin, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, and R. M.

Olgivie, Cambridge, pp. 81-106.

Falaschi, R. 1992. "Ismail Qemal Bey Vlora and the Making

of Albania in 1912," in Perspectives on Albania, pp.

106-114.

Farnsworth, M. 1964. "Greek Pottery: A Mineralogical

Study," AJA 68, pp. 221-228.

—————. 1970. "Corinthian Pottery: Technical Studies," AJA

74, pp. 9-20.

Farnsworth, M., I. Perlman, and F. Asaro. 1977. "Corinth

and Corfu: A Neutron Activation Study of their

Pottery," AJA 81, pp. 455-468.

Fasolo, M. 2003. La Via Egnatia, Rome.

Fenet, A., F. Quantin, A. Skenderaj, and B. Vrekaj. 2007.

"Bibliographie Générale," in Apollonia d'Illyrie, pp.

xvii-xxxi.

Ferrary, J.-L. 1988. Philhellénisme et impérialisme:

aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde

hellénistique, Rome.

948
Fine, J. V. A. 1936. "Macedon, Illyria, and Rome, 220-219

B.C.," JRS 26, pp. 24-39.

Finley, M. I. 1968. "The Alienability of Land in Ancient

Greece," Eirene 7, pp. 25-32 (= The Use and Abuse of

History, pp. 153-160).

—————. 1975. The Use and Abuse of History, New York.

—————. 1976. "Colonies: An Attempt at a Typology,"

Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th

ser., 26, pp. 167-188.

—————, ed. 1979. The Bücher-Meyer Controversy, New York.

—————. 1982a. Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, New

York.

—————. 1982b. "The Ancient City: From Fustel de Coulanges

to Max Weber and Beyond," in Economy and Society in

Ancient Greece, pp. 3-23.

—————. 1985. Ancient History: Evidence and Models,

London.

—————. 1999 [1985]. The Ancient Economy, Berkeley.

Fisher, N. and H. van Wees, eds. 1998. Archaic Greece:

New Approaches and New Evidence, London.

Flower, M. A. 1994. Theopompus of Chios: History and

Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C., Oxford.

949
Fontenrose, J. E. 1978. The Delphic Oracle, Its Responses

and Operations, with a Catalogue of Responses,

Berkeley.

Forbes, R. J. 1936. Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity,

Leiden.

Forrest, W. G. 1969. "Two Chronographic Notes," CQ 19,

pp. 93-110.

Fotiadis, M. 2001. "Imagining Macedonia in Prehistory,

ca. 1900-1930," JMA 14.2, pp. 115-135.

Fouache, É. 2002. "Dynamiques paléo-environnementales en

Albanie à l'Holocene," in L'Albanie dans l'Europe

Préhistorique: Actes du colloque de Lorient 8-10 juin

2002 (BCH Suppl. 42), ed. J. Renard and G. Touchais,

Paris, pp. 3-42.

—————. 2007. "Site et région d'Apollonia," in Apollonia

d'Illyrie, pp. 3-13.

Fouache, É., G. Gruda, S. Muçaj, and P. Nikolli. 2001.

"Recent Geomorphological Evolution of the Deltas of

the Seman and the Vjosa (Albania)," Earth Surface

Processes and Landform 26, pp. 793-802.

Franke, P. R. 1955. Alt-Epirus und das Königtum der

Molosser, Kallmünz Opf.

—————. 1976. "Einige Probleme und Aufgaben der

illyrischen Numismatik," Iliria IV, pp. 295-299.

950
—————. 1983. "Albanien im Altertum: ein Reisebericht,"

AntW 14, pp. 11-65.

—————. 1989. "Pyrrhus," in CAH2 7.2: The Rise of Rome to

220 B.C., ed. F. A. Walbank, A. E. Astin, M. W.

Frederikson, and R. M. Ogilvie, Cambridge, pp. 456-

485.

Frazer, J. G. 1898. Pausanias's Description of Greece,

London.

Gaffney, V., S. Čače, J. Hayes, B. Kirigin, P. Leach, and

N. Vujnović. 2002. "Secret Histories: The Pre-

colonial Archaeological Context for Greek Settlement

of the Central Adriatic Islands," in Greek Influence

along the East Adriatic Coast, ed. N. Cambi, S. Čače,

and B. Kirigin, Split, pp. 25-44.

Galaty, M. 2002. "Modeling the Formation and Evolution of

an Illyrian Tribal System: Ethnographic and

Archaeological Analogs," in The Archaeology of Tribal

Societies, ed. W. A. Parkinson, Ann Arbor, pp. 109-

122.

Galaty, M., S. Muçaj, S. R. Stocker, M. E. Timpson, and J.

L. Davis. 2004. "Excavation of a Hellenistic

Farmhouse in the Vicinity of Apollonia," in L'Illyrie

méridionale IV, pp. 299-305.

951
Galaty, M., S. R. Stocker, and C. Watkinson. 1999.

“Beyond Bunkers: Dominance, Resistance and Change in

an Albanian Regional Landscape,” JMA 12.2, pp. 197-

214.

Galaty, M., and C. Watkinson, eds. 2004a. Archaeology

under Dictatorship, New York.

—————. 2004b. "The Practice of Archaeology under

Dictatorship," in Archaeology under Dictatorship, ed.

M. Galaty and C. Watkinson, New York, pp. 1-17.

Gale, N., ed. 1991. Bronze Age Trade in the

Mediterranean, SIMA 90, Jonsered.

Ganthercole, P. W., and D. Lowenthal, eds. 1990. The

Politics of the Past, London.

Garašanin, M. V., ed. 1988. Iliri i Albanic, Beograd.

Gardin, G. 1988. Banishing God in Albania: The Prison

Memoirs of Giacomo Gardin, San Francisco.

Garlan, Y. 1983a. "Greek Amphorae and Trade," in Trade in

the Ancient Economy, ed. P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins, and

C. R. Whittaker, Berkeley, pp. 27-35.

—————. 1983b. "Le commerce des amphores grecs," in Trade

and Famine in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge

Philological Society Suppl. 8), ed. P. Garnsey and C.

R. Whittaker, pp. 37-44.

952
—————. 2000. Amphores et timbres amphoriques grecs: entre

érudition et idéologie, Paris.

Garnsey, P., K. Hopkins, and C. R. Whittaker, eds. 1983.

Trade in the Ancient Economy, Berkeley.

Gattinoni, F. L. 2004. "Gli Illiri e i Macedoni tra V e

IV secolo a.C.: storia di una pacificazione

impossibile," in Dall'Adriatico al Danubio: L'Illirico

nell'età greca e romana, ed. G. Urso, Milan, pp. 23-

52.

Gauthier, P. 1979. "Sur les institutions de l'Épire

hellénistique," RPh 53, pp. 350-383.

Gédoyn, N, trans. 1731. Pausanias, voyage historique de

la Grèce, Paris

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected

Essays, New York.

Gerke, T. L., S. R. Stocker, J. L. Davis, J. B. Maynard,

and C. Dietsch. 2006. "Sourcing Volcanic Millstones

from Greco-Roman Sites in Albania," JFA 31, pp. 137-

146.

Giannini, A. 1966. Paradoxographorum Graecorum Reliquiae,

Milan.

Gilkes, O. 2003a. "Luigi Maria Ugolini and the Italian

Archaeological Mission to Albania," in The Theatre at

Butrint: Luigi Maria Ugolini's Excavations at Butrint

953
 1928-32 (Albania Antica IV), ed. O. Gilkes, London,

pp. 3-21.

—————. 2003b. "The Voyage of Aeneas: Myth, Archaeology,

and Identity in Interwar Albania," in The Politics of

Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context, ed. S.

Kane, Boston, pp. 31-50.

—————. 2004. "The Trojans in Epirus: Archaeology, Myth,

and Identity in Inter-war Albania," in Archaeology

under Dictatorship, ed. M. Galaty and C. Watkinson,

New York, pp. 33-54.

—————. 2005. "Politics and Palaeoliths: The Italian

Archaeological Mission to Albania," in Explorations in

Albania, 1930-39: The Notebooks of Luigi Cardini,

Prehistorian with the Italian Archaeological Mission,

ed. K. Francis, London, pp. 1-3.

Gilkes, O., and L. Miraj. 2000. "The Myth of Aeneas, the

Italian Archaeological Mission in Albania, 1924-43,"

Public Archaeology 1, pp. 109-124.

Gilliéron, A. 1877. Étude sur les ruines d’Apollonie

d'Épire et sur ses monuments funèbres, Monuments grecs

6, Paris.

Gitti, A. 1935. "Ricerche di storia Illirica. Sulle

origini ed i carateri della monarchia di Agrone,"

Historia 2, pp. 183-195.

954
—————. 1936. La Politica dei re Illiri e la Grecia (fino

all'intervento romano), Milan.

—————. 1952. "Sulla colonizzazione greca nell'alto e medio

Adriatico," PP 7, pp. 161-191.

Gjongecaj, S. 1987. "La circulation des monnaies de

l'Épire dans les centres Illyries," in L'Illyrie

méridionale I, pp. 223-226.

—————. 1998. "Le trésor de Dimalla 1973 et le passage du

monnayage hellénistique au monnayage imperial à

Apollonie d'Illyrie," BCH 122, pp. 511-527.

Gjongecaj, S., and O. Picard. 1999. "La circulation

monétaire à Apollonia," in L'Illyrie méridionale III,

pp. 91-97.

—————. 2000. "Les drahmes d'Apollonia à la vache

allaitant," RN, pp. 137-160.

Glück, L. 1897. Zur physischen Anthropologie der

Albanesen, Vienna.

Golden, M., and P. Toohey. 1997. "General Introduction,"

in Inventing Ancient Culture: Historicism,

Periodization, and the Ancient World, ed. M. Golden

and P. Toohey, New York, pp. 1-9.

Gomme, A. W. 1945. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides

I, Oxford.

955
Gomme, A. W., A. Andrews, and K. J. Dover. 1970. A

Historical Commentary on Thucydides 4, Oxford.

Gosden, C. 2001. "Postcolonial Archaeology: Issues of

Culture, Identity, and Knowledge," in Archaeological

Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder, Oxford, pp. 241-261.

Gounaropoulou, L. 1985. Les milliaires de la Voie

Egnatienne entre Héraclée des Lyncestes et

Thessalonique, Paris.

Grace, V. R. 1946. "Early Thasian Stamped Amphoras," AJA

50, pp. 31-38.

—————. 1947. "Wine Jars," The Classical Journal 42, pp.

443-452.

—————. 1949. "Standard Pottery Containers of the Ancient

Greek World," in Commemorative Studies in Honor of

Theodore Leslie Shear (Hesperia Suppl. 8), pp. 175-

189.

—————. 1952. "Timbres amphoriques trouvés à Délos," BCH

76, pp. 514-540.

—————. 1953. "Wine Jars," in "Pottery of the Mid-Fifth

Century from a Well in the Athenian Agora," C. G.

Boulter, Hesperia 22, pp. 101-110.

—————. 1956a. "The Canaanite Jar," in The Aegean and the

Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, ed. S.

S. Weinberg, Locust Valley, pp. 80-109.

956
—————. 1956b. "Stamped Wine Jar Fragments," in Small

Objects from the Pnyx II (Hesperia Suppl. 10),

Princeton, pp. 113-189.

—————. 1961. Excavations of the Athenian Agora, Amphoras

and the Ancient Wine Trade, Picture Book No. 6,

Princeton.

—————. 1962. "Stamped Handles of Commercial Amphoras," in

Excavation at Nessana I, ed. H. D. Colt, London, pp.

106-130.

—————. 1971. "Samian Amphoras," Hesperia 40, pp. 52-95.

—————. 1979. "Exceptional Amphora Stamps," in Studies in

Classical Art and Archaeology, A Tribute to Peter

Heinrich von Blanckenhagen, ed. G. Kopcke and M. B.

Moore, Locust Valley, pp. 117-127.

—————. 1986a. "Some Amphoras from a Hellenistic Wreck,"

in Recherches sur les Amphores Greques (BCH Suppl.

13), ed. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan, pp. 551-565.

—————. 1986b. "The Middle Stoa Dated by Amphora Stamps,"

Hesperia 54, pp. 1-54.

Grace, V., and M. Savvatianou-Petropoulakou. 1970. "Les

timbres amphoriques grecs," Exploration archéologiques

de Délos, XXVII, L'îlot de la Maison de Comédiens,

Paris, pp. 277-382.

957
Graham, A. J. 1971. "Patterns in Early Greek

Colonisation," JHS 91, pp. 35-47.

—————. 1982. "The Colonial Expansion of Greece, CAH2 3.3:

The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth

Centuries B.C., ed. John Boardman and N. G. L.

Hammond, Cambridge, pp. 83-162.

—————. 1983. Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece,

2nd ed., Chicago.

—————. 1986. "The Historical Interpretation of Al Mina,"

Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, 12, pp. 51-65.

—————. 1990. “Pre-colonial Contacts: Questions and

Problems,” in Greek Colonists, pp. 45-60.

Gras, M. 1987. "Amphores commerciales et histoire

archaique," DdA 5, pp. 41-50.

Graves-Brown, P., S. Jones, and C. Gamble. 1996. Cultural

Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European

Communities, London.

Gray, V. 1996. "Herodotus and Images of Tyranny: The

Tyrants of Corinth," AJP 117, pp. 361-389.

Greco, E. 1994. "Pithekoussai: empòrion o apoikìa?," in

Apoikia, pp. 11-18.

—————. 2000. "Tradizione ed innovazione nell'urbanistica

greca in età arcaica," in Die Ägäis und das westliche

Mittelmeer: Beziehungen und Wechselwirkungen, 8 bis 5

958
 Jh. v. Chr.: Akten des Symposions, Wien, 24 bis 27

März 1999, ed. F. Krinzinger, Vienna, pp. 13-21.

Green, P., trans. 1997. The Argonautika by Apollonios

Rhodios, Berkeley.

Grenfell, B. P., and A. S. Hunt, eds. 1908. The

Oxyrhynchus Papyri V, London.

—————. 1909. Hellenica Oxyrhynchia: cum Theopompi et

Cratippi Fragmentis, Oxford.

Grimal, P. 1986. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology,

trans. A. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, New York.

Gruen, E. 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of

Rome, Berkeley.

Gutzwiller, K. 2007. A Guide to Hellenistic Literature,

Malden, Mass.

Gwynn, A. 1918. "The Character of Greek Colonization,"

JHS 39, pp. 88-123.

Habicht, C. 1985. Pausanias' Guide to Ancient Greece,

Berkeley.

Hägg, R., ed. 1983. The Greek Renaissance of the Eighth

Century B.C.: Tradition and Innovation, Stockholm.

Hall, J. M. 1995. "The Role of Language in Greek

Ethnicities," PCPS 41, pp. 83-100.

—————. 1997. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity,

Cambridge.

959
—————. 2002. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture,

Chicago.

—————. 2007a. A History of the Archaic Greek World ca.

1200-479 BCE, Malden.

—————. 2007b. "The Creation and Expression of Identity:

The Greek World," in Classical Archaeology, ed. S. E.

Alcock and R. Osborne, Malden, pp. 337-354.

Halliday, W. R. 1928. The Greek Questions of Plutarch,

Oxford.

Hamilakis, Y. 2003. "Lives in Ruins: Antiquities and

National Imagination in Modern Greece," in The

Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global

Context, ed. S. Kane, Boston, pp. 51-78.

—————. 2007. The Nation and its Ruins, Oxford.

Hammond, N. G. L. 1945. "Naval Operations in the South

Channel of Corcyra, 435-433 B.C.," JHS 65, pp. 26-37.

—————. 1959. A History of Greece to 322 B.C., Oxford.

—————. 1966a. "The Kingdoms of Illyria circa 400-167

B.C.," BSA 61, pp. 239-253.

—————. 1966b. "The Opening Campaigns and the Battle of

the Aoi Stena in the Second Macedonian War," JRS 56,

pp. 39-54.

—————. 1967. Epirus, Oxford.

960
—————. 1968. "Illyris, Rome, and Macedon in 229-205

B.C.," JRS 58, pp. 1-21.

—————. 1970. "The Western Frontier of the Macedonian

Monarchy," Ancient Macedonia I, pp. 115-126.

—————. 1972. A History of Macedonia I: Historical

Geography and Prehistory, Oxford.

—————. 1974a. "Alexander's Campaign in Illyria," JHS 94,

pp. 66-87.

—————. 1974b. "The Western Part of the Via Egnatia," JRS

64, pp. 185-194.

—————. 1977. "The Campaign of Alexander against Cleitus

and Glaucias," in Ancient Macedonia II, pp. 503-509.

—————. 1978. "A Note on 'Pursuit' in Arrian," CQ 28, pp.

136-140.

—————. 1980a. "The Hosts of Sacred Envoys Travelling

through Epirus," Epeirotika Chronica 22, pp. 9-19.

—————. 1980b. "Some Passages in Arrian Concerning

Alexander," CQ 30, pp. 455-476.

—————. 1981. "The Western Frontier of Macedonia in the

Reign of Philip II," in Ancient Macedonian Studies in

Honour of Charles F. Edson, ed. H. J. Dell,

Thessaloniki, pp. 199-217.

—————. 1982a. "Illyris, Epirus and Macedonia in the Early

Iron Age," in CAH2 3.1: The Prehistory of the Balkans;

961
 and the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to

Eighth Centuries B.C., ed. J. Boardman, I. E. S.

Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger,

Cambridge, pp. 619-656.

—————. 1982b. "Illyris, Epirus and Macedonia," CAH2 3.3:

The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth

Centuries B.C., ed. J. Boardman and N. G. L. Hammond,

Cambridge, pp. 261-285.

—————. 1983. "Travels in Epirus and South Albania before

World War II," AncW 8, pp. 13-45.

—————. 1986. "The Via Egnatia in Western Macedonia," in

Ancient Macedonia IV, pp. 247-255.

—————. 1989a. The Macedonian State: Origins,

Institutions, and History, Oxford.

—————. 1989b. "The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic

Antintanes and the Roman Protectorate," JRS 79, pp.

11-25.

—————. 1992. "The Relations of Illyrian Albania with the

Greeks and Romans," in Perspectives on Albania, pp.

29-39.

—————. 1993. "The Macedonian Imprint on the Hellenistic

World, in Hellenistic History and Culture, ed. P.

Green, Berkeley, pp. 12-23.

962
—————. 1994. "Illyrians and North-West Greeks," CAH2 6:

The Fourth Century B.C., ed. D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman,

S. Hornblower, and M. Ostwald, Cambridge, pp. 422-443.

—————. 1998. "Cavalry Recruited in Macedonia down to 322

B. C.," Historia 47, pp. 404-425.

—————. 2000. "The Ethne in Epirus and Upper Macedonia,"

BSA 95, pp. 345-352.

Hammond, N. G. L., and G. Griffith. 1979. A History of

Macedonia, 2: 550-336 B.C., Oxford.

Hammond, N. G. L., and F. Walbank. 1988. A History of

Macedonia, 3: 336-167 B.C., Oxford.

Hansen, I. L. 2007. "The Trojan Connection: Butrint and

Rome," in Roman Butrint: An Assessment, ed. I. L.

Hansen and R. Hodges, Oxford, pp. 44-61.

Hansen, M. H. 1996. "ΠΟΛΛΑΧΩΣ ΠΟΛΙΣ ΛΕΓΕΤΑΙ (Arist. Pol.

1276a23): The Copenhagen Inventory of Poleis and the

Lex Hafniensis de Civitate," in Introduction to an

Inventory of Poleis: Symposium August, 23-26 1995,

(Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 3), ed. M. H.

Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 7-72.

—————. 1997. "The Polis as an Urban Centre. The Literary

and Epigraphical Evidence," in The Polis as an Urban

Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen, ed.

M. H. Hansen, pp. 9-86.

963
—————. 2003. "95 Theses about the Greek 'Polis' in the

Archaic and Classical Periods," Historia 2003, pp.

257-282.

Hansen, M. H., and T. H. Nielsen. 2004. An Inventory of

Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford.

Harding, A. 1976. "Illyrians, Italians, and Mycenaeans–

Trans-Adriatic Contacts during the Late Bronze Age,

Iliria 4, pp. 157-162.

—————. 1984. The Mycenaeans and Europe, London.

—————. 1992. "The Prehistoric Background of Illyrian

Albania," in Perspectives on Albania, pp. 14-28.

Harris, W. V. 1985. War and Imperialism in Republican

Rome: 327-70 B.C., Oxford.

Hasaki, E. 2002. Ceramic Kilns in Ancient Greece:

Technology and Organization of Ceramic Workshops,

(diss. Univ. of Cincinnati).

Hatzopoulos, M. 1987. "Les limites de l'expansion

Macédonienne en Illyrie sous Philippe II," in

L'Illyrie méridionale I, pp. 81-94.

Hedreen, G. 1991. "The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine,"

Hesperia 60, pp. 313-330.

Helliesen, J. M. 1986. "Andriscus and the Revolt of the

Macedonians, 149-148 B.C.," in Ancient Macedonia IV,

pp. 307-314.

964
Herring, E. 2000. "'To See Oursels as Others See Us!':

The Construction of Native Identities in Southern

Italy," in The Emergence of State Identities in Italy

in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Herring and K.

Lomas, London, pp. 45-77.

Herring, E., and K. Lomas. 2000. The Emergence of State

Identities in Italy in the First Millennium B.C.,

London.

Heuzey, L. 1886. Les opérations militaires de Jules

César, Paris.

Heuzey, L., and H. Daumet. 1876. Mission archéologique de

Macédoine, Paris.

Hidri, H. 1996. "Veçori të Ritualit të Varrimit, në

Nekropolit e Dyrrahut," Iliria 1-2, pp. 141-163.

—————. 1997. "Disa të Dhëna mbi Topografinë e Nekropolit

Antik të Dyrrahut, Shek. VI-I," Iliria 1-2, pp. 121-

126.

Hill, S. 1992. "Byzantium and the Emergence of Albania,"

in Perspectives on Albania, pp. 40-57.

Hiller von Gaertringen, F. 1925-1926. "Ἐπιγραφιὰ ἐκ τοῦ Ἱεροῦ

Ἐπιδαύρου," AE (1928), pp. 67-86.

Hodder, I. 1981. "Pottery Production and Use: A

Theoretical Discussion," in Production and

965
 Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint, eds. H. Howard and

E. B. Morris, (BAR IS 120), Oxford, pp. 215-220.

—————. 1991. "Archaeological Theory in Contemporary

European Socities: The emergence of Competing

Traditions," in Archaeological Theory in Europe: The

Last Three Decades, ed. I. Hodder, London, pp. 1-24.

—————. 1992. Theory and Method in Archaeology, London.

—————, ed. 2001. Archaeological Theory Today, Oxford.

Hodges, R. 2004. "Rejecting Reflexivity? Making Post-

Stalinist Archaeology in Albania," in Material

Engagements: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew, ed.

N. Brodie and C. Hills, Cambridge, pp. 145-164.

—————. 2006. Eternal Butrint: A UNESCO World Heritage

Site in Albania, London.

Hodges, R., W. Bowden, O. Gilkes, and K. Lako. 2004.

"Introduction," in Byzantine Butrint: Excavations and

Surveys 1994-1999, ed. R. Hodges, W. Bowden, and K.

Lako, Oxford, pp. 1-19.

Hodges, R., and I. L. Hansen. 2007. "Introduction," in

Roman Butrint: An Assessment, ed. I. L. Hansen and R.

Hodges, Oxford, pp. 1-16.

Hodos, T. 2006. Local Responses to Colonization in the

Iron-Age Mediterranean, London.

966
Holland, H. 1815. Travels in the Ionian Isles, Albania,

Thessaly, Macedonia, &c., London.

Holleaux, M. 1921. Rome, la Grèce et les monarchies

Hellénistiques au IIIe siècle avant J.-C. (273-205),

Paris.

—————. 1928. "The Romans in Illyria," CAH 7: The

Hellenistic Monarchies and the Rise of Rome, ed. S. A.

Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, Cambridge,

pp. 822-827.

