© The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies and the British School at Athens 2017

ARCHAEOLOGY IN GREECE 2016–2017

Early Cycladic fortified settlements:
aspects of cultural continuity and change in the Cyclades
during the third millennium BC
Anastasia Angelopoulou | Ephorate of Antiquities of the Cyclades | natashaangelopoulou@yahoo.gr

Map 10. Map of key locations/sites mentioned in the text. © BSA.

Early Cycladic culture (third millennium BC) has been a focus of scientific interest since the late 19th
century. Our knowledge of Early Cycladic civilization is based primarily on evidence gathered from a
substantial number of cemeteries that have been discovered in various parts of the Cyclades. In comparison,
excavations of Εarly Cycladic settlements are few in number. Thus, habitation comprises an essential yet
understudied field of research.

doi:10.1017/S0570608418000108 Archaeological Reports 63 (2016–2017) 131–150

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

Despite these limitations, fieldwork as well as material and analytical studies conducted over the period
2000–2017 have contributed to a far better understanding of Early Cycladic habitation patterns. Excava-
tions and/or publications of important sites, such as Chalandriani and Kastri on Syros, Skarkos on Ios,
Dhaskalio and Kavos on Keros, Markiani on Amorgos and Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos,
have revealed significant new evidence regarding the development and character of Early Cycladic
civilization.
The principal aim of this paper is to give a brief overview of the settlement history of the Cyclades
during the Early Bronze Age based on both old and new evidence, with special reference to fortified
habitation sites. Early Cycladic fortified settlements have been the focus of particular scientific interest
as they are closely connected with periods of decisive importance for the islands. I aim, therefore, to assess
their significance in terms of cultural evolution and change, based on new data which offer fresh insights
into a number of aspects related to material culture, social organization and cultural interactions, and
intend to show how promising further research on the subject would be.
The final phase of the Neolithic is considered to
be the period of maximum habitation expansion in the
Cyclades during the Neolithic (Davis 1992: 702;
Davis et al. 2001: 87, 89–90, 94). To the Final
Neolithic or Chalcolithic is also dated the earliest
known indisputable example of defensive work in the
Cycladic islands. The fortification of Strofilas on
Andros (ID1298, ID1299, ID2128, ID2690, ID3098,
ID3226), dated to the late fourth millennium BC, is
considered to be the forerunner of the later Early
Bronze Age defensive systems (Televantou 2006a;
2006b; 2008; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2015a; 2015b).
Strofilas (ID536) occupies the summit of a naturally
fortified promontory on the western coast of Andros
104. Strofilas: aerial view. © ASA.
and is situated near natural harbours (Fig. 104). The
site rises high above sea level and controls the
maritime communication routes leading from Attica
and Euboea to the Cyclades. A strong, stone-built
rampart with solid, rounded bastions and possible
outer wall was constructed across the promontory’s
saddle, protecting that side of the site (northern)
which was easily accessible from inland (Fig. 105;
Τelevantou 2006a: 4–5; 2007: 71–73; 2008: 43–45;
2012: 122–24). The settlement is fairly extensive,
covering an area of about 2ha, well organized and
densely built. It comprises large rectangular or apsidal
buildings (ID1298); the latter represent some of the
earliest known examples of this type of building in 105. Strofilas: the fortification wall. © ASA.
the Aegean (Televantou 2008: 45–46; 2012: 125–26).
The discovery of Strofilas brought new perspectives to our knowledge of the so-called Attica-Kephala
culture of the Final Neolithic period and the developments that preceded the emergence of the Early
Cycladic civilization.
The extensive and complex rock-art compositions found at Strofilas bear strong resemblances to the
Early Cycladic pecked-stone creations (Televantou 2006a: 6; 2008: 47; 2012: 132), and they undoubtedly
represent the most striking example of cultural continuity into the Early Bronze Age. The Neolithic rock-
art compositions comprise a variety of narrative scenes depicting everyday activities (animal husbandry,
hunting, seafaring) and schematic motifs (human footprints, spirals, ring-shaped idols) (Fig. 106; ID1299,

132 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

106. Strofilas: rock art. © ASA.

107. Strofilas: rock art from an area thought to

have been used for ritual activities. © ASA.

108. Strofilas: rock art representations

of boats. © ASA.

ID2128, ID2690, ID3098, ID3226; Televantou 2006a: 6–8; 2008: 46–50; 2012: 127–33, 137, 139; 2013:
119–21; 2014: 87–89; 2015a: 111–12; 2015b: 187–88). The most important examples at Strofilas were
discovered in the area of the fortification wall (ID1299, ID2128, ID2690, ID3098, ID3226) and in an
enclosed space in the settlement thought to have been used for ritual activities (Fig. 107; ID3226;
Televantou 2006a: 6–7; 2008: 47–48; 2012: 129–31). Of special significance are the representations of
boats, either single or in groups, which decorate some of the blocks on the outer face of the defensive wall
(Fig. 108; ID3098, ID3226). Τhe choice of the wall for the depiction of maritime activities is thought to

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 133

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

emphasize the special symbolic character of the representations, which reveal the close relation of the
local community with the sea and its importance for the accumulation of considerable wealth and power
(Televantou 2006a: 7; 2008: 47–48).
The size of the settlement, the relative sophistication of its material culture, the engagement of the
population in collective activities, such as seafaring, and the existence of constructions of communal
character, such as the fortifications, reveal the growth of a well-organized, prosperous and complex society
(Televantou 2006a: 11; 2008: 53; 2012: 138–40).
The first phase of the Early Cycladic period (3200–2700 BC) corresponds to the floruit of the so-called
Grotta-Pelos culture, named after the settlement of Grotta on Naxos and the cemetery of Pelos on Melos
(Renfrew 1972: 152–69; Doumas 1977: 15–18; Warren and Hankey 1989: 21–24; Manning 1995: 42–
45). Despite the cultural links attested with the later Final Neolithic period, the introduction of the Grotta-
Pelos culture marks the start of conspicuous transformations in Aegean societies. Our detailed knowledge
of ECI settlements is limited (Doumas 1972a: 151–52; Broodbank 2000: 151; Stampolidis and
Sotirakopoulou 2011: 32). Most habitation sites are known from surface finds and the number of settle-
ments excavated remains very small. Compared to their Neolithic antecedents, ECI settlements are more
dispersed, smaller in size and often short-lived, suggesting changes in ways of living and in economic
activities with an increased reliance on animal husbandry which facilitated the expansion of habitation
into more marginal landscapes and smaller islands such as the Erimonisia (Renfrew 1972: 521; Broodbank
2000: 150–51, 154–56). Site density increased at this time, with the appearance of scattered and short-
lived permanent agricultural installations often situated on low coastal promontories (Renfrew 1972: 157;
Doumas 1972a: 154; Wagstaff and Cherry 1982: 138). The average settlement extent is below 1ha, with
an estimated population of a few dozen people, as is also indicated by the equally modest Grotta-Pelos
cemeteries (Renfrew 1972: 157; Doumas 1972a: 153–54; 1972b: 227–28; Broodbank 2000: 151). The
lack of apparent variation within the character of individual settlements shows that these early farming
communities were basically egalitarian and self-sufficient, with limited long-range external contacts.
However, similarities in material culture suggest the existence of cultural affinities with other parts of the
Aegean (Renfrew 1982a: 222; Wagstaff and Cherry 1982: 251; Broodbank 2000: 151).
The fortified settlement at Markiani on Amorgos reflects the changes in habitation that occurred during
the course of the Early Cycladic period (Marangou 2006b: 81–87; Renfrew 2006: 248–49). The settlement
was situated on the summit of a naturally protected rocky hill, providing an excellent view over a large
part of the steep southern coastline of the island (Marangou 2006a: 6). Markiani was first occupied during
the ECI, and continued to be inhabited throughout the ECII and into the so-called Kastri Group phase,
which represents its latest phase of occupation (last centuries of the third millennium BC). The small
farmstead of the ECI was replaced by a considerably larger settlement during the following ECII phase
(Whitelaw 2006: 19–20). Markiani is considered to have been a defended community from the time of its
establishment. Evidence indicates that part of the stone-built defensive wall with horseshoe-shaped towers
that protected the easily accessible northern (landward) side of the site during the ECII was founded as
early as the Grotta-Pelos period (Marangou 2006b: 86; Renfrew 2006: 248). The possible early enceinte
of Markiani represents an important link in the development of Early Cycladic defensive systems and it
is indicative of the existence of an advanced internal social organization (Renfrew 2006: 253).
The second phase of the Early Cycladic period (Keros-Syros culture), during the mid-third millennium
BC, represents an era of profound cultural developments as seen in various parts of the Aegean including
the Cyclades (Renfrew 1972: 170–85; Doumas 1977: 20–22; Warren and Hankey 1989: 24–25; Manning
1995: 48–50). It is characterized by the emergence of craft specialization, the intensification of long-range
interactions and the emergence of ranked societies. The substantial number of settlements (Doumas 1972a:
158–68; Renfrew 1972: 176–77; Barber and MacGillivray 1980: 149; Wagstaff and Cherry 1982: 137–
38; Marangou 1984: 100; Èrard-Cerceau et al. 1993: 66–67; Hekman 1996: 65; Karantzali 1996: 19–20,
22, 30, 40–41; Marthari 1999: 17) and cemeteries (Doumas 1977: 25; Barber and MacGillivray 1980:
149) identified indicates a growing population and a gradual expansion of habitation throughout the
Cyclades. Although the pattern of small and dispersed settlements remains, the picture of the modest undif-