—————. 1930a. "Rome and Macedon: Philip against the

Romans," CAH 8: Rome and the Mediterranean 218-133

B.C., ed. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P.

Charlesworth, Cambridge, pp. 116-137.

—————. 1930b. "Rome and Macedon: The Romans against

Philip," CAH 8: Rome and the Mediterranean 218-133

B.C., ed. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P.

Charlesworth, Cambridge, pp. 138-198.

Holloway, R. 1981. "Motives for Colonization," in Italy

and the Aegean: 3000-700 B.C., ed. R. Holloway,

Louvain, pp. 133-154.

—————. 1991. The Archaeology of Sicily, London.

Honigmann, E., ed. 1939. Le synekdèmos d'Hiéroklès et

l'opuscue géographique de Georges de Chypre, Brussels.

967
Hopper, R. J. 1955. "Ancient Corinth," Greece and Rome,

2nd Ser, 2.1, pp. 2-15.

Horden, P., and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A

Study of Mediterranean History, Oxford.

Hornblower, J. 1981. Hieronymus of Cardia, Oxford.

Hornblower, S. 1991. A Commentary on Thucydides, vol. 1,

Books I-III, Oxford.

—————. 1994. "Introduction," in Greek Historiography, ed.

S. Hornblower, Oxford, pp. 1-72.

Horsfall, N. 1979. "Some Problems with the Aeneas

Legend," CQ 29.2, pp. 372-390.

How, W. W., and J. Wells. 1912. A Commentary on

Herodotus, Oxford.

Hoxha, E. 1985. "Pjesë nga veprat për arkeologjinë

(Extraits des oeuvres à propos de l'archéologie),"

Iliria 15, 1985.1, pp. 29-43 (47-61).

Hude, C., ed. 1927. Scholia in Thucydidem ad Optimos

Codices Collata, Leipzig.

Hughes, T. S. 1820. Travels in Sicily, Greece and

Albania, London.

Humphreys, S. C. 1970. Economy and Society in Classical

Athens, Pisa.

—————. 1978. Anthropology and the Greeks, London.

968
Hunter, R. L., ed. 1989. Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica

Book III, Cambridge.

Hurwit, J. M. 1993. "Art, Poetry, and the Polis in the

Age of Homer," in From Pasture to Polis: Art in the

Age of Homer, ed. S. Langdon, Columbia, pp. 14-42.

Hutchings, R. 1992. "Albania's Inter-War History as a

Forerunner to the Communist Period," in Perspectives

on Albania, pp. 115-122.

Hutton, W. E. 2005. Describing Greece: Landscape and

Literature in the Periegesis of Pausanias, Cambridge.

Hysa, V., and N. Molla. 2009. Manual mbi Praktikat

Arkeologjike në Terren, Tirana.

Islami, S. 1972. "Lindja dhe zhvillimi i jetës qytetare

në Iliri (Naissance et développement de la vie urbaine

en Illyrie)," Iliria II, pp. 7-23.

—————. 1985. "Enver Hoxha–Frymëzues dhe përkrahës i

arkeologjisë shqiptare (Enver Hoxha–Inspirateur et

protecteur de l'archéologie albanaise)," Iliria 15

(1985.1), pp. 5-14 (15-25).

Jacques, E. 1995. The Albanians: An Ethnic History from

Prehistoric Times to the Present, North Carolina.

James, P. 1991. Centuries of Darkness, London.

Jeffery, L. H. 1990. The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece,

2nd ed., rev. A. W. Johnston, Oxford.

969
Johansen, K. F. 1923. Les vases sicyoniens, Copenhagen.

Johnson, D. 2001. "Herodotus' Storytelling Speeches:

Socles (5.92) and Leotychides (6.86)," CJ 97, pp. 1-

26.

Jokl, N. 1923. Linguistisch-kulturhistorische

Untersuchungen aus dem Bereiche des Albanischen,

Berlin.

—————. 1929. Zur Vorgeschichte des Albanischen und der

Albaner, Heidelberg.

—————. 1984. Sprachliche Beiträge zur Paläo-Ethnologie

der Balkanhalbinsel: (zur Frage der ältesten

griechisch-albanischen Beziehungen), Schriften der

Balkankommission, Linguistische Abteilung 29, Vienna.

Jones, C. P. 2001. "Pausanias and His Guides," in

Pausanias: Travel and Memory in Roman Greece, ed. S.

E. Alcock, J. F. Cherry, and J. Elsner, Oxford, pp.

33-39.

Jones, N. F. 1980. "The Civic Organization of Corinth,"

TAPA 110, pp. 161-193.

Jones, R. E. 1984. "Greek Potters' Clays: Questions of

Selection, Availability and Adaption," in Ancient

Greek and Related Pottery: Proceedings of the

International Vase Symposium in Amsterdam, 12-15 April

1984, ed. H. A. G. Brijder, Amsterdam, pp. 21-30.

970
—————. 1986. Greek and Cypriot Pottery: A Review of

Scientific Studies, Fitch Laboratory Occ. Paper 1,

Athens.

—————. 1993. "Pottery as Evidence for Trade and

Colonisation in the Aegean Bronze Age: The

Contribution of Scientific Techniques," in Wace and

Blegen: Pottery as Evidence for Trade in the Aegean

Bronze Age, 1939-1989. Proceedings of the

International Conference Held at the American School

of Classical Studies at Athens, December 2-3, 1989,

ed. C. Zerner, P. Zerner, and J. Winder, Amsterdam,

pp. 11-17.

Jones, J. E., A. J. Graham, and L. H. Sackett. 1973. "An

Attic Country House Below the Cave of Pan at Vari,"

BSA 68, pp. 355-452.

Jones, J. E., L. H. Sackett, and A. J. Graham. 1962. "The

Dema House in Attica, BSA 57, pp. 75-114.

Jones, S. 1996. "Discourses of Identity in the

Interpretation of the Past," in Cultural Identity and

Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities,

ed. P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, and Clive Gamble,

London, pp. 62-80.

—————. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing

Identities in the Past and Present, London.

971
—————. 1998. "Ethnic Identity as Discursive Strategy: The

Case of the Ancient Greeks," (Review of J. Hall,

1997), CAJ 8, pp. 271-273.

Jones, W. H. S., and H. A. Ormerod, trans. 1977.

Pausanias Description of Greece, Cambridge.

Jordan, C., and C. Schrire. 2002. "Material Culture and

the Roots of Colonial Society at the South African

Cape of Good Hope," in The Archaeology of Colonialism,

pp. 241-272.

Jubani, B. 1972. Bibliografi e arkeologjisë dhe historisë

së lashtë të Shqipërisë: 1945-1971, Tirana.

Kabbadias, P. 1891. Fouilles d'Épidaure, Athens.

Kallipolitis, V. G. 1972. "Κεραµεικὴ τῆς Ἀρχαικης

Πρωτοκορινθιακῆς περιόδου ἀπὸ τὴν Κέρκυρα," in Kernos. Studi

in onore di G. Balakakis, Thessaloniki, pp. 53-57.

—————. 1984. "Κεραµεικὰ εὐρήµατα ἀπὸ τὴν Κέρκυρα," ASAtene 60,

(1984) (n.s. 44), pp. 69-76.

Kaplan, R. D. 1993. Balkan Ghosts: A Journey through

History, New York.

Karakasidou, A. 1997. Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood:

Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia 1870-1990,

Chicago.

Kahrstedt, U. 1922. Griechisches Staatsrecht, Göttingen.

—————. 1936. "Chalcidic Studies," AJP 57, pp. 416-444.

972
Kearsley, R. A. 1995. "The Greek Geometric Wares from Al

Mina Levels 10-8 and Associated Pottery,"

Mediterranean Archaeology 8, pp. 7-81.

—————. 1999. "Greeks Overseas in the 8th Century B.C.:

Euboeans, Al Mina and Assyrian Imperialism," in

Ancient Greeks West and East, pp. 109-134.

Kent, J. H. 1953. "Stamped Amphora Handles from the

Delian Temple Estates," in Studies Presented to David

Moore Robinson, Vol. II, ed. G. E. Mylonas and D.

Raymond, St Louis, pp. 127-134.

Kidd, I. G. 1988. Posidonius 2: The Commentary,

Cambridge.

—————. 1999. Posidonius 3: The Translation of the

Fragments, Cambridge.

Kitromilidis, P. 1998. "On the Intellectual Content of

Greek Nationalism: Paparrigopoulos, Byzantium and the

Great Idea," in Byzantium and the Modern Greek

Identity, ed. D. Ricks and P. Magdalino, Brookfield,

pp. 25-33.

Koço, L. 1987. "Germimet arkeologjike të vitit 1987–

Apollonia," Iliria 17.2, p. 246.

Koehler, C. G. 1978a. "Evidence around the Mediterranean

for Corinthian Export of Wine and Oil," in Beneath the

Waters of Time: The Proceedings of the Ninth

973
 Conference on Underwater Archaeology, ed. J. B.

Arnold, III, Austin, pp. 231-239.

—————. 1978b. Corinthian A and B Transport Amphoras,

(diss. Princeton Univ.).

—————. 1979. "Transport Amphoras as Evidence for Trade,"

Archaeological News 8, pp. 54-61.

—————. 1981. "Corinthian Developments in the Study of

Trade in the Fifth Century," Hesperia 50, pp. 449-458.

—————. 1982. "Amphoras on Amphoras," Hesperia 51, pp.

284-292.

—————. 1986. "Handling of Greek Transport Amphoras," in

Recherches sur les amphores Grecques (BCH Suppl. 13),

ed. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan, Paris, pp. 49-67.

—————. 1992. "A Brief Typology and Chronology of

Corinthian Transport Amphoras," in Grecheskie Amfory,

ed. S. I Monakhov and V. I Kats, Saratov, pp. 265-283.

English text, privately circulated.

Koehler, C. G., and P. M. W. Matheson. 1993. "AMPHORAS:

Computer-Assisted Study of Ancient Wine Jars," in

Accessing Antiquity: The Computerization of Classical

Studies, ed. J. Solomon, Tucson, pp. 88-107.

Kohl, P. L., and C. Fawcett, eds. 1995. Nationalism,

Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, Cambridge.

974
Konovic, N. 1989. "Contribution au problème de la

circulation des drachmes de Dyrrachion et d'Apollonia

sur le territoire de la Thrace," Archeologia 31, pp.

17-30.

Kopcke, G. 1992. "What Role for Phoenicians?," in Greece

between East and West: 10th-8th Centuries B.C. Papers

of the Meeting at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York

University March 15-16th, 1990, ed. G. Kopcke and I.

Tokumaru, Mainz, pp. 103-113.

Korenjak, M. 2002. "Textkritische und interpretatorische

Bemerkungen zu Pseudo-Skymnos," Philologus 147, pp.

226-237.

—————. 2003. Die Welt-Rundreise eines anonymen

griechischen Autors ("Pseudo-Skymnos"), Hildesheim.

Korkuti, M. 1971. Shqiperia Arkeologjike, Tirana.

—————. 1976. "De la formation de l'ethnie illyrienne,"

Iliria IV, pp. 57-70.

—————. 1981. "Tuma e Patosit (Le tumulus de Patos),"

Iliria, 1981.1, pp. 5-14.

—————. 1987. "25 vjet kërkime për neolitin dhe eneolitin

në Shqipëri (1961-1986) (25 years of research on the

Neolithic and Eneolithic in Albania, 1961-1986),

Iliria 1987. 2, pp. 5-12.

975
—————. 1988. "Mendimi historiko-filozofik i shokut Enver

Hoxha në fushën e arkeologjisë e historisë së lashtë

të Shqipërisë (La pensée historico-philosophique du

camarade Enver Hoxha dans le domaine de l'archéologie

et de l'histoire ancienne de l'Albanie)," Iliria XVIII

(1988.2), pp. 5-13 (French resume, pp. 13-19).

Korkuti, M., and Z. Andrea. 1974. "Stacioni i neolitit të

mesëm në Cakran të Fierit (La station de Neolithique

moyen a Cakran de Fieri)," Iliria III, pp. 45-101

(Iliria III, fr. ed., pp. 49-107).

Korkuti, M., A. Baçe, and N. Ceka. 2008. Carte

archéologique de l'Albanie, Tirana.

Korkuti, M., J. L. Davis, L. Bejko, M. Galaty, S. Muçaj,

and S. R. Stocker. 1998. "The Mallakastra Regional

Archaeological Project, First Season, 1998," Iliria

1998, 1-2, pp. 253-273.

Korkuti, M., and Z. Kamberi. 1995. Bibliografi e

arkeologjisë dhe historisë së lashtë të Shqipërisë:

1984-1994, Tirana.

Korkuti, M., and K. M. Petruso. 1993. "Archaeology in

Albania," AJA 97, pp. 703-743.

Kos, M. S. 2004. "Mythological Stories Concerning Illyria

and its Name, in L'Illyrie méridionale IV, pp. 493-

513.

976
Kourkoumelis, D. 1988. Recherches Archéologiques à Corfu.

Topographie, Questions historiques, Amphores de

Transport et Commerce Attiuqe, PhD thesis, Aix-en-

Provence.

—————. 1990. "Corcyrean Amphoras," ENALIA Annual 2, pp.

42-47.

Kourkoumelis, D., and S. Demesticha. 1997. "Outils de

potier de l'atelier de Figareto à Corfu, BCH 121, pp.

553-571.

Kunze, E. 1956. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia

5, Berlin.

Kurke, L. 1999. "Ancient Greek Board Games and How to

Play Them," CP 94, pp. 247-267.

Lafe, O. 2003. "The Earliest Urbanized Settlements in the

Hinterland of Apollonia (Albania): 7th-mid-5th Century

B.C.," (M.A. thesis, Univ. of Cincinnati).

—————. 2005. "Archaeology in Albania, 2000-2004," AR 51,

pp. 119-137.

Lamboley, J.-L. 1987. "Le Canal d'Otrane et les relations

entre les deux rives de l'Adriatique," in L'Illyrie

méridionale I, pp. 195-202.

—————. 1993. "État de la recherche sur les relations sud-

adriatiques. Bilan et perspectives," in L'Illyrie

méridionale II, pp. 231-237.

977
—————. 1996. Les Grecs d'occident: La période archaïque,

Paris.

—————. 2000. "Les cultes de l'Adriatique méridionale à

l'époque Républicaine," in Les cultes polythéistes

dans l'Adriatique Romaine, ed. C. Delplace and F.

Tassaux, Bordeaux, pp. 133-140.

—————. 2005. "Légendes troyennes d'une rive à l'autre du

canal d'Otrante," in Le canal d'Otrante et le

Méditerranée antique et médiévale: colloque organisé à

l'Université de Paris X - Nanterre (20-21 novembre

2000), ed. E. Deniaux, Paris, pp. 15-22.

—————. 2007. Les fouilles actuelles," in Apollonia

d'Illyrie, pp. 217-240.

Lamboley, J.-L., and B. Vrekaj. 2003-2004. Les fouilles

Franco-Albanaises d'Apollonia: 1991-2004," Iliria 31,

pp. 163-187.

Lapini, W. 1996. Il POxy. 664 di Eraclide Pontico e la

cronologia dei Cipselidi, Florence.

Larcher, P. H. 1802. Histoire d'Herodote, Paris.

Larsen, J. A. O. 1968. Greek Federal States: Their

Institutions and History, Oxford.

Last, J. 1995. "The Nature of History," in Interpreting

Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, ed. I.

978
 Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman,

J. Last, and G. Lucas, London, pp. 141-157.

Lawall, M. L. 1995. Transport Amphoras and Trademarks:

Imports to Athens and Economic Prosperity in the Fifth

Century B.C., (diss. Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor).

—————. 1997. "Amphora Production in Northeastern Greece,"

in Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece:

Production and the Craftsman: Proceedings of the 4th

and 5th International Workshops, Athens, 1994 and

1995, ed. C. Gillis, C. Risberg, and B. Sjöberg,

Jonsered, pp. 113-130.

—————. 1998. "Ceramics and Positivism Revisited: Greek

Transport Amphoras and History," in Trade, Traders,

and the Ancient City, ed. H. Parkins and C. Smith,

London, pp. 75-101.

Leake, W. M. 1835. Travels in Northern Greece, London.

Lear, E. 1851. Journals of a Landscape Painter in

Albania, Illyria and Greece, London.

Legrand, E. 1912. Bibliographie Albanaise: Description

raisonée des ouvrages publiés en albanais ou relatifs

a l'Albanie du quinzième siècle a l'année 1900,

Athens.

979
Lendle, O. 1992. Einführung in die griechische

Geschichtsschreibung: von Hekataios bis Zosimos,

Darmstadt.

Lenhardt, P. and F. Quantin. 2007. "Le Ssanctuaire de

Shtyllas," in Apollonia d'Illyrie, pp. 322-331.

Lepore, E. 1983. "Problemi storici dell'area adriatica

nell'età della colonizzazione greca," in L'Adriatico

tra Mediterraneo e penisola balcanica nell'antichità

(Lecce-Matera, 21-27 Ottobre 1977), Taranto, pp. 127-

147.

—————. 2000. La Grande Grèce: aspects et problèmes d'une

'colonisation' ancienne, Naples.

Lévêque, P. 1957. Pyrrhos, Paris.

Lintott, A. 2000. "Aristotle and the Mixed Constitution,"

in Alternatives to Athens: Varieties of Political

Organization and Community in Ancient Greece," ed. R.

Brock and S. Hodkinson, Oxford, pp. 152-166.

Lloyd, A. B. 1972. "Triremes and the Saïte Navy," JEA 63,

pp. 268-279.

—————. 1975. "Were Necho's Triremes Phoenician?," JHS 95,

pp. 45-61.

—————. 1980. "M. Basch on Triremes: Some Observations,"

JHS 100, pp. 195-198.

980
Loescher, A. 1550. Pausaniae de tota graecia libri decem:

quibus non solum urbium situs, Basil.

Logoreci, A. 1977. The Albanians: Europe's Forgotten

Survivors, London.

Lolos, Y. 2008. Εγνατία Οδός, Athens.

Lomas, K. 1995. "The Greeks in the West and the

Hellenization of Italy," in The Greek West, ed. A.

Powell, London, pp. 347-367.

—————. 2000. "Cities, States and Ethnic Identity in

Southeast Italy," in The Emergence of State Identities

in Italy in the First Millennium BC, ed. E. Herring

and K. Lomas, London, pp. 79-90.

Luraghi, N. 2002. "Antioco di Siracusa," in Storici greci

d'Occidente, ed. R. Vattuone, Bologna, pp. 55-89.

Lyons, C. L. 2000. Gender and Burial in Early Colonial

Sicily: The Case of Morgantina," in Representations of

Gender from Prehistory to the Present, ed. M. Donald

and L. Hurcombe, New York, pp. 87-103.

Lyons, C. L., and J. K. Papadopoulos. 2002. "Archaeology

and Colonialism," in The Archaeology of Colonialism,

pp. 1-23.

Macan, R. W. 1895. Herodotus: The Fourth, Fifth, and

Sixth Books, London.

981
MacKay, P. A. 1977. "The Route of the Via Egnatia around

Lake Ostrovo," in Ancient Macedonia II, pp. 201-210.

Mackie, C. J. 1996. "Homer and Thucydides: Corcyra and

Sicily," CQ 46.1, pp. 103-113.

Maggetti, M. 1982. "Phase Analysis and its Significance

for Technology and Origin," in Archaeological

Ceramics, ed. J. S. Olin and A. D. Franklin,

Washington D. C., pp. 121-133.

Malkin, I. 1985. "What's in a Name? The Eponynous

Founders of Greek Colonies," Athenaeum 63, pp. 114-

130.

—————. 1987. Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece,

Leiden.

—————. 1994a. "Inside and Outside: Colonisation and the

Formation of the Mother City," in Apoikia, pp. 1-9.

—————. 1994b. Myth and Territory in the Spartan

Mediterranean, Cambridge.

—————. 1998a. The Return of Odysseus: Colonization and

Ethnicity, Berkeley.

—————. 1998b. "Ithaka, Odysseus, and the Euboeans in the

Eighth Century, in Euboica, pp. 1-10.

—————. 2001a. "Introduction," in Ancient Perceptions of

Greek Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin, Cambridge, Mass, pp.

1-28.

982
—————. 2001b. "Greek Ambiguities: 'Ancient Hellas' and

'Barbarian Epirus,'" in Ancient Perceptions of Greek

Ethnicity, ed. I. Malkin, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 187-

212.

—————. 2002a. "Exploring the Validity of the Concept of

'Foundation': A Visit to Megara Hyblaia," in Oikistes:

Studies in Constitutions, Colonies, and Military Power

in the Ancient World. Offered in Honor of A. J.

Graham, ed. V. B. Gorman and E. W. Robinson, Leiden,

2002, pp. 195-225.

—————. 2002b. "A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan,

and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples," in The

Archaeology of Colonialism, pp. 151-181.

—————. 2003. "Networks and the Emergence of Greek

Identity," Mediterranean Historical Review 18.2, pp.

56-74.

—————. 2004. "Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek

Colonization," Modern Language Quarterly 65.3, pp.

341-364.

Maniatis, Y., R. E. Jones, I. K. Whitbread, A. Kostikas, A.

Simoupolos, Ch. Karakalos, and C. K. Williams, II.

1984. "Punic Amphoras Found at Corinth Greece: An

Investigation of Their Origin and Technology," JFA 11,

205-222.

983
Mano, A. 1959. "Rezultatet e gërmimeve në nekropolin e

Apollonisë në vitin 1956," BUST 2, pp. 212-245.

—————. 1965. "Données sur la céramique massive

d'Apollonie utilisée comme matériau de construction,"

Studime Historike 2.1, pp. 55-79.

—————. 1971. "Nekropoli i Apollonisë–Tuma 1," Iliria 1,

pp. 103-201.

—————. 1972. "Naissance et développement de la vie

urbaine en Illyrie," Iliria 2, pp. 7-24.

—————. 1975. "Nekropoli i dystë i Apolonisë (La nécropole

d’Apollonie)", Iliria 3 (Fr. ed.), pp. 153-256 (163-

264).

—————. 1976. "Les rapports commerciaux d'Apollonie avec

l'arrière-pays illyrien," Iliria 4 [1974], pp. 307-

316.

—————. 1977-1978. "Disa mendime rreth Nekropolit të

Apolonisë (Considérations sur la nécropole

d'Apollonie)," Iliria 7-8, pp. 59-70 (71-82).

—————. 1986. "Aspekte të kolonizimit helen Ilirinë e

Jugut," Iliria 16.2, pp. 5-22.

—————. 2003-2004. "Apollonia dans les Annales de

l'Histoire," Iliria 31, pp. 157-162.

—————. 2006. Apolonia e Ilirisë, Tirana.

984
Marazzi, M., S. Tusa, and L. Vagnetti. 1986. Traffici

micenei nel Mediterraneo: problemi storici e

documentazione archeologica: atti del convegno di

Palermo (11-12 Maggio e 3-6 Dicembre 1984), Taranto.

Marcotte, D. 2000. Géographes grecs. Tome 1:

Introduction générale. Ps.-Scymnos, Circuit de la

terre, Paris.

Markoe, G. 2000. Phoenicians, Berkeley.

Martin, M. E. 1992. "Conquest and Commerce: Normans and

Venetians in Albania," in Perspectives on Albania, pp.

58-73.

Martin, R. P. 1993. "The Seven Sages as Performers of

Wisdom," in Cultural Poetics, pp. 108-128.

Martin, S. 2006. "Archaeology at the Crossroads: The

Future of Albania's Past," in New Directions, pp. 367-

378.

Masci, S. 1943. Lo scalo d'Apollonia d'Illiria," Rivista

d'Albania 4, pp. 206-211.

Masson, O. 1968. "Les rapports entre les Grecs et les

Illyriens d'après l'onomastique d'Apollonia d'Illyrie

et de Dyrrhachion," in Actes du premier Congrès

international des études balkaniques et sud-est

européennes, 26 août-1 septembre 1996, Sofia, pp. 233-

239.

985
—————. 1993. "Encore les noms grecs et les noms illyriens

à Apollonia et Dyrrhachion," in Grecs et Illyriens,

pp. 77-80.

Matson, F. R. 1995. "From Potters' Mouths," in The Aim of

Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology, ed. A.

Lindahl and O. Stilborg, Stockholm, pp. 13-22.

May, J. M. F. 1946. "Macedonia and Illyria (211-167

B.C.)," JRS 36, pp. 48-56.

McGlew, J. F. 1993. Tyranny and Political Culture in

Ancient Greece, Ithaca.

McKechnie, P. R., and S. J. Kern. 1988. Hellenica

Oxyrhynchia, Wiltshire.

Meiggs, R., and D. Lewis. 1988. A Selection of Greek

Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth

Century BC, rev. ed., Oxford.

Meister, K. 1990. Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung:

von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus,

Stuttgart.

Meskell, L., ed. 1998. Archaeology Under Fire:

Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern

Mediterranean and Middle East, New York.

—————. 2002. "The Intersections of Identity and Politics

in Archaeology," Annual Review of Anthropology 31, pp.

279-301.

986
—————. 2007. "Back to the Future: From the Past in the

Present to the Past in the Past," in Negotiating the

Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in

Archaeological Research, ed. N. Yoffee, Tucson, pp.

215-226.

Meta, A. 2006. "A Note on the Principal Coins of the

Epirote League (234-168 B.C.)," in New Directions, pp.

147-154.

Meyer, E. 1893. Geschichte des Alterthums 2, Stuttgart.

—————. 1909. Theopomps Hellenika, Halle.

Meyer, G. 1884. Die Stellung des Albanesischen im Kreise

der indogermanischen sprachen, Göttingen.

—————. 1888. Kurzgefasste Albanesische Grammatik: mit

Lesestucken und Glossar, Leipzig.

—————. 1891. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der albanesischen

Sprache, Strassburg.

Miller, M. 1970. The Sicilian Colony Dates, Albany.

Miller, S. G. 1988. The Theorodokoi of the Nemean Games,

Hesperia 57, pp. 147-163.

Miller, W. 1917. "Valona," JHS 37, pp. 184-194.

Miraj, L. 2003. "Ugolini and Aeneas: The Story of the

Excavation of the Theatre at Butrint," in The Theatre

at Butrint: Luigi Maria Ugolini's Excavations at

987
 Butrint 1928-32 (Albania Antica IV), ed. O. Gilkes,

London, pp. 23-44.

Mitchell, L. G., and P. J. Rhodes, eds. The Development of

the Polis in Archaic Greece, London.

Möller, A. 2001. "The Beginning of Chronography:

Hellanicus' Hiereiai," in The Historian's Craft in the

Age of Herodotus, ed. N. Luraghi, Oxford, pp. 241-262.

Morel, J.-P. 1984. "Greek Colonization in Italy and in

the West (Problems of Evidence and Interpretation),"

in Crossroads of the Mediterranean: Archaeologia

Transatlantica, II, ed. T. Hackens and R. R. Holloway,

Louvain, pp. 123-161.

Morgan, C. 1988. "Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf and

Western Greece in the 8th Century B.C.," BSA 83, pp.

313-337.

—————. 1990. Athletes and Oracles: The Transformation of

Olympia and Delphi in the Eighth Century B.C.,

Cambridge.

—————. 1991. “Ethnicity and Early Greek States:

Historical and Material Perspectives,” PCPS 37, pp.

131-163.

—————. 1995. "Problems and Prospects in the Study of

Corinthian Pottery Production," in Corinto e

l'Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo convegno di

988
 studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7-11 Ottobre 1994,

Taranto, pp. 313-344.

—————. 1998. "Euboians and Corinthians in the Area of the

Corinthian Gulf?" in Euboica, pp. 281-302.

—————. 1999. "The Archaeology of Ethnicity in the

Colonial World of the Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C.:

Approaches and Prospects," in Confini e frontiera

nella grecità d'Occidente (Atti del trentasettesimo

convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 3-6

ottobre, 1997, Tarento, pp. 85-145.

—————. 2002. "The Corinthian Aristocracy and Corinthian

Cult during the Eighth Century B.C.," in Peloponnesian

Sanctuaries and Cults: Proceeding of the Ninth

International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at

Athens, 11-13 June 1994, Athens, pp. 45-52.

—————. 2003. Early Greek States Beyond the Polis, New

York.

Morgan, C., and J. J. Coulton. 1997. "The Polis as a

Physical Entity," in The Polis as an Urban Centre and

as a Political Community, Symposium August 29-31, 1996

(Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4), ed. M. H.

Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 87-144.

Morgan, C., and J. Hall. 1996. "Achaean Poleis and

Achaean Colonisation," in Introduction to an Inventory

989
 of Poleis: Symposium August, 23-26 1995, (Acts of the

Copenhagen Polis Centre 3), ed. M. H. Hansen,

Copenhagen, pp. 164-232.

Morgan, M. G. 1969. "Metellus Macedonicus and the

Province Macedonia," Historia 18, pp. 422-446.

Morris, I. 1986. "Gift and Commodity in Archaic Greece,

Man 21, pp. 1-17.

—————. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the

Greek City-State, Cambridge.

—————. 1991. "The Early Greek Polis and City and State,"

in City and Country in the Ancient World, ed. J. Rich

and A. Wallace-Hadrill, London, pp. 25-57.

—————. 1994a. ”Archaeologies of Greece,” in Classical

Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies,

ed. I. Morris, Cambridge, pp. 8-47.

—————. 1994b. ”The Ancient Economy Twenty Years after The

Ancient Economy," CP 89, pp. 351-366.

—————. 1997. "Periodization and the Heroes: Inventing a

Dark Age," in Inventing Ancient Culture: Historicism,

Periodization, and the Ancient World, ed. M. Golden

and P. Toohey, New York, pp. 96-131.

—————. 1998. "Archaeology and Archaic Greek History," in

Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence, ed.

N. Fisher and H. van Wees, London, pp. 1-91.

990
—————. 1999a. "Negotiated Peripherality in Iron Age

Greece: Accepting and Resisting the East," in World-

Systems Theory in Practice: Leadership, Production,

and Exchange, ed. P. N. Kardulias, Lanham, pp. 63-84.

—————. 1999b. "Forward," in The Ancient Economy, M. I.

Finley, Berkeley.

—————. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History, Malden,

Mass.

—————. 2003. "Mediterraneanization," Mediterranean

Historical Review 18.2, pp. 30-55.

Morris, I., R. P. Saller, and W. Scheidel. 2007.

"Introduction," in The Cambridge Economic History of

the Greco-Roman World, ed. W. Scheidel, I. Morris, and

R. Saller, Cambridge, pp. 1-12.

Morris, S. P. 2006. "Illyrica Pix: The Exploitation of

Bitumen in Ancient Albania," in New Directions, pp.

94-106.

—————. 2007. "Linking with the Wider World: Greek and

'Barbarians,'" in Classical Archaeology, ed. S. E.

Alcock and R. Osborne, Malden, pp. 381-400.

Morris, S. P., and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1998. "Phoenicians

and the Corinthian Pottery Industry," in

Archäologischen Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken

Welt (Veröffentlichungen der Joachim Jungius-

991
 Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 87), ed. R. Rolle, K.

Schmidt, and R. Docter, Hamburg, pp. 251-263.

Mosshammer, A. 1979. The Chronicle of Eusebius and Greek

Chronographic Tradition, Lewisburg, PA.

Muçaj, S. 2003-2004. "Quelques données archéologiques sur

le déclin de la ville antique d'Apollonia et sa

transformation en évêché au moyen âge, Iliria 31, pp.

293-303.

Mueller, W. K. 1835. De Corcyraeorum Republica,

Gottingae.

Murray, O. 1980. Early Greece, Sussex.

—————. 2001. "Herodotus and Oral History," in The

Historian's Craft in the Age of Herodotus, ed. N.

Luraghi, Oxford, pp. 16-44.

Musurus, M., ed. 1516. Pausanias, Venice.

Myres, J. L. 1911. "The Geographical Aspect of Greek

Colonisation," Proceedings of Classical Associations,

pp. 45-69.

—————. 1925. "The Colonial Expansion of Greece," in CAH

3: The Assyrian Empire, ed. J. B. Bury, S. A. Cook,

and F. E. Adcock, Cambridge, pp. 631-686.

Nagy, G. 1997. "The Shield of Achilles: Ends of the Iliad

and Beginnings of the Polis," in New Light on a Dark

992
 Age: Exploring the Culture of Geometric Greece, ed. S.

Langdon, Columbia, pp. 194-207.

Nallbani, E. 2003-2004. "Léon Rey, pionnier de

l'archéologie française en Albanie," Iliria 31, pp,

31-46.

Nederlof, A. B. 1978. Pyrrhus van Epirus: zijn

achtergronden-zijn tijd-zijn leven (historie en

legende), Amsterdam.

Neer, R. T. 2003. "Framing the Gift: The Siphnian

Treasury at Delphi and the Politics of Architectural

Sculpture," in The Cultures within Ancient Greek

Culture: Contact, Conflict, and Collaboration, ed. C.

Dougherty and L. Kurke, Cambridge, pp. 129-149.

Nemeskéri, J. 1986. "Les tracts anthropologiques et

démographiques des Illyriens," Iliria 16.1, pp. 299-

310.

Nisetich, F., trans. 2001. The Poems of Callimachus,

Oxford.

Oberhummer, E. 1887. Akarnanien, Ambrakia, Amphilochien,

Leukas im Alterthum, Munich.

Oikonomedes, A. N. 1983. "The Portrait of Pyrrhos King of

Epirus in Hellenistic and Roman Art," AncW 8, pp. 67-

72.

993
Oladipo, M. O. A. 1987. Neutron Activation Analysis of

Corinthian Pottery, (diss. Univ. of Manchester).

Ölberg, H. M. 1977. Akten des Internationalen

Albanologischen Kolloquiums: zum Gedächtnis an Univ.-

Prof. Dr. Norbert Jokl, Innsbruck.

Oost, S. I. 1954. Roman Policy in Epirus and Acarnania in

the Age of the Roman Conquest of Greece, Dallas.

—————. 1959. "Philia V and Illyria, 205-200," CP 54.3,

pp. 158-164.

—————. 1972. "Cypselus the Bacchiad," CP 67.1, pp. 10-30.

Osborne, R. 1992. "'Is it a Farm?' The Definition of

Agricultural Sites and Settlements in Ancient Greece,"

in Agriculture in Ancient Greece, ed. B. Wells,

Stockholm, pp. 21-28.

—————. 1996a. Greece in the Making, 1200-479 B.C., New

York.

—————. 1996b. "Pots, Trade, and the Archaic Greek

Economy," Antiquity 70, pp. 31-44.

—————. 1998. "Early Greek Colonization? The Nature of

Greek Settlement in the West," in Archaic Greece: New

Approaches and New Evidence, ed. N. Fisher and H. van

Wees, London, pp. 251-269.

—————. 2004. "Greek Archaeology: A Survey of Recent

Work," AJA 108.1, pp. 87-102.

994
O’Sullivan, F. 1972. The Egnatian Way, Harrisburg.

Owen, S. 2005. "Analogy, Archaeology, and Archaic Greek

Colonization," in Ancient Colonizations: Analogy,

Similarity, and Difference, ed. H. Hurst and S. Owen,

London, pp. 5-22.

Pajakowski, W. 2000. Die Illyrier: Illyrii proprie dicti:

Geschichte und Siedlungsgebiete: Versuch einer

Rekonstruktion, trans. L. Mrozewicz, Poznan.

Papadopoulos, J. K. 1996. "Euboians in Macedonia? A

Closer Look," OJA 15, pp. 151-181.

—————. 1997a. "Phantom Euboians," JMA 10, pp. 191-219.

—————. 1997b. "Innovations, Imitations, and Ceramic

Style: Modes of Production and Modes of

Dissemination," in TEXNE: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and

Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, ed. R.

Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt, Liège, pp. 449-461.

—————. 2001. "Magna Achaea: Akhaian Late Geometric and

Archaic Pottery in South Italy and Sicily," Hesperia

70, pp. 373-460.

—————. 2002. "Notes from the Tins 2: Research in the Stoa

of Attalos," Hesperia 71, pp. 423-427.

—————. 2006. "Mounds of Memory: Burial Tumuli in the

Illyrian Landscape," in New Directions, pp. 75-84.

995
Papadopoulos, J. K., L. Bejko, and S. P. Morris. 2007.

"Excavations at the Prehistoric Burial Tumulus of

Lofkënd in Albania: A Preliminary Report for the 2004-

2005 Seasons," AJA 111, pp. 105-147.

Papajani, L. 1976a. "Monedha të Zbuluara në Qytetin Ilir

në Klos," Iliria 6, pp. 259-273.

—————. 1976b. "La cité Illyrienne de Klos," Iliria 4, pp.

411-422.

Papazoglou, F. 1965 "Les origines et la destinée de

l'état Illyrien: Illyrii proprie dicti," Historia 14,

pp. 143-179.

—————. 1972. "Quelques aspects de l'histoire de la

province de Macédoine," ANRW II.7.1, pp. 302-369.

—————. 1978. The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman

Times, trans. M. Stansfield-Popovic, Amsterdam.

—————. 1986. "Politarques en Illyrie," Historia 35, pp.

438-448.

Parke, H. W. 1967. The Oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia,

Ammon, Cambridge, Mass.

Parke, H. W., and D. E. W. Wormell. 1956. The Delphic

Oracle, Oxford.

Patsch, C. 1904. Das Sandschak Berat in Albanien,

(Schriften der Balkan Kommission III), Vienna.

996
Payne, H. G. 1933. Protokorinthische Vasenmalerei,

Berlin.

Peacock, D. P. S. 1970. "The Scientific Analysis of

Ancient Ceramics: A Review," WorldArch 1, pp. 375-389.

Peacock, D. P. S., and D. F. Williams. 1986. Amphorae and

the Roman Economy: An Introductory Guide, London.

Pearson, L. 1938. "Apollonius of Rhodes and the Old

Geographers," AJPh 59, pp. 443-459.

—————. 1987. The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus

and His Predecessors, Atlanta.

Pelagatti, P. 1995. "Le anfore commerciali," in Corinto e

l'Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo convegno di

studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7-11 Ottobre 1994,

Taranto, pp. 403-416.

Perlman, P. J. 1984. "The Theorodokia in the Peloponnese"

(diss. Univ. of California, Berkeley).

—————. 2000. City and Sanctuary in Ancient Greece. The

Theorodokia in the Peloponnese, Göttingen.

Perreault, J. Y. 1993. "Les emporia grecs du Levant:

mythe ou réalité?," in L'Emporion, ed. A. Bresson and

P. Rouillard, Paris, pp. 59-83.

Petruso, K. 2002. "Deconstructing Albanian Archaeology,

Discussant Comments," unpublished paper presented at

the AIA Meetings, Philadelphia, January 2002.

997
Pettegrew, D. K. 2001. "Chasing the Classical Farmstead:

Assessing the Formation and Signature of Rural

Settlement in Greek Landscape Archaeology," JMA 14.2,

pp. 189-209.

—————. 2007. "The Busy Countryside of Late Roman Corinth:

Interpreting Ceramic Data Produced by Regional

Archaeological Surveys," Hesperia 76, pp. 743-754.

Petzold, K. E. 1971. "Rom und Illyrien: Ein Beitrag zur

römischen Außenpolitik im 3 Jahrhundert," Historia 20,

pp. 199-223.

Pfaff, C. A. 2003. "Archaic Corinthian Architecture, ca.

600-480 B.C.," in Corinth XX, pp. 95-140.

—————. 2007. "Geometric Graves in the Panayia Field at

Corinth," Hesperia 76, pp. 443-537.

Phillips, E. D. 1953. "Odysseus in Italy," JHS 73, pp.

53-67.

Picard, O., and S. Gjongecaj. 1995. "Remarques sur la

politique monètaire d'Apollonia au IIIe et au IIe

siècle (Mendime mbi politikën monetare të Apollonisë

në shekujt III-II p.e.)," Iliria 1995.1-2, pp. 175-

198.

Picon, M., and Y. Garlan. 1986. "Recherches sur

l'implantation des ateliers amphoriques à Thasos et

analyse de la pâte des amphores thasiennes," in

998
 Recherches sur les Amphores Grecques (BCH Suppl. 13),

ed. J.-Y. Empereur and Y. Garlan, Paris, pp. 287-309.

Plassart, A. 1921. "Inscriptions de Delphes. La liste

des théorodoques," BCH 45, pp. 1-85.

Poenaru-Bordea, G. 1983. "Circulation de monnaies

d'Apollonie et de Dyrrachion en Dacie préromaine et

dans la région du bas Danube," in L'Adriatico tra

Mediterraneo et penisola balcanica nell'antichita,

Tarento.

Pollo, S., and A. Puto. 1981. The History of Albania from

its Origins to the Present Day, London.

Popham, M. R. 1994. "Precolonization: Early Euboean

Contact with the East," in The Archaeology of Greek

Colonisation, pp. 11-34.

Pothecary, S. 1995. "Strabo, Polybios, and the Stade,"

Phoenix 49, pp. 49-67.

Pouqueville, F. C. H. L. 1805. Voyage dans la Grèce,

comprenant la description ancienne et moderne de

l'Épire, de l'Illyrie grecque, de le Macédoine

Cisaxienne, Paris.

—————. 1820. Travels in the Morea, Albania, and Other

Parts of the Ottoman Empire: Comprehending a General

Description of those Counties; Their Productions; The

999
 Manners, Customs and Commerce of the Inhabitants,

trans. A. Plumptre, London.

Powell, B. 1991. Homer and the Origin of the Greek

Alphabet, Cambridge.

—————. 1992. "Homer and the Origin of the Greek

Alphabet," CAJ 2, pp. 115-126.

Preka, K. 1992a. "Νόµος Κέρκυρας," ̓Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 42

(1987) B'1–Χρονικά, pp. 336-345.

—————. 1992b. "A Ceramic Workshop in Figareto, Corfu," in

Les Ateliers du Potiers dans le Monde Grec aux Époques

Géométrique, Archaïque et Classique (BCH Suppl. 23),

ed. F. Blondé and J. Y. Perreault, pp. 41-52.

Praschniker, C. 1922-1924. Muzakhia und Malakastra.

Archäologische Untersuchungen in Mittelalbanien,

Vienna.

Praschniker, C., and A. Schober. 1919. Archaologische

Forschungen in Albanien und Montenegro, Schriften der

Balkankommission, Antiquarische Ableitung 8, Vienna.

Prendi, F. 1982. "The Prehistory of Albania," in CAH2 3.1:

The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and

the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries B.C., ed.

J. Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and

E. Sollberger, Cambridge, pp. 187-237.

1000
Price, R. and M. Gaddis. 2005. The Acts of the Council of

Chalcedon, Liverpool.

Purcell, N. 1990. "Mobility and the Polis," in The Greek

City from Homer to Alexander, ed. O. Murray and S.

Price, Oxford, pp. 29-58.

—————. 2003. "The Boundless Sea of Unlikeness? On

defining the Mediterranean," Mediterranean Historical

Review 18.2, pp. 9-29.

—————. 2005. "Colonization and Mediterranean History," in

Ancient Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity, and

Difference, ed. H. Hurst and S. Owen, London, pp. 115-

139.

Quantin, F. 1999. "Le sanctuaire de Shtyllas à Apollonia

d'Illyrie," in L'Illyrie méridionale III, pp. 229-237.

—————. 2007a. "Le déplacement du temple d'Athéna Polias

en Chaonie: remarques sur les cosidetti 'temples

voyageurs,'" in Épire, Illyrie, Macédoine, pp. 175-

196.

—————. 2007b. "Chronique archéologique de la religion

Grecque antique: Arcarnanie, Épire, Illyrie

méridionale, Îles Ioniennes," Kernos 20, pp. 337-344.

Raoul-Rochette, D. 1815. Histoire critique de

l'établissement des colonies grecques, Paris.

Rawlinson, G. 1875. History of Herodotus, London.

1001
Reed, C. M. 2003. Maritime Traders in the Ancient Greek

World, Cambridge.

Renfrew, C. 1980. "The Great Tradition Versus the Great

Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology?," AJA 84, pp.

287-298.

Reuss, F. 1985. Hieronymos von Kardia: Studien zur

Geschichte der Diadochenzeit, Aalen.

Rey, L. 1920. "Observations sur les sites préhistoriques

et protohistoriques de la Macédoine," BCH 40 (1916),

pp. 257-292.

—————. 1921-1922. "Observations sur les premiers habitats

de la Macédoine recueillies par le Service

Archéologique de l'Armée d'Orient 1916-1919 (région de

Salonique)," BCH 41-43 (1917-1919), pp. 1-308.

—————. 1925. "Fouilles de la Mission française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie et à Durazzo (1923-1924)," Albania

I, pp. 9-32.

—————. 1927. "Fouilles de la Mission française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie (1925)," Albania II, pp. 11-23.

—————. 1928a. "Fouilles de la Mission française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie (1926-1927). I. Les fouilles.

II. Découverte d'un miroir de style archaïque grec,"

Albania III, pp, 13-37.

1002
—————. 1928b. "Répertoire topo-bibliographique des

antiquités de l'Albanie," Albania III, pp. 45-59.

—————. 1930. Guide de l'Albanie, Paris.

—————. 1932. "Fouilles de la Mission française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie (1930-1931). Exploration de la

nécropole," Albania IV, pp. 7-27.

—————. 1935a. "Fouilles de la Mission française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie (1931-1933). I. Le monument des

Agonothètes," Albania V, pp. 7-42.

—————. 1935b. "Fouilles de la Mission Française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie (1931-1933). III. Découverte

faite sur le sommet sud," Albania V, pp. 47-51.

—————. 1935c. "Antiquités provenant d'Apollonie et de

Durazzo," Albania V, pp. 51-63.

—————. 1939. "Fouilles de la Mission Française à

Apollonie d'Illyrie: I. L'Odéon; II. Le Sanctuaire;

III. Le Musée archéologique de Valona," Albania VI,

pp. 5-15.

Rhodes, R. F. 2003. "The Earliest Greek Architecture in

Corinth and the 7th Century Temple on Temple Hill," in

Corinth XX, pp. 85-94.

Ricciardi, R. 2007. "Two Roman Monuments; Proposals for

Function and Context," in Roman Butrint: An

1003
 Assessment, ed. I. L. Hansen and R. Hodges, Oxford,

pp. 165-174.

Rice, P. 1984a. "The Archaeological Study of Specialized

Pottery Production: Some Aspects of Method and

Theory," in Pots and Potters: Current Approaches in

Ceramic Archaeology, ed. P. M. Rice, Los Angeles, pp.

45-54.

—————. 1984b. "Change and Conservatism in Pottery-

Producing Systems, in The Many Dimensions of Pottery.

Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, ed. S. E.

van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, Amsterdam, pp. 231-

288.

Rich, J., and A. Wallace-Hadrill, eds. 1991. City and

Country in the Ancient World, London.

Ridgway, D. 1981. "The Foundation of Pithekoussai," in

Nouvelle contribution, pp. 45-56.

—————. 1990. “The First Western Greeks and their

Neighbours, 1935-1985," in Greek Colonists, pp. 61-72.

—————. 1992. The First Western Greeks, Cambridge.

—————. 1994. "Phoenicians and Greeks in the West: A View

from Pithekoussai," The Archaeology of Greek

Colonisation, pp. 35-46.

—————. 2004. "Euboeans and Others Along the Tyrrhenian

Seaboard in the 8th century B.C.," in Greek Identity

1004
 in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour of

Brian Shefton, ed. K. Lomas, Leiden, pp. 15-33.

Rigsby, K. J. 1996. Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in

the Hellenistic World, Berkeley.

Risser, M. K. 2003. "Corinthian Archaic and Classical

Pottery: The Local Style," in Corinth XX, pp. 167-179.

Robert, L. 1946. "Villes de Carie et d'Ionie dans la

liste des théorodoques de Delphes," BCH 70, pp. 506-

523.

Roebuck, C. 1972. "Some Aspects of Urbanization in

Corinth," Hesperia 41, pp. 96-127.

Rostovtzeff, M. I. 1953. The Social and Economic History

of the Hellenistic World, Oxford.