134 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

ferentiated farmsteads of the Early Cycladic I is transformed as more complex residential patterns are
attested and settlements are very different in terms of size and function from those of the preceding phase.
These developments are especially evident at sites such as Chalandriani on Syros, Skarkos on Ios, Ayia
Irini on Keos and Dhaskalio on Keros, which stand out because of their size, wealth and prominent role
in the Aegean interaction networks (Broodbank 2000: 212–21).
An extensive complex is located in the highlands near the northeastern coast of Syros (Marthari 1998;
Broodbank 2000: 212–16; Hekman 2003), comprising a settlement and cemetery on the Chalandra plateau
and a fortified acropolis at Kastri. The early Early Cycladic II settlement identified under the modern
village of Chalandriani has never been thoroughly investigated (Marthari 1998: 22; Broodbank 2000:
214; Hekman 2003: 85–86). As with other ECII settlements, it is suggested that it may have extended over
a hectare, with a population in the order of 100–300 people (Broodbank 2000: 214). Chalandriani repre-
sents a village-level community and was probably one of the most important habitation sites on Syros, as
is indicated by the nearby cemetery which is the largest known Early Bronze Age burial ground in the
Cyclades (ID2127; Τsountas 1899: 77–115; Doumas 1977: 128–30; Hekman 2003). Variations observed
in the number and typological composition of the artefacts found within individual burials in the cemetery
of Chalandriani as well as in tomb construction are considered to reflect the existence of differentiation
in terms of social status between the deceased (Hekman 2003: 191–97). The importance of the local
community is also stressed by its close connection with maritime activities. Most of the known represen-
tations of ships dated to the third millennium BC appear on the clay ‘frying-pans’ buried in the graves of
Chalandriani (Broodbank 2000: 215). At a later phase, during the mature ECII, the inhabitants are thought
to have moved to the naturally defensible hilltop site at Kastri, where a smaller fortified settlement was
founded (see below; Davis 1987: 33; Broodbank 2000: 214).
Ayia Irini on Keos occupies a low promontory on the northern side of the sheltered bay of Agios
Nikolaos on the island’s northwestern coast. Surface survey in northern Keos has demonstrated the
existence of a decidedly different pattern of settlement development from the usual one of the dispersed
and small Early Cycladic habitation sites (Cherry et al. 1991: 226, 228; Davis 1992: 711–12; Wilson 1999:
234). Ayia Irini seems to be the only significant focal centre of human activity in terms of size and function,
at least in the northern part of the island.
Three successive periods of occupation are represented (Ayia Irini I–III: Wilson 1999: 6–8). The earliest
human activity is dated to the latest Neolithic (Ayia Irini I). The site was resettled during the earlier part
of the Early Bronze II (Ayia Irini II) and continued to be inhabited during the later EBII (Ayia Irini III)
(Wilson 1999: 229). The Early Bronze Age settlement was substantial, covering an area of approximately
one hectare (Broodbank 2000: 218), and densely packed, as indicated by the remains discovered over
most of the peninsula (Caskey 1971: 362). The population is estimated to have reached 150–300 people
(Broodbank 2000: 218). Unfortunately, later Bronze Age building activity on the promontory has oblit-
erated much of the plan of the earlier Early Bronze Age settlement. However, the surviving remains suggest
the existence of a well-organized settlement with communal works, such as drainage channels and cobbled
roads or pathways leading to the spring that supplied the inhabitants with fresh water (Caskey 1971: 368–
72; 1972: 370–75; Wilson and Eliot 1984: 83–86; Schofield 1998: 119–20). The houses are laid out with
noticeable consistency and they are exceptionally well built. The rooms are spacious and repeated
rebuilding operations are attested, as in the case of House E/D, a possible two-storeyed edifice (Wilson
and Eliot 1984: 83–85; Broodbank 2000: 218).
The material culture reveals a high level of craft specialization. The pottery of Ayia Irini is characterized
by obvious improvements in the quality of the vases, in terms of both the techniques of manufacture and
the typological variety, which reflects diversified domestic activities (Wilson 1999: 20). Large quantities
of ceramic imports from Siphnos, Syros and Melos as well as from Attica and Euboea reveal Ayia Irini’s
predominant role in the development of a highly sophisticated and widespread system of long-distance
trade interactions (Cherry et al. 1991: 226; Schofield 1998: 119; Wilson 1999: 20, 228, 231–39). Moreover,
the metallurgical evidence indicates a high degree of skill in the cupellation of lead ores in order to obtain
silver (Wilson 1999: 236). It also confirms the import of silver-rich lead ores from Lavrion and metals