Rowlands, M., M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen. 1987. Centre

and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge.

Rubincam, C. R. 1976. "A Note on Oxyrhynchus Papyrus

1610," Phoenix 30, pp. 357-366.

Runnels, C., M. Korkuti, M. L. Galaty, M. E. Timpson, J. C.

Whittaker, S. R. Stocker, J. L. Davis, L. Bejko, and

S. Muçaj. 2004. "The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of

Albania: Survey and Excavation at the Site of

Kryegjata B (Fier District)," JMA 17, pp. 3-30.

1005
Rusyaeva, A. S. 2003. "The Temple of Achilles on the

Island of Leuke in the Black Sea," Ancient

Civilizations 9, pp. 1-16.

Rutter, J. 1990. "Pottery Groups from Tsoungiza of the

End of the Middle Bronze Age," Hesperia 59, pp. 375-

458.

Sacks, K. S. 1994. "Diodorus and His Sources," in Greek

Historiography, ed. S. Hornblower, Oxford, pp. 213-

232.

Sainte-Croix, G. E. J. G. 1779. De l'état et du sort des

colonies, des anciens peuples: Ouvrage dans lequel on

traite du gouvernement des anciennes républiques, de

leur droit public, and avec des observations sur les

colonies des nations modernes, and la conduite des

Anglois en Amérique, Paris.

Salmon, J. B. 1977. "Political Hoplites?," JHS 97, pp.

84-101.

—————. 1979. "Periander and the Commercial Installations

of Corinth," in Greece and Italy in the Classical

World: Acta of the XI International Congress of

Classical Archaeology, London, 3-9 September 1978, ed.

J. N. Coldstream and A. R. Colledge, London, p. 197.

—————. 1984. Wealthy Corinth: A History of the City to

388 B.C., Oxford.

1006
Scheidel, W., I. Morris, and R. Saller, eds. 2007. The

Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World,

Cambridge.

Scheidel, W., and R. von Reden. 2002. "Introduction," in

The Ancient Economy, ed. W. Scheidel and R. von Reden,

Edinburgh, pp. 1-8.

Schepens, G. 1977. "Historiographical Problems in

Ephorus," in Historiographia antiqua: commentationes

Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii

editae, Leuven, pp. 95-118.

Schmitt, O. J. 2001. Das venezianische Albanien (1392-

1479), Munich.

Schone, A. 1866. Eusebi chronicorum libri duo II:

Chronicorum canonum, Berlin.

Schubart, J. H. C. 1853-1854. Pausaniae Descriptio

Graeciae, Leipzig.

Schubart, J. H. C., and C. Walz. 1838-1839. Pausaniae

Descriptio Graeciae, Leipzig.

Schwartz, E., ed. 1927-1933. Acta Conciliorum

Oecumenicorum, Berlin.

Scullard, H. H. 2007. A History of the Roman World: 753-

146 B.C., 4th ed., New York.

Servais, J. 1969. "Hérodote et la chronologie des

Cypsélides," AntCl 38, pp. 28-81.

1007
Shanks, M. 2001. "Culture/Archaeology: The Dispersion of

a Discipline and its Objects," in Archaeological

Theory Today, ed. I. Hodder, Oxford, pp. 284-305.

Shaw, B. D., and R. P. Saller. 1982. "Editor's

Introduction," in Economy and Society in Ancient

Greece, M. I. Finley, New York, pp. ix-xxvi.

Shear, T. L. 1930. "Excavations in the North Cemetery at

Corinth in 1930," AJA 34, pp. 403-431.

Sheets, G. A. 1994. "Conceptualizing International Law in

Thucydides," AJP 115, pp. 51-73.

Shepherd, G. 1995. "The Pride of Most Colonials: Burial

and Religion in the Sicilian Colonies," in Ancient

Sicily, ed. T. Fischer-Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 51-82.

—————. 1999. "Fibulae and Females: Intermarriage in the

Western Greek Colonies and the Evidence from the

Cemeteries," in Ancient Greeks West and East, pp. 267-

300.

—————. 2000. "Greeks Bearing Gifts: Religious

Relationships between Sicily and Greece in the Archaic

Period," in Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New

Approaches in Archaeology and History, ed. C. J. Smith

and J. Serrati, Edinburgh, pp. 55-70.

—————. 2005. "The Advance of the Greek: Greece, Great

Britain and Archaeological Empires," in Ancient

1008
 Colonizations: Analogy, Similarity, and Difference,

ed. H. Hurst and S. Owen, London, pp. 23-44.

Sherratt, A., and S. Sherratt. 1993. "The Growth of the

Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millennium

B.C.," WorldArch 24, pp. 361-378.

Shipley, G. 2000. The Greek World after Alexander: 323-30

B.C., New York.

Shpuza, S. 2006. "The Roman Colonies of South Illyria: A

Review," in New Directions, pp. 164-168.

Shrimpton, G. S. 1991. Theopompus the Historian,

Montreal.

Siebelis, C. G. 1822-1828. Pausaniae Graeciae Descripto,

Leipzig.

Silver, M. 1995. Economic Structures of Antiquity,

Westport, Conn.

Sjöqvist, E. 1973. Sicily and the Greeks, Ann Arbor.

Small, D. B., ed. 1994. Methods in the Mediterranean:

Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and

Archaeology, Leiden.

—————. 1999. "The Tyranny of the Text: Lost Social

Strategies in Current Historical Period Archaeology in

the Classical Mediterranean," in Historical

Archaeology: Back from the Edge, ed. P. P. Funari, M.

Hall, and S. Jones, London, pp. 122-136.

1009
Smith, T. R. 1987. Mycenaean Trade and Interaction in the

West Central Mediterranean, 1600-1000 B.C., Oxford.

Snodgrass, A. M. 1971. The Dark Age of Greece, Edinburgh.

—————. 1980. Archaic Greece. The Age of Experiment,

London.

—————. 1985. "The New Archaeology and the Classical

Archaeologist," AJA 89, pp. 1-17.

—————. 1987. An Archaeology of Greece: The Present State

and Future Scope of a Discipline, Berkeley.

—————. 1993. "The Rise of the Polis: The Archaeological

Evidence," in The Ancient Greek City State, ed. M. H.

Hansen, Copenhagen, pp. 30-40.

—————. 1994a. "The Growth and Standing of the Early

Western Colonies," in The Archaeology of Greek

Colonisation, pp. 1-10.

—————. 1994b. "The Euboeans in Macedonia: A New Precedent

for Westward Expansion," in Apoikia, pp. 87-93.

—————. 1994c. "Response: The Archaeological Aspect," in

Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern

Archaeologies, ed. I. Morris, Cambridge, pp. 197-200.

—————. 2005. "'Lesser Breeds': The History of a False

Analogy," in Ancient Colonizations: Analogy,

Similarity, and Difference, ed. H. Hurst and S. Owen,

London, pp. 45-58.

1010
Solomon, J. 1993. "Introduction," in Accessing Antiquity:

The Computerization of Classical Studies, ed. J.

Solomon, Tucson, pp. 1-9.

Spiro, F. 1903. Pausaniae Graeciae Descriptio, Leipzig.

Spivey, N. 1996. Understanding Greek Sculpture: Ancient

Meanings, Modern Readings, London.

Stampolidis, N. C., and V. Karageorghis, eds. 2003. Πλόες:

Sea Routes: Interconnections in the Mediterranean,

16th-6th c. BC: Prodeedings of the International

Symposium Held at Rethymnon, Creete, September 29-

October 2nd, 2002, Athens.

Stephenson, P. 2000. Byzantium's Balkan Frontier: A

Political Study of the Northern Balkans, 900-1204,

Cambridge.

Stickney, E. P. 1926. Southern Albania or Northern Epirus

in European International Affairs, 1912-1923,

Stanford.

Stipčević, A. 1966. Gli Illiri, Milan.

—————. 1967. Bibliographia Illyrica, Sarajevo.

—————. 1977. The Illyrians, trans. S. Burton, Park Ridge,

Ill.

—————. 1986. "Tout recit sur Balkans commence par les

Illyriens," Iliria 1986.1, pp. 337-343.

1011
Stocker, S. R., and J. L. Davis. 2006. "The Earliest

History of Apollonia: Heroic Reflections from Beyond

the Acropolis," in New Directions, pp. 56-64.

Strazimiri, B., H. Nallbani, and N. Ceka. 1973. Monumente

të Arkitekturës në Shqupëri, Tirana.

Swire, J. 1930. Albania: The Rise of a Kingdom, New York.

Swoboda, E. 1932. Octavian und Illyricum, Vienna.

Talbert, R. J. A. 2000. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and

Roman World, Princeton.

Tandy, D. W. 1997. Warriors into Traders: The Power of

the Market in Early Greece, Berkeley.

Tarn, W. W. 1913. Antigonos Gonatas, Oxford.

Tartaron, T. F., T. E. Gregory, D. J. Pullen, J. S. Noller,

R. M. Rothaus, J. L. Rife, L. Tzortzopoulou-Gregory,

R. Schon, W. R. Caraher, D. K. Pettegrew, and D.

Nakassis. 2006. "The Eastern Korinthia

Archaeological Survey: Integrated Methods for a

Dynamic Landscape," Hesperia 75, pp. 453-523.

Thomas, H., and F. H. Stubbings. 1962. "Lands and Peoples

in Homer," in A Companion to Homer, ed. A. J. B. Wace

and F. H. Stubbings, London, pp. 283-310.

Thomas, K. 2004. "Greek Decorative Pottery: Seventh-Fifth

Centuries B.C.," in Kerkyra: Artifacts from the

Palaiopolis, ed. R. Winkes, Rhode Island, pp. 13-20.

1012
Thunmann, J. 1774. Untersuchungen über die Geschichte des

östlichen europäischen Völker, Leipzig.

Tildesley, M. L. 1933. "The Albanians of the North and

South," Biometrika 25, pp. 21-51.

Tilley, C., ed. 1993. Interpretative Archaeology, New

York.

Toçi, V. 1969. "Données sur l'onomastique illyrienne à

Dyrrhachium et dans d'autres centres de l'Albanie,"

Studia Albanica 6.2, pp. 163-185.

—————. 1972. "Données sur l'elément illyrien à

Dyrrhachium à la lumière des nouveaux témoignages

archéologiques," Studia Albanica 1972.2, pp. 77-84.

Todorova, M. 1997. Imagining the Balkans, Oxford.

Tzouvara-Souli, C. 1993. "Common Cults in Epirus and

Albania," in L'Illyrie méridionale II, pp. 65-82.

—————. 2001. "The Cults of Apollo in Northwestern

Greece," in Foundation and Destruction: Nikopolis and

Northwestern Greece, ed. J. Isager, Athens, pp. 233-

255.

Ugolini, L. M. 1927. Albania Antica I. Ricerche

archeologiche, Rome.

—————. 1931. "Le scoperte archeologiche fatte in

Albania," Studi Albanesi I, pp. 17-34.

—————. 1932. Albania Antica II. L'acropoli di Fenice.

1013
Vallet, G., and F. Villiard. 1952. "Les dates de

fondation de Mégara Hyblaea et de Syracuse," BCH 76,

pp. 289-346.

—————. 1961. "Céramique et histoire grecque," RHist 225,

pp. 295-318.

Vandiver, P. B., and C. G. Koehler. 1986. "Structure,

Processing, Properties, and Style of Corinthian

Transport Amphoras, in Technology and Style, ed. W. D.

Kingery, Columbus, pp. 173-215.

Van Compernolle, R. 1953. "La date de la fondation

d'Apollonie d'Illyrie," AntCl 22.1, pp. 50-64.

—————. 1960. Étude de chronologie et d'historiographie

siciliote, Brussels.

—————. 1983. "Femmes indigènes et colonisateurs," Modes

de contacts et processus de transformation dans les

sociétés anciennes: actes du colloque de Cortone (24-

30 mai 1981, Rome, pp. 1033-1049.

Van der Leeuw, S. 1984. "Pottery Manufacture and Some

Complications for the Study of Trade," in Pots and

Potters: Current Approaches in Ceramic Archaeology,

ed. P. M. Rice, Los Angeles, pp. 55-69.

Van Dommelen, P. 1997. "Colonial Constructs: Colonialism

and Archaeology in the Mediterranean," WorldArch 28,

pp. 305-323.

1014
—————. 2002. "Ambiguous Matters: Colonialism and Local

Identities in Punic Sardinia," in The Archaeology of

Colonialism, pp. 121-150.

Vanotti, G. 2002. "Enea a Corcira Melaina," in Greek

Influence along the East Adriatic Coast, ed. N. Cambi,

S. Čače, and B. Kirigin, Split, pp. 77-81.

Van Wijngaarden, G. J. 1999. "The Complex Past of

Pottery: An Introduction," in The Complex Past of

Pottery: Production, Circulation, and Consumption of

Mycenaean and Greek Pottery (16th to early 5th

Centuries B.C.): Proceedings of the ARCHON

International Conference held in Amsterdam, 8-9

November, 1996, ed. J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, and G.

J. van Wijngaarden, Amsterdam, pp. 1-19.

Verger, S., F. Quantin, O. Delouis, J.-L. Lamboley, P.

Lenhardt, B. Vrekaj, and A. Skenderaj. 2007.

"Apollonia d'Illyrie (Albanie): prospections

géophysiques et sondages topographiques et

stratigraphiques," MÉFRA 119, pp. 229-237.

Veseli, S. 2006. "Archaeology, Nationalism and the

Construction of National Identity in Albania," in New

Directions, pp. 323-330.

Vesilind, P. 2000. "Albanians: A People Undone," National

Geographic 197.2, pp. 52-71.

1015
Vickers, M. 1995. The Albanians: A Modern History,

London.

Von Fritz, K. 1977. "Poseidonios als Historiker," in

Historiographia antiqua: commentationes Lovanienses in

honorem W. Peremans septuagenarii editae, Leuven, pp.

163-193.

Von Hahn, J. G. 1854. Albanesische Studien, Jena.

Vrekaj, B. 1994. "Zbukurimi në qeramikën helenistike të

Apolonisë (Decoration on the Hellenistic Pottery of

Apollonia)," Iliria 1994, pp. 165-185.

—————. 2004. Apollonia e Ilirisë në burime antike,

Tirana.

Vroom, J. 1999. Playing Games in the Valley of the Muses:

A Medieval Board Game Found in Boeotia, Greece,"

Pharos 7, pp. 93-112.

Walbank, F. W. 1940. Philip V of Macedon, Cambridge.

—————. 1957. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford.

—————. 1962. "Polemic in Polybius," JRS 52, pp. 1-12.

—————. 1963. " Polibius and Rome's Eastern Policy," JRS

53, pp. 1-13.

—————. 1976. "Southern Illyria in the Third and Second

Centuries B.C.," Iliria IV, pp. 265-272.

—————. 1977. "The Causes of the Third Macedonian War:

Recent Views," in Ancient Macedonia II, pp. 81-94.

1016
—————. 1985. "Via illa nostra militaris...: Some Thoughts

on the Via Egnatia," Selected Papers in Greek and

Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge, pp. 193-

209.

—————. 1986. "The Via Egnatia: Some Outstanding

Problems," in Ancient Macedonia IV, Thessaloniki, pp.

673-680.

—————. 1989-1990. "Timaeus' Views on the Past," Scripta

Classica Israelica 10, pp. 41-54.

—————. 1990. "Profit or Amusement: Some Thoughts on the

Motives of Hellenistic Historians," in Purposes of

History: Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4th

to the 2nd Centuries B.C.: Proceedings of the

International Colloquium, Leuven, 24-26 May 1988, ed.

H. Verdin, G. Schepens, and E. de Keyser, Leuven, pp.

253-266.

Waldbaum, J. C. 1997. "Greeks in the East or Greeks and

the East? Problems in the Definition and Recognition

of Presence," BASOR 305, pp. 1-17.

Walker, E. M. 1913. The Hellenica Oxyrhynchia: Its

Authorship and Authority, Oxford.

Walker, K. G. 2004. Archaic Eretria: A Political and

Social History from the Earliest Times to 490 B.C.,

New York.

1017
Wallace, J. 1998. "A (Hi)Story of Illyria," GaR 45.2, pp.

213-225.

Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1991. "Introduction," in City and

Country in the Ancient World, ed. J. Rich and A.

Wallace-Hadrill, London, pp. ix-xviii.

Walpole, R. 1818. Memoirs Relating to European and

Asiatic Turkey, and Other Countries of the East,

London.

Wells, P. S. 1999. The Barbarians Speak: How the

Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe, Princeton.

West, M. 2002. "'Eumelos': A Corinthian Epic Cycle?," JHS

122, pp. 109-133.

West, S. 1991. "Herodotus' Portrait of Hecataeus," JHS

111, pp. 144-160.

Wheler, G. 1682. A Journey into Greece, London.

Whitbread, I. K. 1984. "Punic Amphoras Found at Corinth,"

JFA 11, pp. 205-222.

—————. 1986a. "The Characterisation of Argillaceous

Inclusions in Ceramic Thin Sections," Archaeometry 28,

pp. 79-88.

—————. 1986b. "The Application of Ceramic Petrology to

the Study of Ancient Greek Amphorae," in Recherches

sur les amphores Grecques (BCH Suppl. 13), ed. J.-Y.

Empereur and Y. Garlan, Paris, pp. 95-101.

1018
—————. 1986c. "A Microscopic View of Greek Transport

Amphorae," in Science in Archaeology (Proceedings of a

Meeting Held at the British School at Athens, January

1985), Fitch Laboratory Occasional Paper 2, pp. 49-52.

—————. 1989. "A Proposal for the Systematic Description

of Thin Sections Towards the Study of Ancient Ceramic

Technology," in Archaeometry: Proceedings of the 25th

International Symposium, ed. Y. Maniatis, Amsterdam,

pp. 127-138.

—————. 1991. "Image and Data Processing in Ceramic

Petrology," in Recent Developments in Ceramic

Petrology, ed. A. P. Middleton and I. C. Freestone,

London, pp. 369-388.

—————. 1995a. Greek Transport Amphorae: A Petrological

and Archaeological Study, Fitch Laboratory Occasional

Paper 4, Exeter.

—————. 1995b. "We Are What We Study: Problems in

Communication and Collaboration Between Ceramologists

and Archaeological Scientists," in The Aim of

Laboratory Analyses of Ceramics in Archaeology, April

7-9, 1995 in Lund Sweden, ed. A. Lindahl and O.

Stilborg, Stockholm, pp. 91-100.

1019
—————. 2003. "Clays of Corinth: The Study of a Basic

Resource for Ceramic Production," in Corinth XX, pp.

1-13.

Whitbread, I., R. J. Jones, and J. K. Papadopoulos. 1997.

"The Early Iron Age Kiln at Torone, Greece: Geological

Diversity and the Definition of Control Groups," in

Archaeological Sciences 1995. Proceedings of a

Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques

to the Study of Archaeology, Liverpool, July 1995, ed.

A. Sinclair, E. Slater, and J. Gowlett, Oxbow

Monograph 64, Oxford, pp. 88-91.

White, R. 1991. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and

Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815,

Cambridge.

Whitehouse, R. D., and J. B. Wilkins. 1985. "Magna

Graecia before the Greeks: Towards a Reconciliation of

the Evidence," in Papers in Italian Archaeology, eds.

C. Malone and S. Stoddart (BAR International Series

245), Oxford, pp. 89-109.

—————. 1989. "Greeks and Natives in South-East Italy:

Approaches to the Archaeological Evidence," in Centre

and Periphery: Comparative Studies in Archaeology, ed.

T. C. Champion, London, pp. 102-126.

1020
Whitley, J. 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece:

The Changing Face of a Pre-literate Society 1100-700

B.C., Cambridge.

—————. 2001. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece,

Cambridge.

Wilkes, John. 1969. Dalmatia, Cambridge, Mass.

—————. 1976. "Arthur Evans in the Balkans, 1875-1881,"

BIALond 13, pp. 25-56.

—————. 1990. Review of L’Illyrie and Schätze, AJA 94, pp.

502-504.

—————. 1992. The Illyrians, Cambridge, Mass.

—————. 2006. "The Significance of Road-Stations for the

Archaeology of Albania in the Roman Era," in New

Directions, pp. 169-176.

Will, E. 1955. Korinthaika, Paris.

—————. 1979. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique,

vol. 1, 2nd ed., Nancy.

—————. 1982. Histoire politique du monde hellénistique,

vol. 2, 2nd ed., Nancy.

Williams, C. K., II. 1978. "Corinth 1977, Forum

Southeast," Hesperia 47, pp. 15-20.

—————. 1979. "Corinth 1978, Forum Southwest," Hesperia

48, pp. 107-124.

1021
—————. 1984. "The Early Urbanization of Corinth," ASAtene

60 (1982), pp. 9-20.

—————. 1986. "Corinth and the Cult of Aphrodite,"

Corinthiaca: Studies in Honor of Darrell A. Amyx, ed.

M. A. del Chiaro, Columbia, pp. 12-24.

—————. 1995. "Archaic and Classical Corinth," Corinto e

l'Occidente. Atti del trentaquattresimo convegno di

studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 7-11 Ottobre 1994,

Taranto, pp. 31-45.

Wilson, J.-P. 1997. "The Nature of Greek Overseas

Settlements in the Archaic Period: Emporion or

Apoikia?," in The Development of the Polis in Archaic

Greece, ed. L. G. Mitchell and P. J. Rhodes, New York,

pp. 199-207.

—————. 2000. "Ethnic and State Identities in Greek

Settlements in Southern Italy in the Eighth and

Seventh Centuries B.C.," in The Emergence of State

Identities in Italy in the First Millennium B.C., ed.

E. Herring and K. Lomas, London, pp. 31-43.

Wilson, R. J. 1981-1982. "Archaeology in Sicily, 1977-

1981," AR 27, pp. 84-105.

Winnifrith, T. 1992. "Albania and the Ottoman Empire," in

Perspectives on Albania, pp. 74-88.

1022
—————. 2002. Badlands – Borderlands: A History of

Northern Epirus/Southern Albania, London.

Wright, J. C., J. F. Cherry, J. L. Davis, E. Mantzourani,

S. B. Sutton, and R. F. Sutton. 1990. "The Nemea

Valley Archaeology Project: A Preliminary Report,"

Hesperia 59, pp. 579–659.

Xylander, W. 1583. Παυσανίος της Ελλάδος περιήγησις, Frankfort.

Yalouris, N. 1996. Ancient Elis, Cradle of the Olympic

Games, Athens.

Zachos, K. L. 2008. ΑΚΤΙΑ: αθλητικοί αγώνες των αυτοκρατορικών

χρόνων στη Νικόπολη της Ηπείρου, Athens.

Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet, and J. L. Davis. 2005. A

Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece:

The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century, Princeton.

Zippel, G. 1877. Die Römische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis

auf Augustus, Leipzig.

1023
Figure 1.1. Map of Albania with principal towns and
rivers. R. J. Robertson

1024
Figure. 1.2. Close-up map of the Apollonia region. R. J.
Robertson

1025
Figure. 1.3. View of Vjose river valley from the
excavation house at Apollonia

Figure 1.4. Surviving column from the temple at Shtyllas

1026
Figure 1.5. Bouleuterion and triumphal arch at Apollonia

Figure 1.6. Architrave block from Apollonia bouleuterion

used as an altar at Site 013

1027
Figure 1.7. Bouleuterion, Odeion, and “Library.” J.
Driessen

1028
Figure 3.1. Map of Albania and borders with other Balkan
countries. R. J. Robertson

1029
Fig. 4.1. Map of Ancient Greek World (Southern Italy,
Greece, and Asia Minor. © Bernard Suzanne

1030
Fig. 5.1. Relief map of Albania

1031
Figure 6.1. Distribution of all transport amphoras in the
MRAP survey region. S. F. S. Heath and S. R. Stocker

1032
Figure 6.2. Plot of all amphora samples. Ni vs. Cr. S.
R. Stocker and T. Gerke

1033
Figure 6.3. Plot of Corinthian Type B and "local"
amphoras. Ni vs. Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

1034
Figure 6.4. Plot of Corinthian Type A and A' amphoras. Ni
vs. Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

1035
Figure 6.5. Plot of Corinthian Type A amphoras by period.
Ni vs. Cr. S. R. Stocker and T. Gerke

1036
Figure 6.6. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

1037
Figure 6.7. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

1038
Figure 6.8. Profiles of amphoras sampled. R. J. Robertson

1039
Figure 7.1. Map of the MRAP survey region with the
location of sites. R. J. Robertson

1040
Figure 7.2. Tract walking

Figure 7.3. MRAP Collection Units Database

1041
Figure 7.4. MRAP Sites Database

Figure 7.5. Skender Muçaj reading artifacts

1042
Figure 7.6. MRAP Museum Registration Database

Figure 7.7. Maria Grazia Amore, Kathleen Lynch, and Ols

Lafe examining pottery

1043
Figure 7.8. MRAP Catalogued Pottery Database

Figure 7.9. Curtis Runnels and Muzafer Korkuti

1044
Figure 7.10. MRAP Small Finds Database

Figure 7.11. Jim Newhard and Muzafer Korkuti mapping

necropolis of Apollonia (Site 007) with an EDM

1045
Figure 7.12. Map of MRAP survey region with tracts and
zones identified. R. J. Robertson

1046
Figure 7.13. Site 001 with team members gathered around
site center. Column at Shtyllas in background

Figure 7.14. Overview of Site 002 looking south along

ridge

1047
Figure 7.15. Surface collection at Site 003

Figure 7.16. View from Site 003 across the Apollonia

necropolis (Site 007) towards Site 004 and Site 005

1048
Figure 7.17. Muzafer Korkuti on large tumulus at Site 005.
Looking east

Figure 7.18. Looking towards Kryegjata across Site 007 at

Site 006 and derelict military buildings

1049
Figure 7.19. Tumulus at Site 006 with power line visible
on right

Figure 7.20. View west across Site 007 toward Apollonia

acropolis from Kodra Kripës (Site 005)

1050
Figure 7.21. View of Apollonia acropolis (Site 008) from
Site 026. Looking north

Figure 7.22. Jack Davis and author on steps of the

bouleuterion of Apollonia (Site 008)

1051
Figure 7.23. Upper acropolis of Apollonia (Site 008)

1052
Figure 7.24. Site 009 is shown with team members clustered
around site center from a point ca. 50 m to the south

Figure 7.25. Site 010 with modern trenches dug to collect

water. Looking 330˚, with Apollonia in the background

1053
Figure 7.26. Looking west towards Çuka e Bukur across Site
011, taken from the hill immediately to southeast

7.27. Tiles sticking out of scarp at Site 011. West of

agricultural road at the east side of the Shtyllas valley,
looking 320˚

1054
Figure 7.28. Looking north from site center of S012. The
Shtyllas valley water pumping station is visible

Figure 7.29. Looking south (uphill) at the center of Site

012

1055
Figure 7.30. Safe and architrave block at the center of
Site 013

Figure 7.31. Site 014 on the west side of the knoll at the
east end of the Shtyllas valley, looking northeast from
Site 031

1056
Figure 7.32. Looking west from Tract A-156 towards Site
015 and Site 013

Figure 7.33. Standing in S015-009G looking 320˚ down over

Site 015, showing new buildings and farmyard

1057
Figure 7.34. Limestone slabs from a grave south of Kodra
Ullirit with trees marking Site 016 in the distance

Figure 7.35. Looking east from Site 019. Site 018 is in

the low middle ground between the two hills and above the
farmhouse in the center

1058
Figure 7.36. Looking east across center of Site 019. Fier
is in the background

Figure 7.37. View from Site 020 looking south to Site 033

1059
Figure 7.38. View from Site 021 looking 330˚ from S021-
006G with column of Shtyllas in background

Figure 7.39. View of Apollonia from Site 022, looking 320˚

from north end of site

1060
Figure 7.40. Tile and brick pile in S023-004 of Site 023

Figure 7.41. View from Site 003 towards Site 024

1061
7.42. Looking 200˚ from Tract C-101 at Shtyllas-Jaroi
village (Site 025) with Çuka e Lisit in background

Figure 7.43. Watertower on top of Site 026 from south

1062
Figure 7.44. View of Apollonia from Site 026 from south

Figure 7.45. View of Site 027 taken from site center

looking 330˚

1063
Figure 7.46. View of Site 028 and the village of Shtyllas-
Jaroi (Site 025) in background, looking 220˚

Figure 7.47. Looking towards Site 029 from GPS Point GH20

1064
Figure 7.48. Looking west across Site 029. Olive trees in
background are in Tract D-186

Figure 7.49. View east from J-108 toward Site 030

1065
Figure 7.50. Looking 350° at Site 031 and the Vadhiza
junction. Site 014 is in background on left at junction of
Radostina and Shtyllas roads

Figure 7.51. Site 031 center, marked by a pink flag under

an olive tree near the half bunker, seen from southwest.
Orange van is parked next to road at Vadhiza junction

1066
Figure 7.52. Site 032 from the road; site center is on the
last straw terrace to the right of photo center. Cuka e
Bukur with a blue radio tower on top is visible on extreme
left of terrace

Figure 7.53. Overview of Site 032

1067
Figure 7.54. Center of Site 033

Figure 7.55. Looking down 140° from ridge opposite and

above Site 034. Team members conducting site collection
are slightly left of the center of the photograph

1068
Figure 7.56. Site 034 being collected by team members

Figure 7.57. View of Site 035 from south on road

1069
Figure 7.58. Eroded road running alongside Site 036. In
2000 the road was drivable

1070
Figure 7.59. Site 038 looking north from J-135

Figure 7.60. Site 039 from the east

1071
Figure 7.61. Site 040

Figure 7.62. Margelliç acropolis (Site 041) looking 250˚

from end of Tract M-006

1072
Figure 7.63. Looking across acropolis of Margelliç from
end of S041-019

Figure 7.64. Northern slope of Margëlliç acropolis (Site

041) from Site 045

1073
Figure 7.65. Looking west to Site 042

Figure 7.66. General view of Site 043 from north

1074
Figure 7.67. Farmstead at Bonjakët (Site 043)

Figure 7.68. Looking over Site 044 at 340˚from

southernmost point of site on asphalt road

1075
Figure 7.69. Site 045 looking 250˚ towards Site 041 in the
background

Figure 7.70. Site S046. Profile of scarp along Rusinja

road in Tract M-258

1076
Figure 7.71. Looking 330˚ from south end of grid over Site
047

Figure 7.72. View of plain showing Site 049 on the right

side of photograph and Site 043, Site 047, and Site 050 in
the distance

1077
Figure 7.73. Site 054 looking 40˚ from Tracts L-202 to L-
205

Figure 7.74. Part of lower town of Margelliç (Site 055) in

the foreground with the acropolis (Site 043) in the
distance, from Rerezi ridge

1078
Figure 7.75. Landscape in Zone 6 with Site 056 in the
foreground

Figure 7.76. Olive trees on Site 057

1079
Figure 7.77. View of the temple at Shtyllas from the
monastery tower at Apollonia

Figure 7.78. Column from the temple at Shtyllas with

Apollonia in the background

1080
Figure 8.1. MRAP zones with sites. R. J. Robertson

1081
Figure 8.2. Zone 1. R. J. Robertson

1082
Figure 8.3. Zone 2. R. J. Robertson

1083
Figure 8.4. Zone 3. R. J. Robertson

1084
Figure 8.5. Zones 4 and 5. R. J. Robertson

1085
Figure 8.6. Zone 6. R. J. Robertson

1086
Figure 8.7. Zone 7. R. J. Robertson

1087
Figure 8.8. Zones 8 and 9. R. J. Robertson

1088
Figure 8.9. Zones 10, 11, 12, 13. R. J. Robertson

1089
Figure 9.1. Distribution of ceramics in the MRAP survey
region. S. R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1090
Figure 9.2. Distribution of Bronze-Iron Age ceramics. S.
R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1091
Figure 9.3. Distribution of Archaic-Early Classical
ceramics. S. R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1092
Figure 9.4. Distribution of Bronze Age-Archaic ceramics.
S. R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1093
Figure 9.5. Distribution of Classical ceramics. S. R.
Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1094
Figure 9.6. Distribution of Classical-Early Hellenistic
ceramics. S. R. Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1095
Figure 9.7. Distribution of Hellenistic ceramics. S. R.
Stocker and S. F. S. Heath

1096
Figure 9.8. Distribution of Roman ceramics. S. R. Stocker
and S. F. S. Heath

1097
Period Symbol Start Date End Date
Prehistoric PH -50,000 -1060
Paleolithic PL -300,000 -8000
Lower Paleolithic LPL -300,000 -125,000
Middle Paleolithic MPL -125,000 -28,000
Upper Paleolithic UPL -28,000 -8000
Mesolithic ML -8000 -6000
Neolithic N -6000 -2500
Early Neolithic EN -6000 -5000
Middle Neolithic MN -5000 -4500
Late Neolithic LN -4000 -3000
Final Neolithic FN -3000 -2500
Bronze Age BA -2500 -1050
Early Bronze Age EBA -2500 -1900
Middle Bronze Age MBA -1900 -1500
Late Bronze Age LBA -1500 -1050
Iron Age IA -1050 -625
Early Iron Age EIA -1050 -750
Developed Iron Age DIA -750 -625
Proto-Urban PU -625 -450
Archaic A -700 -480
Early Archaic EA -700 -525
Late Archaic LA -525 -480
Classical CL -480 -323
Early Classical ECL -480 -400
Late Classical LCL -400 -323
Hellenistic HL -323 -31
Early Hellenistic EHL -323 -300
Middle Hellenistic MHL -300 -100
Late Hellenistic LHL -100 -31
Roman R -31 610
Early Roman ER -31 140
Middle Roman MR 140 306
Late Roman LR 306 610
Medieval MED 610 1500
Post-Medieval PMED 1500 2000
Byzantine B 610 1450
Early Byzantine EB 610 900
Middle Byzantine MB 900 1200
Late Byzantine LB 1200 1450
Ottoman O 1450 1912
Early Ottoman EO 1450 1600
Late Ottoman LO 1600 1912
Early Modern EM 1800 1950
Independence I 1900 1946
Communist C 1946 1985
Modern M 1950 2000

1.1. MRAP periods and dates

Site A A/ A/CL A/CL- A-HL CL- LCL/ LCL- HL HL/ER HL-R R ER- MR/ Total
ECL EHL HL EHL HL MR LR
Off-site 1 1 2 2 3 37 3 1 49
S008 1 1 1 3 1 42 6 8 1 5 1 70
S043 2 1 8 34 2 2 2 3 1 55
S047 20 20
S048 2 1 1 4
S049 17 6 1 6 30
S050 1 1 2 1 1 6 12 1 25
S059
Off-site 2 6 3 1 1 16 1 28
S003
S004 1 1 2
S005 3 5 25 33
S006 2 4 6
S007 7 7 8 17 11 11 1 10 1 73
S016 1 1 6 1 2 1 14 26
S017 1 1
S024
S030
S058 1 1 2
S061 1 1 2
Off-site 3 1 1 1 2 1 10 2 2 2 22
S018 1 1 2
Site A A/ A/CL A/CL- A-HL CL- LCL/ LCL- HL HL/ER HL-R R ER- MR/ Total
ECL EHL HL EHL HL MR LR
S019 3 1 1 1 9 1 2 18
S020 9 9
S023 1 4 1 1 7
S029 2 2 3 7
S033 1 4 3 11 19
Off-site 4 2 7 2 7 5 8 14 1 46
S001 1 1 2 8 1 18 1 32
S002 2 2 1 6 1 12
S009 1 3 4
S010 1 1 2
S011 3 10 13
S012 1 1 1 1 2 6
S013
S014 1 1 12 17 31
S015 2 2 1 5
S021 1 2 2 1 6
S022 2 1 20 1 1 25
S026 1 1 1 1 15 19
S031 1 1 3 1 1 10 1 1 19
S051 5 5
S052 1 1
S057
Site A A/ A/CL A/CL- A-HL CL- LCL/ LCL- HL HL/ER HL-R R ER- MR/ Total
ECL EHL HL EHL HL MR LR
Off-site 5 6 4 5 15
S025
S028 1 6 7
Off-site 6 2 1 9 5 14 4 8 34 2 79
S027 1 1 10 2 14
S032 1 1 6 1 2 1 2 3 17
S034 1 2 19 40 62
S040 2 1 3 11 17
S042
S056
Off-site 7 1 5 12 5 20 29 1 73
S037 2 11 13
S038 3 23 26
S039 3 3
S053 1 1
Off-site 8 1 4 1 1 7
Off-site 9 1 1 3 2 1 8
S035 1 1
S036
Off-site 10 1 1 1 1 4
S041 1 1 1 12 1 16
Off-site 11 1 1 1 4 7
Site A A/ A/CL A/CL- A-HL CL- LCL/ LCL- HL HL/ER HL-R R ER- MR/ Total
ECL EHL HL EHL HL MR LR
S044 2 1 1 1 15 20
S045 1 1 3 2 12 1 20
S046 1 2 1 4
S054 2 2
S055 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 10 22
S060 1 1 2 1 5
Off-site 12 4 4
Off-site 13 2 1 2 1 6
Total 18 15 38 112 48 96 24 96 640 9 39 23 9 22 1189

Table 6.1. MRAP transport amphora by period, site, and zone

Zone A A/ A/CL A/CL- A-HL CL-HL LCL/ LCL- HL HL/ HL-R1 R ER- MR/ Total
ECL EHL EHL HL ER MR LR
Zone 1 2 1 4 5 7 2 17 164 8 21 5 9 8 253
Zone 2 8 7 9 34 13 21 3 2 72 3 1 173
Zone 3 6 6 2 4 1 5 45 3 6 6 84
Zone 4 7 19 9 19 8 24 120 1 9 5 5 226
Zone 5 7 4 11 22
Zone 6 1 2 3 15 8 18 6 32 97 2 5 189
Zone 7 1 5 15 5 22 3 64 1 116
Zone 8 1 4 1 1 7
Zone 9 1 1 1 3 2 1 9
Zone 10 2 1 1 1 1 13 1 20
Zone 11 5 2 6 5 5 5 2 4 45 1 80
Zone 12 4 4
Zone 13 2 1 2 1 6
Total 18 15 38 112 48 96 24 96 640 9 39 23 9 22 1189

Table 6.2. MRAP transport amphora by date and zone

1
Two sherds with very broad chronological ranges are included in this column: one A-R and one CL-R.
Archaic Amphora AS # Period Refined Date Type

B-094-04 AS2 EA 625-600 A

J-394-10 AS22 EA 650-625 A

J-401-01 AS66 EA 625-550 AI

S016-004G-03 AS42 EA 650-600 A

L-028-01 AS76 EA 650-600 A

M-090-06 AS86 EA 650-550 A

J-395-03 AS63 A 600-480 A'

L-035-02 AS77 A 600-500? A

J-399-03 AS65 LA 525-500 B

S033-001G-01 AS100 LA 525-480 B

Table 6.3. Archaic transport amphoras in the sample group

Site # Zone # Team Coll. year Size Site Name
S001 4 A 1998 1.60 Shtyllas valley
S002 4 A 1998 0.40 Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S003 2 B 1999 4.00 Kryegjata B
S004 2 B 1998 1.00 HL Grave, LO settlement
S005 2 B 1998 0.25 Tumulus
S006 2 B 1998 0.16 Tumulus
S007 2 B, D, J NC 50.0 Apollonia necropolis
S008 1 P NC 150 Apollonia acropolis
S009 4 A 1998 0.60 Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S010 4 A 1998 0.20 Shtyllas, spring
S011 4 A 1999 0.16 Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S012 4 A 1999 0.24 Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S013 4 A 1998 2.00 Shëndëlli
S014 4 A 1998 2.00 Head of Shtyllas valley
S015 4 A 1998 2.00 Shtyllas, near spring
S016 2 B 1998 1.00 K. Ullirit; Radostina
S017 2 B NC 0.60 Kryegjata A
S018 3 D 1999 1.20 Radostina/Vadhizë
S019 3 D 1999 0.65 Radostina
S020 3 (4) D 1999 0.25 Vadhiza upper
S021 4 C 1999 1.20 Shytllas-Levan road
S022 4 C 1999 0.20 Shtyllas Jaroi upper
S023 3 D 1999 0.15 Vadhiza lower
S024 2 B, D NC UD Kryegjata C
S025 5 C NC UD Shtyllas
S026 4 C 1999 0.25 Shtyllas Pumping station
S027 6 C 1999 0.50 Shaban
S028 5 C 1999 0.50 Shtyllas
S029 3 D 1999 2.50 Vadhiza lower
S030 2 J 2000 UD Kryegjata D
S031 4 A 2000 >1? Ridge Rad-Mali i Portes
S032 6 (4) A, K 2001 0.30 Mali i Portës
S033 3 D, H 2000 0.30 Vadhiza S.
Site # Zone # Team Coll. year Size Site Name
S034 6 H 2000 0.84 Shkozë e Zëzë Levan valley
S035 9 F 2000 2.00 Peshtan road
S036 9 F 2000 1.80 Peshtan
S037 7 H 2000 1.00 Gjanica valley
S038 7 H 2000 0.51 Kraps, Bronze Age
S039 7 H 2000 <0.5 Kraps, Paleolithic
S040 6 K 2001 0.70 Levan, Cuka e Bukur
S041 10 M 2002 2.00 Margelliç acropolis
S042 6 C 2003 UD Levan, Roman villa
S043 1 P 2002 0.75 Bonjakët
S044 11 M 2002 1.00 Rusinja
S045 11 L 2002 0.60 Margelliç below acropolis
S046 11 M 2002 3.00 Rusinja Paleolithic
S047 1 M 2002 0.80 Pojan
S048 1 L 2002 1.50 Sopi
S049 1 L 2002 2.00 Pojan, ceramic field, west necropolis
S050 1 M 2002 3.50 Pojan
S051 4 J 2003 1.00 Shtyllas, NW slope
S052 4 J 2003 0.20 Shtyllas, NW slope
S053 7 H 2003 0.10 Mbyet
S054 11 L 2003 0.50 Rusinja
S055 11 L 2003 10.0 Margelliç lower town
S056 6 D 2003 0.50 Levanit near S034
S057 4 A 2003 0.25 Near S031, Dushku Kuq
S058 2 J 2003 0.40 Kodra e Kripës
S059 1 J 2003 0.15 Shen Marina cemetery
S060 11 L 2003 10.0 Margelliç necropolis
S061 2 (4) J 2003 0.50 Shtyllas Temple

Table 7.1. List of sites in numerical order with zone,

area, year of collection, site size, and site name
 EIA LCL CL-HL HL M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 2 6 8
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Pipe 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Stamnos Plain 1 1
Tile 3 3
Trans Amph 5 5
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 2 19 1 24

Table 7.2. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 001
 A-ECL A-CL A-HL CL CL- CL-HL CL-R LCL- LCL- HL HL-R LHL R Total
EHL EHL HL
Bowl Plain 1 1
Casserole Cook 3 3
Closed BG 1 1 2
Closed Cook 1 8 12 1 22
Closed Plain 1 3 1 15 1 21
Cup BG 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Open BG 1 11 12
Open Plain 2 2
Plate Plain 3 3
Pithos 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Tile 10 1 11
Trans Amph 2 1 1 8 1 1 13 27
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 1 1 2
Total 1 1 4 1 1 32 2 1 2 67 1 1 1 115

Table 7.3. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 001
 CL CL-EHL HL HL-R MHL UNKN Total
Brazier Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Plain 2 2
Tile 5 5
Trans Amph 2 1 2 1 1 7
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 2 1 14 1 1 1 20

Table 7.4. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 002
 CL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL-HL EHL HL LHL HL-R Total
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 1 12 13
Cup BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 2 1 2 1 16
Trans Amph 1 1 3 5
Unkn Plain 1 4 5
Total 1 2 4 1 2 34 2 1 47

Table 7.5. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 002
 HL PMED O-EM LO-EM UNKN Total
Bowl Glazed 3 3
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Plain 2 2
Cup BG 1 1
Dish Glazed 1 1
Jar Glazed 5 5
Jar Plain 4 4
Jug Combed 3 3
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 6 6
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 1 3 4
Unkn Plain 1 1 2
Total 7 13 3 10 1 34

Table 7.6. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 004
 A-HL HL PMED O-EM O-M LO-EM M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 21 1 22
Amphora Slipped 2 2
Amhoriskos Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1 2
Closed Plain 9 1 10
Closed Cook 1 1
Cooking Pot 2 2
Cup Glazed 1 1 2
Dish Glazed 4 4
Dish Slip-painted 5 5
Dish Underglaze-painted 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Glazed 1 8 9
Jar Plain 1 1
Jar Slip-painted 1 1
Jug Combed 2 2
Jug Glazed 3 3
Jug Plain 3 3
 A-HL HL PMED O-EM O-M LO-EM M UNKN Total
Jug Slipped 2 2
Jug Slip-painted 1 1
Jug Underglaze-painted 1 1
Krater BG 1 1
Plate Glazed 1 1
Plate Underglaze-painted 2 2
Tile 15 24 1 40
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 30 36 27 1 26 2 1 124

Table 7.7. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 004
 CL CL-HL LCL HL MHL LHL Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Chous BG 1 1
Krater BG 1 1
Plate BG 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Total 1 1 1 1 1 2 7

Table 7.8. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 005
 A A-CL A- LA- LA- CL CL- CL- LCL- HL LHL R MR UNK Total
EHL CL EHL EHL HL EHL N
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphoriskos Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Closed Cook 1 6 7
Closed Plain 1 1 29 1 32
Cup BG 2 2
Jar Plain 1 1
Krater BG 1 1 2
Lamp BG 1 1
Olpe Banded 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open BG 1 7 8
Open Red-fig 1 1
Plate BG 3 3
Plate Plain 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 11 1 12
Trans Amph 1 1 1 4 24 31
Unguentarium Pl.ain 1 1
Unkn BG 1 1
 A A-CL A- LA- LA- CL CL- CL- LCL- HL LHL R MR UNK Total
EHL CL EHL EHL HL EHL N
Total 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 6 1 89 1 1 1 1 109

Table 7.9. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 005
 LBA-EIA CL-EHL CL-HL LCL LCL- LCL-HL HL MHL O-EM PMED Total
EHL
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl BG 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 2 3
Closed Plain 1 1 6 8
Jug Plain 1 1
Lekythos BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Skyphos BG 2 1 1 4 8
Tile 3 3
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 3 1 2 1 18 1 3 1 32

Table 7.10. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 006
 A-CL A-EHL LA-CL LA-EHL CL LCL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL-EHL HL Total
Askos BG 1 1
Closed BG 2 2 1 5
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 1 1 2 4
Cup BG 1 1 2
Krater BG 1 2 3
Lamp BG 1 1
Lekythos BG 1 1
Mug BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Pithos 1 1 2
Skyphos BG 1 5 8 1 15
Skyphos Red-fig 2 1 3
Trans Amph 1 1 2 4
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 13 14 6 45

Table 7.11. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery associated with
revisitation of Site 006
 A-CL CL CL-HL LCL LCL-EHL LCL-HL HL M Total
Brick 2 2
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed Plain 14 7 21
Cup BG 1 1 2
Kantharos BG 1 1
Lagynos Plain 1 1
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open BG 4 1 1 6
Pyxis BG 1 1
Skyphos Banded 1 1
Skyphos BG 3 1 4
Tile 1 21 1 23
Total 1 1 19 1 4 2 36 1 65

Table 7.12. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 006
 LBA EA A A-ECL A-CL A-EHL A-HL LA LA- LA-CL LA- ECL CL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL LCL- Total
ECL EHL EHL
Amphora Banded 1 1
Amphora BG 1 1
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphoriskos Plain 1 1 2
Askos Plain 0
Bowl BG 2 2
Bowl Glazed 0
Bowl Plain 0
Brick 0
Casserole Cook 0
Chous BG 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Banded 0
Closed Blk-fig 2 2
Closed BG 1 3 1 1 1 3 5 15
Closed Cook 1 2 3
Closed Plain 1 1 3 1 10 4 20
Cup BG 1 2 3
Deep Bowl Plain 0
Dish Glazed 0
Hydria Banded 0
Hydria BG 2 1 3
Hydria Plain 0
Jar Cook 0
 LBA EA A A-ECL A-CL A-EHL A-HL LA LA- LA-CL LA- ECL CL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL LCL- Total
ECL EHL EHL
Jar Glazed 0
Jar Plain 2 2
Jug Combed 0
Jug Cook 0
Jug Glazed 0
Jug Plain 0
Kantharos BG 0
Krater BG 1 1 6 1 9
Krater Red-fig 1 2 1 4
Kylix BG 1 1
Lamp BG 1 2 1 4
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lekythos BG 3 2 2 7
Lekythos Red-fig 1 1
Lykinic BG 1 1
Olpe BG 1 1 2
Olpe Plain 0
Open BG 1 2 1 4
Open Plain 1 1
Pipe 0
Pithos 3 1 2 1 7
Plate Porcelain 0
Plate T/S 0
Pyxis BG 1 1
 LBA EA A A-ECL A-CL A-EHL A-HL LA LA- LA-CL LA- ECL CL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL LCL- Total
ECL EHL EHL
Salt cellar BG 0
Skyphos BG 4 6 1 19 27
Skyphos Red-fig 1 1
Tile BG 2 2
Tile Plain 1 2 3 1 7
Trans Amph BG 1 1 2
Trans Amph 3 2 2 4 7 11 1 3 2 1 2 2 8 11 1 60
Unguentarium Banded 0
Unguentarium 0
Plain
Unkn BG 2 2
Unkn Cook 0
Unkn Glazed 0
Unkn Plain 1 1 2
Total 2 3 11 2 17 10 11 3 7 5 4 5 25 11 47 4 36 203

Table 7.13. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 007, part 1
 EHL EHL- HL HL-R LHL LHL- R LB- PMED LO- EM EM-M M UNKN Total
MHL ER EM EM
Amphora Banded 0
Amphora BG 0
Amphora Plain 5 5
Amphoriskos Plain 2 3 5
Askos Plain 1 1
Bowl BG 2 2
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 2
Brick 2 1 1 4
Casserole Cook 1 1
Chous BG 1 1 2
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed Blk-fig 0
Closed BG 16 16
Closed Cook 5 5
Closed Plain 77 1 1 79
Cup BG 6 6
Deep Bowl Plain 1 1
Dish Glazed 1 1
Hydria Banded 3 1 4
Hydria BG 0
Hydria Plain 4 4
Jar Cook 1 1
 EHL EHL- HL HL-R LHL LHL- R LB- PMED LO- EM EM-M M UNKN Total
MHL ER EM EM
Jar Glazed 1 1 3 1 6
Jar Plain 4 4
Jug Combed 3 3
Jug Cook 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 10 10
Kantharos BG 1 1
Krater BG 0
Krater Red-fig 0
Kylix BG 0
Lamp BG 2 2
Lekane Plain 2 2
Lekythos BG 1 1
Lekythos Red-fig 0
Lykinic BG 0
Olpe BG 0
Olpe Plain 2 2
Open BG 4 4
Open Plain 1 1
Pipe 1 1
Pithos 3 1 4
Plate Porcelain 1 1
Pyxis BG 0
Salt cellar BG 1 1
 EHL EHL- HL HL-R LHL LHL- R LB- PMED LO- EM EM-M M UNKN Total
MHL ER EM EM
Skyphos BG 7 7
Skyphos Red-fig 0
Tile BG 0
Tile Plain 33 1 2 3 1 40
Trans Amph BG 0
Trans Amph 6 1 7
Unguentarium Banded 1 1
Unguentarium Plain 4 4
Unkn BG 0
Unkn Cook 2 1 3
Unkn Glazed 1 1 1 3
Unkn Plain 9 6 15
Total 3 2 207 1 1 2 1 1 19 1 2 5 6 16 268

Table 7.13. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 007, part 2
 CL LCL-EHL HL ER UNKN Total

Amphora Plain 1 1

Closed Plain 3 1 1 5

Krater Red-fig 2 2

Plate BG 2 2

Skyphos BG 1 1 2

Trans Amph 4 4

Unguentarium BG 1 1

Total 1 2 11 2 1 17

Table 7.14. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery associated with

revisitation of Site 007

 A A- ECL CL CL- CL- LCL LCL- EHL- HL LHL HL- HL- HL- LHL- ER- R MR MR- LR PMED M UNKN Total
HL EHL HL EHL MHL ER MR R R MR LR
Amphora 1 1
Band
Amphora 1 1
Combed
Amphora 1 1
Cook
Amphora 3 2 1 6
Plain
Amphoriskos 1 1
Plain
Bowl Band 2 2
Bowl BG 1 1 2
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl Plain 5 5
Bowl Red 1 1
Glazed
Casserole 2 1 1 1 5
Cook
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Band 5 5
Closed BG 1 4 1 6
Closed Cook 1 7 8
Closed Plain 2 48 2 1 2 55
Cup BG 4 4
Cup Plain 1 1
Cup T/S 1 1
Hydria Band 2 2
 A A- ECL CL CL- CL- LCL LCL- EHL- HL LHL HL- HL- HL- LHL- ER- R MR MR- LR PMED M UNKN Total
HL EHL HL EHL MHL ER MR R R MR LR
Hydria BG 1 1
Hydria Plain 3 3
Jar Plain 1 1 2
Jug BG 1 1
Jug Cook 5 1 6
Jug Plain 4 1 5
Kantharos 1 1
BG
Krater BG 1 1
Lekane BG 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lid Plain 1 1
Mortarium 1 1
Oinochoe 2 2
Plain
Open BG 4 4
Pitcher Cook 1 1 2
Pitcher 1 1
Glazed
Pitcher Plain 2 1 3
Plate BG 1 3 4
Plate Plain 1 2 1 4
Plate Red 1 1
Glaze
Plate T/S 1 1 2
Skyphos BF 1 1
Tile 2 1 20 1 1 2 27
Trans Amph 1 1 1 3 1 1 41 6 5 3 5 1 1 3 73
 A A- ECL CL CL- CL- LCL LCL- EHL- HL LHL HL- HL- HL- LHL- ER- R MR MR- LR PMED M UNKN Total
HL EHL HL EHL MHL ER MR R R MR LR
Vorbë Cook 1 1 1 3
Unkn Plain 5 5
Total 2 1 1 4 1 7 1 1 1 171 4 6 5 3 1 18 6 7 5 6 6 2 6 265

Table 7.15. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 008
 HL M UNKN Total
Saucer Plain 1 1
Tile 3 1 1 5
Trans Amph 1 1
Total 5 1 1 7

Table 7.16. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 009
 A-HL LA-EHL CL HL R Total
Amphoriskos Plain 1 1
Casserole Cook 2 2
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 7 7
Closed Plain 1 2 3
Jug Cook 1 1 2
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open Plain 2 2
Pithos 1 1
Plate Plain 1 1
Tile 8 8
Trans Amph 1 2 3
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 1 1 31 1 35

Table 7.17. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 009
 LCL-EHL LCL-HL HL Total
Amphora Banded 1 1
Closed BG 1 2 3
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 5 5
Hydria Plain 1 1
Open BG 2 2
Skyphos BG 1 1
Total 2 1 11 14

Table 7.18. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 010
 CL-HL HL UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Chytra Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 14 2 16
Jug Cook 1 1
Kantharos BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Unkn Cook 4 4
Unkn Plain 1 1
Unkn Slipped 1 1
Total 24 6 4 34

Table 7.19. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery associated with
revisitation of Site 010
 HL Total
Pithos 1 1
Total 1 1

Table 7.20 Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 011
 A-HL CL-HL HL PMED Total
Amphora Plain 2 2
Casserole Cook 2 2
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 7 8
Closed Plain 40 40
Jug Cook 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 28 1 29
Trans Amph 3 10 13
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 3 3
Total 1 5 96 1 103

Table 7.21. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 011
 HL R MR Total
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Chytra Cook 2 2
Pithos 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Tile 2 2 4
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Total 6 4 1 11

Table 7.22. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 012
 CL-EHL HL HL-R LHL R MR LR UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1 12 14
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl T/S 1 1
Brick 2 2
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 5 5
Closed Plain 2 4 6
Jug Cook 1 2 3 6
Jug Plain 2 2
Jug Red Glaze 1 1
Pithos 2 2
Tile 15 7 47 1 2 72
Trans Amph 1 1 2 2 6
Unkn Cook 2 1 3
Unkn Plain 6 6
Total 1 22 1 7 1 72 1 23 128

Table 7.23. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 012
 HL R EO Total
Bowl Sgraffito 1 1
Brick 1 1
Dish Sgraffito 2 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Tile 1 1
Total 1 1 4 6

Table 7.24. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 013
 HL LR PMED O EM-M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 2 2
Amphora Slipped 1 1
Bowl Glazed 2 2
Dish Sgraffito 1 1
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jar Plain 2 2
Jar Slipped 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Jug Slipped 1 1
Tile 1 1
Total 1 1 4 1 3 3 13

Table 7.25. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 013
 CL-HL LCL-EHL HL HL-R MHL Total
Bowl BG 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1 2
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 1 10
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Tile 21 1 22
Trans Amph 5 5
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 3 1 45 1 1 51

Table 7.26. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 014
 A-CL CL-EHL LCL-HL HL HL-R HL-EM R M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 39 39
Amphoriskos Plain 2 2
Brick 5 11 16
Closed Cook 6 6
Closed Plain 70 70
Cooking Pot 9 9
Cup BG 1 1
Lamp BG 1 1
Lamp Plain 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 286 2 6 4 298
Trans Amph 1 1 12 12 26
Unkn Cook 1 1 2
Unkn Plain 1 2 3
Total 1 1 12 436 1 2 6 15 2 476

Table 7.27. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 014
 CL-EHL HL R MR PMED UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Chytra Cook 2 2
Closed Plain 5 1 6
Lekythos BG 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Tile 2 4 1 7
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Unkn Banded 1 1
Total 1 13 5 1 1 2 23

Table 7.28. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 015
 IA CL-EHL CL-HL EHL- HL MHL- LHL HL-R ER R M Total
MHL LHL
Amphora Plain 6 1 2 9
Bowl Banded 1 1
Bowl Plain 1 1
Chytra Cook 4 4
Closed BG 1 3 4
Closed Cook 2 3 5
Closed Plain 1 63 1 3 68
Cup BG 6 6
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos BG 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lid Cook 1 1 2
Lamp Plain 1 1
Open Plain 2 2
Pipe 4 4
Pithos 3 1 4
Saucer BG 1 1
Skyphos BG 2 3 5
Tile 71 7 3 81
Trans Amph 1 1 2
 IA CL-EHL CL-HL EHL- HL MHL- LHL HL-R ER R M Total
MHL LHL
Tub Plain 1 1
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Unkn BG 4 4
Unkn Cook 14 4 18
Unkn Plain 2 2
Unkn T/S 1 1
Total 1 1 2 2 190 1 1 1 2 23 7 231

Table 7.29. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 015
 CL CL-HL LCL LCL-EHL HL ER UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Chous Plain 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1 2
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 2 3
Closed Plain 16 16
Cup BG 2 2
Hydria Plain 2 2
Krater BG 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Plate BG 1 1 2
Plate Plain 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Tile 7 1 8
Trans Amph 3 3
Unkn Plain 3 1 4
Total 3 1 1 1 42 1 2 51

Table 7.30. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 016
 EA A- A- A- LA- CL- CL- LCL LCL- HL HL- LHL MHL- R LR PMED O- Total
CL EHL HL EHL EHL HL EHL R LHL EM
Amphora Plain 2 1 3
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 1 1
Closed Band 2 2
Closed BG 1 1 2
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 22 22
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos BG 1 1
Krater BG 1 1
Lekythos BG 1 1
Salt Celler BG 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Tile 1 32 2 3 38
Trans Amph 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 11 23
Vorbë Cook 1 1 2
Unkn Cook 2 1 3
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 1 1 1 3 4 4 1 2 78 1 1 1 3 1 3 108

Table 7.31. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 016
 A-CL HL Total
Pithos 2 2
Trans Amph 1 1
Total 2 1 3

Table 7.32. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 017
 LB PMED LO LO-EM UNKN Total
Bowl Glazed 1 4 5
Bowl Underglaze-painted 3 3
Closed Glazed 1 1
Dish Glazed 2 2
Dish Slip-painted 1 1
Jar Cook 2 2
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jar Plain 8 1 9
Jug Combed 4 4
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 8 8
Open Glazed 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 25 10 3 1 40

Table 7.33. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 018
 CL HL R MR MED PMED EO O O-EM LO LO- M UNKN Total
EM
Amphora Combed 1 1
Amphora Impressed 1 1
Amphora Plain 159 159
Basin 1 1
Bowl Glazed 16 2 1 112 4 135
Bowl Plain 10 10
Bowl Sgraffito 1 1
Bowl Slip-Painted 1 1 2
Bowl Underglaze-painted 13 1 14
Brick 45 1 3 1 3 53
Closed Plain 11 1 89 101
Dish Glazed 1 27 4 32
Dish Slip-Painted 1 1 10 12
Dish Underglaze-painted 1 5 1 7
Jar Cook 23 2 5 30
Jar Glazed 2 1 1 9 5 18
Jar Plain 313 313
Jug Combed 30 30
Jug Glazed 2 2 9 3 16
Jug Impressed 1 1
Jug Plain 315 315
 CL HL R MR MED PMED EO O O-EM LO LO- M UNKN Total
EM
Jug Underglaze-painted 1 1 2 4
Pipe 3 1 4
Plate Glazed 3 1 4
Plate Underglaze-painted 2 2
Tile 44 1 1 1 1390 11 2 3 1453
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Unkn Combed 1 1
Unkn Cook 11 1 12
Unkn Glazed 1 16 17
Unkn Plain 49 2 51
Unkn Sgraffito 1 1
Total 1 100 3 1 1 1024 4 14 1392 225 21 7 10 2803

Table 7.34. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 018
 HL HL-R R MR-LR LR PMED O-EM LO EM-M M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Chytra Cook 2 2
Closed Plain 6 2 2 1 11
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1 2
Olpe BG 1 1
Open T/S 1 1
Pipe 1 1
Tile 2 1 2 1 4 1 1 12
Trans Amph 1 1
Vorbë Cook 3 3
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 1 3 4
Total 13 2 2 1 11 3 4 2 1 2 5 46

Table 7.35. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 019
 LBA IA A- A- CL CL- CL- HL ER- R MR LR LR- B PME O LO- EM M UNK Total
CL HL EHL HL MR EB D EM N
Amphora Plain 3 18 12 33
Anphoriskos Plain 22 22
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl Plain 1 1 2
Brick 84 12 96
Chytra Cook 4 4
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 63 63
Closed Plain 1 181 2 1 185
Cup BG 3 3
Dish Slip-paint 1 1
Flower Pot 1 1
Jar Cook 1 1 1 2
Jar Glazed 2 2
Jar Plain 13 13
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Plain 15 15
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pithos 1 4 1 6
Plate Plain 1 1
Saucer Plain 1 1
Tile 1 782 1 28 2 7 2 423 1246
Trans Amph 1 1 2 1 1 9 2 17
Unkn Cook 15 15
Unkn Glazed 3 3 6
Unkn Plain 3 3
Total 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1194 12 1 2 29 1 2 37 3 4 2 438 4 1742

Table 7.36. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 019
 HL LHL Total
Closed Plain 1 1
Tile 10 1 11
Trans Amph 3 3
Total 14 1 15

Table 7.37. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 020
 HL M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Brick 3 1 4
Closed Plain 5 5
Pithos 1 1
Tile 54 54
Trans Amph 6 6
Unkn Plain 4 4
Total 74 1 75

Table 7.38. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 020
 CL-HL HL HL-R R MR LR Total
Amphora Plain 1 1 2 1 5
Casserole Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 3 3
Tile 13 4 17
Trans Amph 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 2 3
Total 1 18 1 2 1 8 31

Table 7.39. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 021
 CL-EHL HL HL-R R M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 5 6
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 31 1 32
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 88 9 97
Cooking Pot 3 3
Hydria Plain 1 1 2
Jug Cook 1 1
Open Glazed 1 1
Pithos 3 2 5
Saucer Plain 1 1
Tile 704 23 4 731
Trans Amph 1 2 2 5
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 8 1 12 21
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Total 1 843 3 36 5 23 911

Table 7.40. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 021
 LBA-EIA CL-EHL CL-HL LCL EHL-MHL HL HL-LR LR PMED UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 1 14 15
Jug Cook 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1 2
Kantharos BG 1 1
Lid Cook 1 1
Olpe BG 1 1
One-Handler Cup BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Open Plain 2 2
Plate BG 1 1
Tile 5 5
Trans Amph 1 2 1 1 5
Unkn Plain 1 2 2 5
Total 1 1 5 1 1 30 1 1 1 2 44

Table 7.41. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 022
 CL-EHL LCL-HL HL M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Chytra Cook 2 2
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 15 15
Closed Plain 118 118
Cup BG 2 2
Hydria Plain 1 1
Lekythos BG 1 1
Pipe 3 3
Pithos 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 88 88
Trans Amph 1 1 18 20
Unkn Cook 7 7
Unkn Plain 3 3
Total 1 1 261 3 266

Table 7.42. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 022
 CL-HL HL HL? MHL-LHL HL-R R MR O LO UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 2 2 4
Closed Cook 1 1 1 3
Closed Plain 3 1 1 5
Dish Slip-painted 1 1
Kantharos BG 1 1
Tile 7 2 1 10
Trans Amph 1 1 1 3
Unkn Cook 1 1
Total 1 11 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 28

Table 7.43. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 023
 HL R LR PMED O O-EM M UNKN Total
Amphora Combed 1 1
Amphora Cook 1 1
Amphora Plain 3 4 7
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 6 1 1 8
Closed Cook 8 8
Closed Plain 23 2 25
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Cook 1 1 1 3
Jug Cook 1 1
Jug Plain 5 5
Pipe 2 2
Pithos 2 2
Tile 108 16 4 2 10 140
Trans Amph 3 1 4
Vorbë Cook 1 5 6
Total 155 19 17 6 2 10 3 3 215

Table 7.44. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 023
 PH LBA LBA- EIA A-EHL A-HL CL- LCL- HL HL-R M UNKN Total
EIA EHL EHL
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 6 1 7
Jar Plain 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Pipe 3 3
Tile 11 11
Trans Amph 1 1 1 1 6 10
Unkn Plain 1 2 1 3 7
Total 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 25 1 3 3 41

Table 7.45. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 026
 LCL-HL HL HL? HL-R? PMED O M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 3 1 1 2 7
Bowl? Glazed? 1 1
Brick 4 4
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 22 22
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Pipe 4 1 5
Pithos 2 2
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 101 1 102
Trans Amph 1 9 10
Unkn Cook 1 1
Total 2 152 1 1 1 1 2 2 162

Table 7.46. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 026
 LCL-HL HL R MED O-EM M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Flower Pot 1 1
Jug Cook 1 1
Tile 3 1 4
Trans Amph 1 1
Total 1 3 2 1 1 1 9

Table 7.47. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 027
 CL HL HL-R LHL LHL-ER ER ER-MR MR LR MED?? M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 2 1 1 4
Amphoriskos Plain 1 1
Brick 35 3 38
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 6 6
Closed Plain 27 1 28
Cooking Pot 1 1
Cover Plain 3 3
Jar Cook 1 1
Pithos 10 10
Tile 370 18 1 1 16 22 7 10 445
Trans Amph 1 10 2 13
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 467 3 19 1 1 17 22 7 1 13 1 553

Table 7.48. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 027
 CL-HL LCL-EHL HL M? Total
Amphora Plain 2 2
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 4 4
One-Handler Cup BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Tile 9 1 10
Trans Amph 2 2
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 20 1 23

Table 7.49. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 028
 CL-EHL HL R Total
Brick 15 15
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 24 24
Tile BG 1 1
Tile 176 20 196
Trans Amph 1 4 5
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 222 20 243

Table 7.50. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 028
 CL-EHL CL-HL HL HL-R R LO-EM EM-M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 7 1 8
Amphoriskos Plain 1 1
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 9 2 1 12
Dish Glazed 1 1 2
Hydria Plain 3 3
Jar Glazed 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lid Plain 1 1
Open BG 1 1 2
Tile 11 9 20
Trans Amph 2 2
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 5 6
Unkn Plain 4 4
Total 1 2 25 1 27 1 2 6 65

Table 7.51. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 029
 LCL-HL HL R MR MR-LR PMED O-EM M Total
Amphora Cook 1 1
Amphora Glazed 1 1
Amphora Plain 3 7 38 2 50
Amphora Slipped 1 1
Amphoriskos Plain 12 12
Bowl Plain 1 2 3
Bowl T/S 1 1
Closed Cook 2 2
Closed Plain 25 25
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1 2
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Plate T/S 1 1
Tile 70 17 1 1 89
Trans Amph 2 2 4
Vorbë Cook 1 8 9
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 2 105 26 66 4 1 1 1 206

Table 7.52. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 029
 LCL-EHL HL LHL MR UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 2 1 3
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Cook 2 2
Closed Plain 2 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Open Plain 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Tile 6 1 7
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 1
Total 2 16 1 1 2 22

Table 7.53. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 031
 A A-CL A-HL CL- LCL- HL LHL MR LR LB PMED O M UNKN Total
EHL HL
Amphora Plain 3 1 4
Bowl Plain 4 4
Brick 3 3
Casserole Cook 6 6
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Banded 1 1
Blosed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 19 1 20
Closed Plain 50 1 1 52
Cup Plain 1 1
Hydria Banded 1 1
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jar Cook 1 1
Jar Slipped 2 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Lid Plain 1 1
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open Cook 1 1
Pipe 1 1
Pitcher Cook 11 1 12
 A A-CL A-HL CL- LCL- HL LHL MR LR LB PMED O M UNKN Total
EHL HL
Pithos 6 1 7
Plate Plain 1 1
Plate T/S 1 1
Storage-bin Plain 1 1
Tile 168 11 1 180
Trans Amph 1 3 1 1 10 1 17
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 3 5
Total 1 1 3 1 1 286 1 1 27 1 2 1 1 3 330

Table 7.54. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 031
 CL-HL HL R Total
Closed Plain 10 1 11
Pithos 1 1
Tile 8 1 9
Trans Amph 1 2 3 6
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 24 5 30

Table 7.55. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery and revisitation
from tracts associated with Site 032
 A A-CL A-EHL A-HL CL-EHL CL-HL LCL-HL EHL- HL LR M Total
MHL
Amphora Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 2 2
Closed BG 2 2
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 13 13
Lamp BG 1 1
Pithos 2 2
Tile 33 4 5 42
Trans Amph 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 11
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 57 4 6 79

Table 7.56. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 032
 A-CL CL-EHL LCL-HL HL R Total
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Plain 7 7
Lekane Plain 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Tile 6 6
Trans Amph 1 1 3 5
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 1 20 1 24

Table 7.57. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 033
 A-CL CL CL-EHL LCL-HL HL PMED O-EM M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 2
Brick 6 6
Casserole Cook 3 3
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed BG 2 2
Closed Cook 1 12 13
Closed Plain 39 39
Cup BG 2 2
Cup Plain 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Plain 1 1
Oinochoe Plain 1 1
Open Plain 1 1
Pithos 1 3 4
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 70 1 3 74
Trans Amph 1 3 2 8 14
Total 1 2 3 2 154 1 1 3 167

Table 7.58. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 033
 CL-HL HL MHL Total
Amphora 1 1
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 1 1
One-Handler Cup 1 1
Pithos 2 2
Tile 7 7
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1 2
Total 1 13 2 16

Table 7.59. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 034
 A-CL CL-HL LCL-EHL LCL-HL HL MHL PMED EO-EM EM M UNKN Total
Amphora BG 1 1
Bowl BG 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 2
Brick 6 6
Casserole Cook 2 2
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 9 1 10
Closed Glaze 1 1
Closed Plain 22 1 1 1 25
Cup Plain 1 1
Hydria plain 1 1
Jug Plain 2 2
Open BG 2 2
Pithos 15 15
Tile BG 1 1
Tile Plain 418 418
Trans Amph 1 2 9 15 27
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Glazed 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 1 2 9 499 1 3 1 1 1 1 520

Table 7.60. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 034
 LCL-HL HL MHL UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 3 8 1 12
Architectural Frag, Painted 3 3
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 144 144
Chytra Cook 1 2 3
Closed Cook 17 54 71
Closed Plain 19 143 162
Hydria Plain 3 2 5
Kantharos BG 2 2
Lid Plain 2 2
Pithos 10 85 95
Skyphos BG 2 2
Tile 1 7344 7345
Trans Amph 10 25 23 58
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 2 3 5
Total 10 87 7814 1 7912

Table 7.61. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from excavation
associated with Site 034
 PMED O-EM EM EM-M Total
Jar Glazed 1 1 2
Jar Plain 4 4
Jug Glazed 1 1 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Tile 1 1
Total 5 1 2 2 10

Table 7.62. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 035
 A CL-HL PMED O O-EM LO-EM LO-M EM EM-M M I C Total
Amphora Plain 2 3 13 2 20
Amphora Slipped 1 1 1 17 20
Amphoriskos Glazed 1 1
Basin Glazed 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1 6 1 9
Bowl Plain 1 1
Bowl Underglaze-painted 1 1
Bowl/Basin Glazed 2 2
Brick 1 19 20
Chytra 1 1
Cup Glazed 1 2 3
Dish Glazed 3 3
Dish Underglaze-painted 1 4 5
Jar Glazed 15 1 16
Jar Plain 2 2
Jar Slipped 1 1 27 1 30
Jug Combed 2 1 1 4
Jug Glazed 1 1 11 13
Jug Plain 2 4 6
Jug Slipped 1 12 13
Open Glazed 1 1
Pipe 1 1 2
 A CL-HL PMED O O-EM LO-EM LO-M EM EM-M M I C Total
Pitcher Glazed 1 1 2
Plate Glazed 2 3 5
Small Bowl Slipped 2 2
Tile 233 46 1 280
Trans Amph 1 1
Total 1 1 9 10 1 1 1 3 357 75 2 3 464

Table 7.63. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 035
 CL-HL HL O-EM O-M PMED EM EM-M Total
Bowl Underglaze-painted 1 1
Dish Glazed 1 1
Jar Glazed 3 3
Jar Plain 3 3
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 3 2 6
Jug Plain 12 12
Tile 10 17 1 28
Trans Amph 1 1
Unkn Glazed 1 1
Total 1 10 17 1 17 9 2 57

Table 7.64. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 037
 LBA-EIA EIA CL-HL HL LHL O O-EM PMED EM EM-M M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphora Slipped 5 5
Basin Glazed 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 3 13 1 18
Bowl Slipped 1 1
Bowl Underglaze-painted 3 3
Brick 3 5 5 13
Closed Cook 4 1 5
Closed Plain 1 10 11
Dish Glazed 6 6
Dish Slip-painted 5 5
Dish Underglaze-painted 4 4
Jar Glazed 3 11 1 15
Jar Plain 3 1
Jar Slipped 1 34 35
Jug Combed 11 11
Jug Cook 1 1
Jug Glazed 8 16 24
Jug Impressed 1 1
Jug Plain 1 8 9
Jug Slipped 58 1 59
Jug Spatulated 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Plate BG 1 1
 LBA-EIA EIA CL-HL HL LHL O O-EM PMED EM EM-M M UNKN Total
Tile 149 1 536 16 702
Trans Amph 1 11 12
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1 3 5
Total 1 1 1 181 1 7 537 137 61 2 21 4 954

Table 6.65. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 037
 MBA MBA-LBA LBA LBA-EIA EIA A-HL? CL-HL HL UNKN Total
Bowl Plain 1 1 5 7
Closed Plain 1 1 6 8
Cup BG 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos Burnished 1 1
Kantharos Plain 1 1 2
Mug Plain 2 2
Open Plain 22 22
Skyphos 2 2
Unkn Burnished 1 1
Unkn Painted Dec 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1 47 1 1 7 3 61
Total 2 2 80 3 1 1 2 15 3 109

Table 7.66. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 038
 MBA MBA- MBA- LBA LBA- EIA IA CL- CL-HL HL PMED M UNKN Total
LBA EIA EIA EHL
Bowl Burnished 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 2 4
Bowl Slipped 1 1
Brick 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Burnished 1 1
Closed Plain 1 4 2 25 32
Cup Plain 1 1
Jar Burnished 1 1
Jar Plain 1 1 1 3
Kantharos Plain 1 1 2
Open Burnished 2 2
Open Plain 2 1 11 3 17
Skyphos 2 1 3
Tile 3 3
Trans Amph 3 1 4
Unkn Burnished 4 4
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 39 67 43 153 1 1 16 14 8 342
Total 1 52 69 56 163 3 1 3 18 48 1 1 9 425

Table 7.67. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 038
 MN MBA MBA-LBA MBA-EIA LBA LBA-EIA CL-HL HL UNKN Total
Bowl Burnished 1 1 2
Bowl Plain 1 1 2
Closed Burnished 1 1 2
Closed Plain 2 1 3
Cup Burnished 1 1
Cup Plain 1 1
Kantharos Burnished 1 1
Kantharos Plain 1 1
Lekythos Plain 1 1
Olpe Burnished 1 1
Open Burnished 1 1 1 3
Open Plain 2 2
Open Slipped 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 2
Unkn BG 2 1 3
Unkn Burnished 1 11 11 4 8 35
Unkn Plain 1 1 33 27 134 2 14 114 326
Total 1 15 17 33 39 136 5 17 124 387

Table 7.68. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from excavation
associated with Site 038
 CL-HL HL PMED Total
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 1 1
Jar Plain 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 2 4

Table 7.69. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 039
 CL-HL LCL-HL HL LHL PMED O-EM EM M Total
Bowl BG 1 1 2
Brick 7 2 9
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 15 1 16
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 2 2
Pipe 1 1
Tile BG 1 1
Tile Plain 261 14 275
Trans Amph 3 3
Unkn Cook 2 2
Total 1 3 287 1 3 14 1 4 314

Table 7.70. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 039
 A-HL CL-HL HL LHL-ER Total
Closed Plain 3 1 4
Cup BG 1 1
Jug Cook 1 1
Tile 5 5
Trans Amph 2 1 1 4
Total 2 1 11 1 15

Table 7.71. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 040
 CL LCL-HL HL PMED M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Brick 2 2
Casserole Cook 2 2
Closed Cook 7 7
Closed Plain 1 10 11
Hydria Banded 1 1
Jar Slipped 2 2
Kantharos BG 1 1
Pithos 3 3
Plate Plain 1 1
Tile 245 2 247
Trans Amph 3 10 13
Total 1 3 283 2 2 291

Table 7.72. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 040
 LBA- EA A A-CL CL CL- CL-HL LCL- HL MHL LHL MR LR PMED M UNKN Total
EIA EHL EHL
Amphora Plain 1 1
Akrotiri 1 1
Bowl BG 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 2
Casserole Cook 2 2
Closed BG 1 4 5
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 2 11 1 2 16
Cup BG 2 1 3
Hydria Banded 1 2 3
Hydria BG 2 2
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jar Plain 1 1 2
Jug Cook 3 3
Lamp BG 1 1
Lid Cook 1 1
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Open Banded 1 1
Open BG 1 4 2 7
Pithos 1 1 2
Plate BG 2 1 3
Plate Plain 1 1
Salt cellar BG 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Storage-bin Plain 1 1
Tile 8 1 1 1 11
Trans Amph 1 1 10 1 13
 LBA- EA A A-CL CL CL- CL-HL LCL- HL MHL LHL MR LR PMED M UNKN Total
EIA EHL EHL
Unkn BG 1 1
Total 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 61 1 6 1 3 1 1 2 91

Table 7.73. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 041
 BA LBA LBA- IA A- CL CL- LCL- HL MHL LHL R MR- LR LR- LB PMED EM- M UNKN Total
EIA CL HL HL LR MED M
Bowl Banded 1 1
Bowl BG 2 1 3
Bowl Plain 6 6
Brick 6 1 7
Casserole Cook 5 5
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed BG 2 2
Closed Cook 21 21
Closed Glazed 1 1
Closed Plain 1 3 93 1 98
Cup BG 1 1
Cup Plain 1 1
Hydria Banded 2 2
Hydria Plain 10 10
Jar Cook 2 2
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jar Plain 1 3 1 5
Jug Cook 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Kantharos BG 7 7
Krater BG 2 2
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lid Plain 1 1
Oinochoe BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1 2
Pitcher Plain 1 1 2
 BA LBA LBA- IA A- CL CL- LCL- HL MHL LHL R MR- LR LR- LB PMED EM- M UNKN Total
EIA CL HL HL LR MED M
Pithos Incised 1 1
Pithos Plain 2 2
Plate BG 3 3
Skyphos 15 15
Storage-bin Plain 1 1
Tile Plain 212 2 15 229
Tile Slipped 1 1
Trans Amph 1 2 3
Vorbë Cook 1 1 2
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 4 1 6
Total 1 4 1 3 1 1 3 1 399 1 3 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 18 1 450

Table 7.74. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 0401
 HL R PMED EM-M Total
Amphora 1 1 2
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jar Plain 1 1
Tile 1 3 4
Total 1 4 2 1 8

Table 7.75. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 042
 A-CL CL-EHL LCL-EHL LCL-HL EHL-MHL HL LHL HL-MR ER-MR PMED M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl BG 1 1
Bowl Plain 1 1
Casserole Cook 2 1 3
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 8 8
Cup BG 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1 2
Jar Plain 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos BG 2 2
Lekane Plain 3 3
Lid Plain 2 2
Oinochoe BG 1 1
Plate BG 1 1 1 3
Tile 5 1 6
Trans Amph 1 4 1 6
Unkn Cook 1 1
Total 1 1 1 2 1 35 2 1 1 2 1 48

Table 7.76. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 043
 A CL CL- CL- LCL LCL- LCL HL HL- MH LHL LHL R ER- MR LR PME EM M UN Total
EHL HL EHL -HL MR L -ER MR D KN
Amphora Band 1 1
Amphora Plain 6 1 7
Amphoriskos Plain 2 7 9
Askos Red-fig 1 1
Bowl Banded 1 1
Bowl BG 6 6
Bowl Cook 1 1
Bowl Plain 10 1 11
Brick 6 4 10
Casserole Cook 14 1 1 16
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Banded 13 2 15
Closed BG 1 13 2 16
Closed Cook 53 53
Closed Plain 514 7 2 1 1 2 527
Cup BG 3 1 2 6
Dish Glazed 1 1
Hydria Banded 15 2 17
Hydria BG 1 1
Hydria Plain 20 20
Jar Cook 1 1
Jug Banded 1 1
Jug Cook 2 1 3
Jug Glazed 2 2
Jug Plain 4 2 1 7
Jug Slipped 1 1
Kantharos BG 6 1 7
 A CL CL- CL- LCL LCL- LCL HL HL- MH LHL LHL R ER- MR LR PME EM M UN Total
EHL HL EHL -HL MR L -ER MR D KN
Krater BG 1 1
Lagynos BG 1 1
Lamp BG 1 6 7
Lamp Plain 1 1 2
Lekane BG 1 1
Lekane Plain 3 3
Lid BG 2 2
Lid Plain 4 4
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open BG 3 3
Open Plain 4 3 7
Pipe 4 4
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pitcher Plain 1 1
Plate BG 1 1 1 1 3 7
Plate Plain 3 1 4
Pyxis BG 1 1
Pyxis Plain 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1 1 3 2 8
Tile Plain 1 198 2 15 216
Tile Slipped 1 1
Trans Amph 1 1 8 30 1 1 1 2 3 1 49
Unkn BG 1 1 2
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 7 69 76
Total 1 2 1 3 2 7 11 964 1 2 24 1 4 16 2 3 3 3 24 74 1148
Table 7.77. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 043
 HL MHL R LR MED M C UNKN Total
Bowl Plain 1 1
Brick 1 1
Closed Cook 6 6
Closed Plain 6 1 7
Cup BG 1 1
Jar Cook 1 2 3
Jug Glazed 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Plate Plain 1 1
Tile 15 2 1 2 20
Trans Amph 5 5
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 36 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 49

Table 7.78. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 044
 A-CL A- A-HL CL LCL- HL ER- R LR O PMED M UNKN Total
EHL HL MR
Amphora Decorated 1 1
Amphora Plain 7 1 8
Amphora Slipped 1 1 2
Brick 3 3
Casserole Cook 1 1
Chytra Cook 3 3
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 28 1 1 30
Closed Plain 72 2 2 76
Hydria BG 1 1
Jar Slipped 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos BG 1 1
Open BG 5 5
Pitcher Cook 1 1 2
Pithos 4 4
Plate BG 1 1
Plate Glazed 1 1
Plate T/S 1 1
Tile 171 2 1 1 3 178
Trans Amph 1 1 1 1 1 10 15
 A-CL A- A-HL CL LCL- HL ER- R LR O PMED M UNKN Total
EHL HL MR
Unkn Plain 3 3
Unkn Unkn 1 1
Total 1 1 1 1 1 312 1 2 6 3 3 3 5 340

Table 7.79. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 044
 LBA- EIA IA A A-CL A-HL CL LCL CL- HL MHL MHL LHL LR UNK Total
EIA HL -LHL N
Amphora Plain 1 1 2
Bowl Moldmade 1 1
Casserole Cook 1 1
Chous BG 1 1
Chytra Cook 2 2
Closed Banded 1 1
Closed BG 1 2 3
Closed Cook 1 2 1 4
Closed Plain 1 1 3 10 15
Cup BG 1 1 2
Echinus Bowl 1 1
Hydria Banded 1 1
Hydria BG 2 2
Jar Plain 6 6
Kantharos BG 2 1 3
Kylix BG 1 1
Lid Cook 1 1
Lid Plain 2 2
Lopas Cook 1 1
Oinochoe BG 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
 LBA- EIA IA A A-CL A-HL CL LCL CL- HL MHL MHL LHL LR UNK Total
EIA HL -LHL N
Pithos 1 1
Plate BG 1 2 1 4
Plate Moldmade 1 1
Storage-bin 2 2
Tile 1 1
Trans Amph 1 3 1 5
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1 2 1 5
Total 1 1 12 2 3 1 1 1 8 35 1 2 2 2 1 73

Table 7.80. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 045
 LBA IA A A- CL CL- LCL- HL EHL- LHL LHL- ER R MR LR M UNKN Total
EHL EHL HL MHL ER
Amphora Comb 1 1
Amphora Cook 1 1
Amphora Glazed 1 1
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl BG 5 3 8
Bowl Cook 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl Plain 2 1 3
Brick 18 1 19
Chytra Cook 2 2
Closed Banded 2 2
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Cook 1 20 1 1 23
Closed Plain 45 2 47
Cup BG 3 3
Hydria Banded 6 6
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jar Plain 1 4 5
Jug Cook 1 1 2
Jug Plain 1 1
Kantharos BG 4 4
Lamp BG 1 1
Lekythos Plain 1 1
 LBA IA A A- CL CL- LCL- HL EHL- LHL LHL- ER R MR LR M UNKN Total
EHL EHL HL MHL ER
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Open Plain 2 2
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pitcher Plain 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Plate BG 2 1 1 4
Plate Plain 1 1 2
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 71 1 1 73
Trans Amph 1 2 1 2 8 1 15
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1 1 3
Total 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 203 1 6 1 1 6 1 5 2 3 242

Table 7.81. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 045
 A-HL LCL-EHL HL PMED Total
Brick 3 3
Closed Plain 2 2
Jug Combed 1 1
Tile 5 5
Trans Amph 1 2 1 4
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 2 13 1 17

7.82. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts associated
with Site 046
 HL Total
Tile 1 1
Trans Amph 2 2
Total 3 3

Table 7.83. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 047
 HL PMED M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphora Slipped 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Brick 68 68
Closed Cook 15 15
Closed Plain 37 37
Pipe 1 1
Pithos 1 1
Tile 215 1 216
Trans Amph 18 18
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 354 3 1 2 360

Table 7.84. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 047
 HL HL-MR ER-MR O-EM PMED LO-EM EM EM-M Total
Amphora Slipped 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 5 6
Bowl Slip-painted 1 1
Bowl Slipped 1 1
Bowl T/S 1 1
Closed Cook 1 1
Dish Glazed 2 1 3
Dish Slip-painted 3 3
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Glazed 5 2 7
Jar Slip-painted 1 1
Jar Slipped 3 3
Jug Glazed 4 4
Jug Plain 1 1
Jug Slipped 2 2
Tile 1 3 4
Trans Amph 2 1 1 4
Total 4 1 3 3 8 8 15 2 44

Table 7.85. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 048
 A- CL- LCL- HL MH LHL HL- ER ER- R MR MR- LR PM EM M UN Total
CL EHL EHL L R MR LR ED KN
Amphora Banded 1 1
Amphora Plain 1 1 3 5
Amphoriskos BG 1 1
Bosal BG 1 1
Bowl BG 1 1
Bowl Plain 1 1 2
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 2 1 3
Closed BG 3 1 4
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 25 2 1 2 30
Cup BG 1 1
Dish Glazed 1 1
Hydria Banded 1 1
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jug Cook 3 3
Jug Plain 1 1 1 3
Jug Undrglaze-paint 1 1
Lamp BG 1 1 2
Lekane BG 1 1
 A- CL- LCL- HL MH LHL HL- ER ER- R MR MR- LR PM EM M UN Total
CL EHL EHL L R MR LR ED KN
Oinochoe Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open Plain 2 1 3
Open T/S 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1 1 3
Plate BG 1 4 1 6
Plate T/S 1 1
Tile BG 1 1
Tile 7 2 9
Tile Slipped 1 1
Trans Amph 17 6 1 6 2 32
Unkn Plain 1 1 2
Total 1 1 1 79 1 6 7 2 1 4 2 1 14 1 3 2 3 129

Table 7.86. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 049
 A-HL LA-CL LCL HL HL-R PMED EM-M UNKN Total
Bowl BG 2 2
Bowl Plain 5 5
Casserole Cook 1 1
Closed BG 2 2
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 13 13
Cup BG 2 2
Hydria BG 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Olpe Plain 1 1
Plate BG 3 3
Saucer Plain 1 1
Tile 7 7
Trans Amph 1 1 1 3 1 7
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Plain 3 1 4
Total 1 1 1 47 1 1 1 1 54

Table 7.87. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 050
 IA? A- CL CL- CL- LCL- LCL- EHL HL MHL- HL- R LR EO O- LO LO- M UNKN Total
HL EHL HL EHL HL LHL ER EM EM
Amphora Glazed 1 1
Amphora Plain 20 1 21
Amphoriskos Pl 8 8
Basin Cook 2 2
Bowl BG 3 3
Bowl Cook 1 1
Bowl Moldmade 1 1
Bowl Plain 3 3
Brick 38 38
Casserole Cook 3 3
Chytra Cook 3 3
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 12 12
Hydria Plain 2 2
Jug Cook 2 1 3
Jug Plain 3 3
Kantharos Plain 2 2
Lagynos Plain 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Mortarium Plain 1 1
Olpe BG 2 2
Olpe Plain 13 13
One Handler Cup 1 1
 IA? A- CL CL- CL- LCL- LCL- EHL HL MHL- HL- R LR EO O- LO LO- M UNKN Total
HL EHL HL EHL HL LHL ER EM EM
Open BG 1 1
Open Glazed 1 1 2
Open Plain 1 1 2
Open Slipped 1 1
Pipe 5 5
Pithos 1 1
Plate BG 1 1
Plate Plain 1 2 3
Plate T/S 1 1
Saucer BG 1 1
Saucer Plain 1 1 2
Skyphos BG 1 1 1 3
Small Bowl BG 1 1
Tile 1 332 1 1 4 339
Trans Amph 1 1 1 6 9 18
Unkn BG 1 1
Unkn Cook 1 6 3 10
Unkn Plain 3 3
Total 1 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 480 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 5 7 521

Table 7.88. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from Site 050
 HL R LR Total
Bowl T/S 1 1
Closed Plain 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Lid Cook 1 1
Pitcher Plain 1 1
Plate Plain 1 1
Tile 1 1
Total 3 2 2 7

Table 7.89. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 051
 HL LHL HL-R R LR Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Bowl Plain 4 4
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 2 2
Chytra Cook 1 1
Closed Cook 1 4 5
Closed Plain 4 7 11
Kantharos BG 1 1
Open BG 1 1
Pithos 1 2 3
Plate Plain 2 2
Plate T/S 1 1
Storage-bin Plain 1 1
Tile 6 1 1 1 9
Trans Amph 5 5
Unkn Cook 1 1
Total 24 3 5 16 1 49

Table 7.90. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from revisitation
associated with Site 051
 HL LHL Total
Closed Cook 1 1
Closed Plain 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Plate BG 1 1
Trans Amph 1 1
Total 4 1 5

Table 7.91. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 052
 HL PMED EM Total
Closed Cooking 1 1
Closed Plain 3 3
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Tile 15 15
Trans Amph 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 21 1 1 23

Table 7.92. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 053
 A HL R MR O-EM Total
Bowl Plain 1 1 2
Closed Cook 5 5
Closed Plain 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pithos 2 1 3
Tile 1 1 2
Trans Amph 2 2
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 3 11 1 1 1 17

Table 7.93. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 054
 BA MBA- LBA LBA- IA EA A LA A-CL A-HL ECL CL CL- CL- LCL- HL LHL LR Total
LBA EIA EHL HL HL
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphora Slipped 0
Amphoriskos 1 1
Bowl Glazed 0
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 4 1 5
Chous Plain 1 1
Closed BG 1 1
Closed Burnished 1 1
Closed Cook 1 10 11
Closed Plain 1 3 1 25 1 31
Closed Slipped 0
Dish Glazed 0
Hydria Plain 3 3
Jar Glazed 0
Jar Plain 1 1 1 3
Jug Combed 0
Jug Cook 2 2
Jug Glazed 0
Jug Plain 0
Jug Slipped 0
Kantharos Plain 1 1 2
Lekane Plain 2 2
Louterion Plain 1 1
Oinochoe BG 1 1
Olpe Plain 0
Open BG 1 1
 BA MBA- LBA LBA- IA EA A LA A-CL A-HL ECL CL CL- CL- LCL- HL LHL LR Total
LBA EIA EHL HL HL
Pan Plain 1 1
Pitcher Cook 1 1
Pithos 1 1 1 6 3 12
Pithos/Dinos 1 1
Plate BG 1 1
Plate Porcelain 0
Skyphos BG 1 1
Skyphos/Kanth 1 1
Strainer 0
Tile BG 1 1
Tile Plain 9 1 2 12
Trans Amph 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 10 22
Vorbë Cook 1 1
Unkn Cook 2 2
Unkn Plain 1 1 7 19 1 2 31
Total 1 1 10 27 2 1 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 5 1 81 4 8 155

Table 7.94. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 055, part 1
 O O-EM PMED LO-EM EM-M M UNKN Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Amphora Slipped 1 1
Amphoriskos 0
Bowl Glazed 2 2
Brick 1 1
Casserole Cook 0
Chous Plain 0
Closed BG 0
Closed Burnished 0
Closed Cook 0
Closed Plain 0
Closed Slipped 1 1
Dish Glazed 3 3
Hydria Plain 0
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jar Plain 5 5
Jug Combed 4 4
Jug Cook 0
Jug Glazed 2 2
Jug Plain 1 4 5
Jug Slipped 1 1 2
Kantharos Plain 0
Lekane Plain 0
Louterion Plain 0
 O O-EM PMED LO-EM EM-M M UNKN Total
Oinochoe BG 0
Olpe Plain 1 1
Open BG 0
Pan Plain 0
Pitcher Cook 0
Pithos 1 1
Pithos/Dinos 0
Plate BG 0
Plate Porcelain 1 1
Skyphos BG 0
Skyphos/Kantharos 0
Strainer 1 1
Tile BG 0
Tile Plain 1 4 3 8
Trans Amph 0
Vorbë Cook 0
Unkn Cook 1 1
Unkn Plain 0
Total 1 1 18 9 4 5 3 41

Table 7.94. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 055, part 2
 A-CL HL Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Closed Plain 8 8
Pithos 1 1
Tile BG 1 1
Tile Plain 15 15
Unkn Plain 2 2
Total 1 27 28

Table 7.95. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 056
 HL LHL-ER EM-M Total
Amphora 1 1
Closed Plain 1R 1
Open Plain 1 1
Tile 1, 1R 1 3
Total 4 1 1 6

Table 7.96. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 057
 HL LHL R Total
Closed Plain 1 1
Plate T/S 1 1
Unkn Plain 1 1
Total 1 1 1 3

Table 7.97. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 058
 LCL-HL HL MR MR-LR LR Total
Amphora Plain 2 2
Closed Plain 1 1
Pitcher Cook 4 4
Tile 2 2 4
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Total 1 3 2 1 6 13

Table 7.98. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from revisitation
associated with Site 058
 A A-CL A-HL CL-HL LCL HL MHL LB PMED LO-EM M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Closed Banded 3 3
Closed Blk-fig 1 1
Closed BG 4 4
Closed Cook 3 3
Closed Plain 15 15
Cup BG 1 1 2
Dish Glazed 1 1
Hydria Plain 1 1
Jar Cook 1 1
Jar Glazed 1 1
Jug Plain 1 1
Krater BG 1 1
Lekane Plain 1 1
Lekythos BG 1 1
Open Plain 1 1
Pithos 2 2
Plate Plain 1 1
Tile Plain 7 1 8
Tile Slipped 1 1
Trans Amph 1 1 2 1 5
Unguentarium Band 1 1
 A A-CL A-HL CL-HL LCL HL MHL LB PMED LO-EM M Total
Amphora Plain 1 1
Unguentarium Plain 1 1
Unkn BG 1 1
Total 1 1 1 4 1 42 1 2 1 2 2 58

Table 7.99. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts and
revisitation associated with Site 060
 A A-R CL CL-HL EHL- LB-EO PMED O LO Total
MHL
Closed Banded 1 1
Bowl Glazed 1 1
Bowl Underglaze-paint 1 1
Jar Cooking 1 1 2
Jar Plain 1 1
Jug Combed 1 1
Jug Glazed 1 1
Jug Underglaze-paint 1 1
Skyphos BG 1 1
Tile 1 1
Trans Amph 1 1 2
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 13

Table 7.100. Shapes represented by period in the collection of pottery from tracts
associated with Site 061
Site Zone Periods Represented Site Name
S008 1 A; CL; HL+; R+ Apollonia, acropolis
S043 1 A; CL; HL+; R+ Bonjakët
S047 1 HL only Pojan
S048 1 PMED+; H; R Sopi
S049 1 HL+; R+ Fusha e Qoramidhës
S050 1 A?, CL; HL+; R Pojan
S059 1 Sarcophagus/grave Shen Marie cemetery
S003 2 Paleolithic Kryegjata B
S004 2 HL+ HL grave, LO site
S005 2 A; CL; HL+; R Tumulus
S006 2 LBA-EIA; A?; CL; HL+ Tumulus
S007 2 BA; A+; CL+; HL+ Apollonia, necropolis
S016 2 A; CL; HL+; R K. Ulirit, Radostina
S017 2 Paleolithic (A-CL; HL) Kryegjata A
S024 2 Paleolithic Kryegjata C
S030 2 Paleolithic Kryegjata D
S058 2 HL; R+ Kodra e Kripës
S061 2 (4) A; CL; HL Shtyllas Temple
Site Zone Periods Represented Site Name
S018 3 HL, R; PMED+ Radostina/Vadhize
S019 3 LBA; IA; CL, HL+; R+ (MR+LR) Radostina
S020 3 (4) HL only Vadhiza upper
S023 3 H+L; R+ (LR); PMED Vadhiza lower
S029 3 HL+; R+ (MR+LR) Vadhiza
S033 3 A?; CL; HL+ Vadhiza
S001 4 EIA; A?; CL; HL+ Shtyllas
S002 4 CL; HL+; R? Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S009 4 CL; HL+ Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S010 4 CL-HL; HL Shtyllas, spring
S011 4 A-CL?; HL+ Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S012 4 HL; R+ (MR) Shtyllas, Bukur ridge
S013 4 HL; R, PMED+ Shëndëlli
S014 4 CL?; HL+; R (Bones) Shtyllas, head of valley
S015 4 IA; CL?; HL+; R+ (ER, MR) Shtyllas, spring
S021 4 HL+; HL-R; R+ Shtyllas-Levan
S022 4 LBA-EIA; CL; HL+; HL-R? Shtyllas Jaroi upper
S026 4 LBA/EIA+; HL+ Shtyllas pumping station
S031 4 Pre-HL?; HL+; LR+ Rados-Mali i Portes
Site Zone Periods Represented Site Name
S051 4 HL+; R+ Shtyllas NW slope
S052 4 HL Shtyllas NW slope
S057 4 HL; HL-R 1 Near S031
S025 5 Modern Village Shtyllas
S028 5 HL+; R+ Shtyllas
S027 6 CL; HL+; R+ (ER/MR); PMED Sheban
S032 6 (4) Pre-HL?; HL+; LR Mali i Portës
S034 6 HL+ (MH) Shkozë ë Zëzë
S040 6 A?; CL; HL+ Levan, Cuka e Bukur
S042 6 R+; PMED Levan, Roman villa
S056 6 A-CL; HL+ Near S034
S037 7 LBA-EIA; HL+; PMED+ Gjanica valley
S038 7 MBA-EIA+; pre-HL?; HL+ Kraps, Gjanica ridge
S039 7 HL+ PMED+ Kraps, Paleolithic
S053 7 HL; PMED Mbyet
S035 9 A; PMED+ Peshtan road
S036 9 Paleolithic Peshtan
S041 10 LBA/EIA; A; CL; HL+; LR Margelliç acropolis
S044 11 A?; CL; HL+; LR; PMED Rusinja
Site Zone Periods Represented Site Name
S045 11 LBA/IA; A, CL; HL+; LR; PMED Margellic below acropolis
S046 11 Paleolithic; (HL) Rusinja Paleolithic
S054 11 A, HL+, R Rusinja HL
S055 11 MBA-LBA; LBA; LBA-EIA; A; CL; HL+; LR+; PMED Margellic lower town
S060 11 A; CL; HL Margelliç necropolis
S061 2 A; CL; HL Shtyllas temple

Table 8.1. List of sites by zone with periods represented

Zone Tracts Sites
Zone 1 J-101–J-102; J-118–J-123; J–126; J-130–J-161; L-296; L-308–L-575; M-327–M-524; P-001–P183 S008, S043, S047, S048, S049, S050, S059
Zone 2 B-001–151; D-001–D-061; D-068–D-069; D-072; D-076; D-121–D-138; J-001–J-100; J-103–J-117; J-124– S003, S004, S005, S006, S007, S016, S017,
J-125; J-127–J-129; J-162–J-229; J-231–J-233; J-235–J-240; J-242–J-285; J-287–J-367; J-374–J-416; J- S024, S030, S058, S061
514–J-517; J-519–J-527; L-285–L-307
Zone 3 A-191; D-062–D-067; D-073–D-074; D-078–120; D-147–D-307; H-326–H-328 S018, S019, S020, S023, S029, S033
Zone 4 A-001–A-098; A-101–A-190; A-192–A-212; B-129–B-130; C-001–C-071; C-112–C-133; D-070–D-071; S001, S002, S009, S010, S011, S012, S013,
D-075; D-077; D-139–D-146; J-230; J-234; J-241; J-286; J-368–J-373; J-417–J-513; J-518; J-528–J-582 S014, S015, S021, S022, S026, S031, S051,
S052, S057
Zone 5 A-099–A-100; C-072–C-111; C-134–C-204; C-207–C-209; C-378–C-380 S025, S028
Zone 6 C-205–C-206; C-210–C-373; D-308–D-374; F-001–F-023; H-001–H-014; K-001–K-119; J-589–J-597 S027, S032, S034, S040, S042, S056
Zone 7 H-015–H-357; J-598–J-779 S037, S038, S039, S053
Zone 8 F-054–F-059; F-110–F-218; F-257–F-344; F-388–F-430 None
Zone 9 F-024–F-053; F-061–F-109; F-219–F-256; F-345–F-387; F-431–F-433 S035, S036
Zone 10 L-094–L-097; M-079–M-082; M-088–M-230 S041
Zone 11 L-001–L-012; L-014–L-092;-L-098–L-188; L-201–L-208; M-001–M-068; M-252–M-264 S044, S045, S046, S054, S055, S060
Zone 12 L-013; L-082; L-085–L-086; L-093; L-193–L-201; L-209–L-284 None
Zone 13 M-069–M-078; M-083–M-087; M-231–M-251; M-265–M-326 None

Table 8.2. List of tracts and sites in zones

Site PH NEO BA BA-IA MBA MBA- MBA- LBA LBA- EIA IA Total
LBA EIA EIA
Off-site 1
S008
S043
S047
S048
S049
S050 1 1
S059
Off-site 2 1 1 2
S003
S004
S005
S006 1 1
S007 2 2
S016
S017
S024
S030
S058
S061
Off-site 3 2 1 3
S018
Site PH NEO BA BA-IA MBA MBA- MBA- LBA LBA- EIA IA Total
LBA EIA EIA
S019 1 1 2
S020
S023
S029
S033
Off-site 4 2 1 3 6
S001 1 1
S002
S009
S010
S011
S012
S013
S014
S015 1 1
S021
S022 1 1
S026 1 1 2 1 5
S031
S051
S052
S057
Site PH NEO BA BA-IA MBA MBA- MBA- LBA LBA- EIA IA Total
LBA EIA EIA
Off-site 5 1 1
S025
S028
Off-site 6 1 1 2 1 1 6
S027
S032
S034
S040
S042
S056
Off-site 7 1 31 14 1 2 49
S037 1 1 2
S038 1 18 71 102 175 302 4 1 674
S039
S053
Off-site 8
Off-site 9
S035
S036
Off-site 10
S041 1 4 2 3 10
Off-site 11 2 12 1 1 16
Site PH NEO BA BA-IA MBA MBA- MBA- LBA LBA- EIA IA Total
LBA EIA EIA
S044
S045 1 1 1 17 20
S046
S054
S055 1 1 8 15 1 26
S060
Off-site 12 1 1 2
Off-site 13
Total 4 3 1 18 72 102 230 357 14 29 830

Table 9.1. Prehistoric pottery by date, site, and zone

Zone NEO BA BA-IA MBA MBA- MBA-EIA LBA LBA-EIA EIA IA Total
LBA
Total 1 1 1
Total 2 1 3 1 5
Total 3 2 1 1 1 5
Total 4 3 4 5 1 13
Total 5 1 1
Total 6 1 1 2 1 1 6
Total 7 1 1 18 71 102 206 317 6 3 725
Total 8 0
Total 9 0
Total 10 1 4 2 3 10
Total 11 1 1 11 28 2 19 62
Total 12 1 1 2
Total 13 0
All Total 4 3 1 18 72 102 230 357 14 29 830

Table 9.2. Prehistoric pottery by date and zone

Site EA A LA A-ECL A-CL LA-ECL LA-CL ECL CL LCL Total
Off-site 1
S008 2 1 4 1 8
S043 1 1 2 2 6
S047
S048
S049 1 1
S050 1 1 1 3
S059
Off-site 2 2 2 5 2 11
S003
S004
S005 2 1 1 2 1 7
S006 3 2 2 6 13
S007 3 11 3 2 17 7 5 5 26 4 83
S016 1 1 3 2 7
S017 2 2
S024
S030
S058
S061 1 1 2
Off-site 3 1 1 2 1 5
Site EA A LA A-ECL A-CL LA-ECL LA-CL ECL CL LCL Total
S018 1 1
S019 1 7 8
S020
S023
S029
S033 2 2 4
Off-site 4 1 5 1 3 10
S001 1 1 1 1 4
S002 3 3
S009 1 1
S010
S011
S012
S013
S014 1 1
S015
S021
S022 1 1
S026
S031 1 1 2
S051
S052
S057
Site EA A LA A-ECL A-CL LA-ECL LA-CL ECL CL LCL Total
Off-site 5 2 1 3
S025
S028
Off-site 6 1 1 1 1 4 8
S027 1 1
S032 1 1 2
S034 1 1
S040 1 1
S042
S056 1 1
Off-site 7 3 3 7 13
S037
S038
S039
S053
Off-site 8
Off-site 9 1 1
S035 1 1
S036
Off-site 10 1 1 2
S041 1 3 2 4 10
Off-site 11 1 3 2 1 7
S044 1 1 2
Site EA A LA A-ECL A-CL LA-ECL LA-CL ECL CL LCL Total
S045 3 3 2 1 9
S046
S054 3 3
S055 3 1 2 1 1 8
S060 1 1 1 3
Off-site 12 1 1 2
Off-site 13 1 2 1 4
Total 6 44 4 4 61 11 10 8 92 25 265

Table 9.3. Archaic and Classical pottery by date, site, and zone
Zone EA A LA A-ECL A-CL LA-ECL LA-CL ECL CL LCL Totals
Zone 1 3 2 1 1 7 4 18
Zone 2 4 16 3 2 26 7 8 5 39 15 125
Zone 3 4 1 12 1 18
Zone 4 2 1 8 1 8 2 22
Zone 5 2 1 3
Zone 6 2 1 4 1 6 14
Zone 7 3 3 7 13
Zone 8
Zone 9 1 1 2
Zone 10 1 4 2 5 12
Zone 11 1 13 1 9 2 4 2 32
Zone 12 1 1 2
Zone 13 1 2 1 4
Total 6 44 4 4 61 11 10 8 92 25 265

Table 9.4. Archaic and Classical pottery by date and zone

Site A A-CL A/CL- CL CL-HL LCL/ HL MHL LHL HL-R R MR LR Total
EHL EHL
Off-site 1 1 1
S008
S043
S047 1 1
S048
S049
S050 1 1
S059
Off-site 2 1 1
S003
S004
S005
S006 2 2
S007 3 1 3 3 10
S016 1 1
S017 2 2
S024
S030
S058
S061
Site A A-CL A/CL- CL CL-HL LCL/ HL MHL LHL HL-R R MR LR Total
EHL EHL
Off-site 3 1 1 2
S018
S019 1 4 1 6
S020 1 1
S023 2 2
S029 1 1
S033 2 3 5
Off-site 4 1 1 4 6
S001 1 1
S002
S009 1 1
S010 1 1
S011 1 1 2
S012 1 2 3
S013
S014 1 1
S015 3 1 4
S021 3 2 5
S022 1 1
S026 2 2
S031 1 6 1 1 9
S051 1 2 3
Site A A-CL A/CL- CL CL-HL LCL/ HL MHL LHL HL-R R MR LR Total
EHL EHL
S052
S057
Off-site 5 1 1
S025
S028 1 1
Off-site 6 1 1 4 6
S027 10 10
S032 3 3
S034 25 87 112
S040 3 3
S042
S056 1 1
Off-site 7 2 1 1 4
S037
S038
S039
S053
Off-site 8
Off-site 9 1 1
S035
S036
Off-site 10 1 2 3
Site A A-CL A/CL- CL CL-HL LCL/ HL MHL LHL HL-R R MR LR Total
EHL EHL
S041 1 3 1 5
Off-site 11
S044 4 4
S045 1 1 2
S046
S054 2 1 3
S055 2 1 1 6 3 13
S060 2 2
Off-site 12 1 1
Off-site 13 5 2 7
Total 13 10 3 3 10 2 110 87 2 2 3 2 10 257

Table 9.5. Pithoi by date, site, and zone

Zone A A-CL A/CL- CL CL-HL LCL/ HL MHL LHL HL-R R MR LR Total
EHL EHL
Zone 1 1 2 3
Zone 2 4 5 3 4 16
Zone 3 2 1 1 11 1 1 17
Zone 4 1 1 3 2 23 2 2 2 2 1 39
Zone 5 2 2
Zone 6 1 1 46 87 135
Zone 7 2 1 1 4
Zone 8
Zone 9 1 1
Zone 10 1 4 3 8
Zone 11 5 1 3 12 3 24
Zone 12 1 1
Zone 13 5 2 7
Total 13 10 3 3 10 2 110 87 2 2 3 2 10 257

Table 9.6. Pithoi by date and zone

Site A-EHL A-HL CL- CL-HL LCL- LCL- EHL HL HL Tile EHL- MHL MHL- LHL Total
EHL EHL HL Pottery MHL LHL
Off-site 1 1 2 2 1 3 115 70 2 196
S008 1 1 7 1 151 20 1 4 186
S043 2 3 8 13 790 209 1 2 26 1054
S047 73 284 357
S048 3 1 4
S049 1 1 70 9 1 6 88
S050 2 1 2 1 6 1 150 377 3 543
S059
Off-site 2 2 5 10 5 1 2 101 38 1 1 166
S003
S004 1 20 17 38
S005 3 1 7 1 78 12 1 3 106
S006 2 2 35 20 3 37 23 1 123
S007 15 11 11 47 38 3 183 35 2 1 346
S016 4 1 4 5 3 79 41 1 2 140
S017 1 1
S024
S030
S058 1 2 2 1 6
S061 1 1 2
Off-site 3 2 1 7 1 1 64 39 115
Site A-EHL A-HL CL- CL-HL LCL- LCL- EHL HL HL Tile EHL- MHL MHL- LHL Total
EHL EHL HL Pottery MHL LHL
S018 11 89 100
S019 1 1 1 339 868 1210
S020 21 67 1 89
S023 1 47 121 1 170
S029 1 2 2 49 81 135
S033 4 3 92 82 181
Off-site 4 1 4 9 19 10 9 2 141 89 1 1 286
S001 4 1 34 1 2 73 13 1 129
S002 3 4 1 2 31 17 1 2 61
S009 1 1 25 11 38
S010 24 2 1 17 44
S011 1 5 69 28 103
S012 1 9 19 7 36
S013 2 2
S014 1 3 1 12 169 314 1 501
S015 2 2 129 74 2 1 1 211
S021 1 1 113 748 863
S022 2 5 1 197 94 1 300
S026 1 1 2 2 62 116 184
S031 3 1 2 1 125 177 2 311
S051 20 7 3 30
S052 4 1 5
Site A-EHL A-HL CL- CL-HL LCL- LCL- EHL HL HL Tile EHL- MHL MHL- LHL Total
EHL EHL HL Pottery MHL LHL
S057 2 2 4
Off-site 5 6 3 5 1 52 41 2 110
S025
S028 1 1 1 41 201 245
Off-site 6 5 10 25 3 9 3 301 108 1 1 1 467
S027 1 58 412 19 490
S032 3 1 2 2 1 40 41 1 1 92
1
S034 2 2 9 80 432 3 528
S040 2 1 3 42 252 300
S042 1 1
S056 12 15 27
Off-site 7 4 6 10 29 2 167 43 261
S037 2 29 162 1 194
2
S038 1 3 20 60 3 87
S039 2 3 20 268 1 294
S053 6 15 21
Off-site 8 3 1 2 13 7 26
Off-site 9 1 1 1 3 16 14 36
S035 1 1

1
Excavation sherds not included.
2
Excavation sherds not included.
Site A-EHL A-HL CL- CL-HL LCL- LCL- EHL HL HL Tile EHL- MHL MHL- LHL Total
EHL EHL HL Pottery MHL LHL
S036
Off-site 10 1 1 5 21 28
S041 1 5 3 1 234 226 2 9 481
Off-site 11 2 1 38 24 1 1 67
S044 1 1 1 158 190 1 352
S045 2 1 1 8 1 148 90 1 1 2 8 263
S046 1 2 5 8 16
S054 10 1 11
S055 1 2 5 1 71 10 4 94
S060 1 4 35 7 1 48
Off-site 12 19 5 24
Off-site 13 1 1 32 11 45
Total 43 58 96 339 113 102 14 5354 6804 10 21 10 109 13073

Table 9.7. Hellenistic pottery by date, site, and zone

Zone A-EHL A-HL CL- CL-HL LCL- LCL- EHL HL HL Tile EHL- MHL MHL- LHL Totals
EHL EHL HL Pottery MHL LHL
Zone 1 1 5 5 14 12 22 1 1352 970 2 3 3 38 2428
Zone 2 26 13 23 105 67 5 5 501 168 3 3 2 7 928
Zone 3 3 7 11 1 6 623 1347 1 1 2000
Zone 4 3 14 21 97 18 29 4 1186 1711 3 3 1 18 3108
Zone 5 7 4 1 5 1 93 242 2 355
Zone 6 3 8 12 30 5 23 3 533 1261 1 4 1 21 1905
Zone 7 4 7 13 53 2 3 282 491 2 857
Zone 8 3 1 2 13 7 26
Zone 9 1 2 1 3 16 14 37
Zone 10 1 2 5 3 1 239 247 2 9 509
Zone 11 3 7 3 17 3 3 465 330 1 4 2 13 851
Zone 12 19 5 24
Zone 13 1 1 32 11 45
All Total 43 58 96 339 113 102 14 5354 6804 10 21 10 109 13073

Table 9.8. Hellenistic pottery by date and zone

Site A/CL-R HL-ER HL-R ER ER-MR R MR MR-LR LR Total
Off-site 1 3 9 3 6 21
S008 6 9 18 6 7 5 6 57
S043 1 2 17 4 2 3 29
S047
S048 1 3 4
S049 7 2 1 4 2 1 14 31
S050 1 1 1 2 5
S059
Off-site 2 2 3 5
S003
S004
S005 1 1 2
S006
S007 2 1 2 1 6
S016 1 1 1 3 6
S017
S024
S030
S058 1 2 1 5 9
S061 1 1
Off-site 3 2 13 2 17
S018 3 1 4
Site A/CL-R HL-ER HL-R ER ER-MR R MR MR-LR LR Total
S019 2 12 3 2 1 40 60
S020
S023 1 23 2 17 43
S029 1 38 73 11 1 124
S033 1 1
Off-site 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 17
S001 2 1 1 4
S002 2 2
S009 1 1
S010
S011
S012 1 5 73 1 80
S013 1 1 2
S014 2 6 8
S015 1 2 28 1 32
S021 4 38 1 8 51
S022 1 1 2
S026 2 2
S031 2 27 29
S051 5 18 3 26
S052
S057 1 1
Off-site 5 1 2 1 4
Site A/CL-R HL-ER HL-R ER ER-MR R MR MR-LR LR Total
S025
S028 20 20
Off-site 6 1 41 1 43
S027 1 3 18 2 22 7 53
S032 5 4 9
S034
S040 1 1
S042 4 4
S056
Off-site 7 3 7 10
S037
S038
S039
S053
Off-site 8 2 2
Off-site 9 1 1 2
S035
S036
Off-site 10 1 3 4
S041 1 1 1 9 12
Off-site 11 1 2 1 4
S044 1 3 10 14
S045 1 1 6 1 7 16
Site A/CL-R HL-ER HL-R ER ER-MR R MR MR-LR LR Total
S046
S054 1 1 2
S055 8 8
S060
Off-site 12
Off-site 13 2 3 5 10
Total 5 15 59 21 70 302 205 20 203 900

Table 9.9. Roman pottery by date, site, and zone

 A/CL-R HL-ER HL-R ER ER-MR R MR MR-LR LR Total
Zone 1 8 23 11 39 18 11 6 31 147
Zone 2 1 2 4 3 7 3 1 8 29
Zone 3 6 12 81 80 12 58 249
Zone 4 3 2 20 6 102 81 43 257
Zone 5 21 2 1 24
Zone 6 2 4 18 52 22 12 110
Zone 7 3 7 10
Zone 8 2 2
Zone 9 1 1 2
Zone 10 1 1 1 1 12 16
Zone 11 1 1 1 1 12 2 26 44
Zone 12
Zone 13 2 3 5 10
Total 5 15 59 21 70 302 205 20 203 900

Table 9.10. Roman pottery by date and zone Roman pottery counts by zone