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 135

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

such as lead and arsenical copper from Lavrion, Siphnos and Kythnos (Wilson 1999: 236). As a result,
and due to its advantageous geographical position in the exchange routes of precious goods, such as metals,
between the Cyclades and the Attic mainland, Ayia Irini is considered less a farming community than,
rather, an important trade centre in the Aegean (Wilson and Eliot 1984: 83–86; Manning 1994: 224; Wilson
1999: 234, 237; Broodbank 2000: 216–18).
Comparable in size to the settlements of Chalandriani and Ayia Irini, Skarkos on Ios is another signi-
ficant village-level community (Marthari 1997; 1999; 2012a). The low hill of Skarkos on the western
coast is located in the most fertile valley of the island near the natural harbour of Ios, one of the best-
sheltered anchorages in the Cyclades. The site was first inhabited during a late stage of Early Cycladic I
or the ECI/ECII transitional phase (Marthari 2017: 119). The main period of occupation is assigned to the
early part of the ECII phase (Keros-Syros culture). The outstanding state of preservation of the building
remains provides important information about the organization and character of Early Bronze II habitation
sites. The settlement was organized concentrically, adapting to the morphology of the hill (Marthari 1997:
365–72; 1999: 18; 2008a: 71; 2017: 119–23). It was densely occupied, with sizeable two-storeyed, stone-
built building complexes and public spaces, such as streets and open squares, where the entrances to the
houses were located. Noteworthy is the discovery of a building where a variety of craft activities took
place, such as the manufacture of marble figurines and vessels (Marthari 2017: 133–34).
Skarkos offers evidence for the development of a mixed economy of agriculture, stock-breeding,
exploitation of marine resources, trade and craft specialization (Marthari 1999: 23–27; 2008a: 79–84).
Ceramic imports, some of which are thought to be luxury and/or prestige items, and imported raw materials
(obsidian, metals) confirm the vigorous involvement of the local community in a long-range exchange
network which involved contacts with other Cycladic islands as well as with the Greek mainland. The
organized settlement plan, the differentiation of buildings in terms of size and wealth, along with the
existence of craft specialization and the possible differentiation of the inhabitants, with regard to prosperity
and social status, together reveal the existence of a socioeconomically advanced community (Marthari
1997: 377; 1999: 28; 2008a: 81).
Dhaskalio represents a significantly different example of an Early Cycladic settlement, testifying to the
existence of varying patterns of development between islands and contemporary sites. The rocky and steep-
sided islet is situated a few metres off-shore from the western extremity of Keros. It constitutes part of a
wider archaeological site which comprises several foci of activity of Early Bronze Age date (Fig. 109).
In the coastal area of Keros, opposite Dhaskalio and known as Kavos (Broodbank 2000: 223–30;
Renfrew et al. 2015), are the remains of an Early Cycladic II settlement (ID661, ID675; Doumas 1967:
410; Boyd 2015: 533–48). Kavos is also the find-spot of ‘Special Deposits’ (ID661, ID675, ID848,
ID1697) containing large concentrations of artefacts, such as marble figurines (Fig. 110), vessels, pottery,
metal objects and obsidian. These deposits have been interpreted as the remains of a large and rich cemetery
of an equally extensive and thriving settlement (Broodbank 2000: 230). Another view is that Kavos was
an important ‘pan-Cycladic’ religious centre which was a focus for the ritual deposition of prestige objects
in the mid-third millennium BC (ID1697; Renfrew et al. 2015: 555–60).
The settlement at Dhaskalio (ID661, ID675, ID848, ID1697, ID2759, ID6045) developed in a marginal
area with very little arable land (Renfrew et. al. 2013). Geological evidence demonstrates that a narrow
isthmus with two natural sheltered harbours connected the islet of Dhaskalio with Keros in the Early
Bronze Age (Dixon and Kinnaird 2013: 45–55; Renfrew 2013: 705). With an area of 1.3ha, Dhaskalio is
claimed as the largest Early Cycladic settlement known to date (ID848; Boyd 2013: 384). Its lifespan was
long, covering the later part of the Early Cycladic period (2,750–2,300 BC). It comprises three phases of
occupation (A, B and C), corresponding to the ECII and ECIII periods (ID848, ID1697; Renfrew et al.
2013: 74; Sotirakopoulou 2016: 351–77, 391).
Recent excavations have revealed that the remains of the extensive and densely built settlement occupy
the summit of the islet as well as its slopes (Boyd 2013: 341–85; Renfrew 2013: 705–21). With the
exception of the structures that occupy the summit (ID661, ID848), no complete building plan has so far
been revealed (Boyd 2013: 377). For this reason, it is difficult to address questions associated with the

136 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

109. Dhaskalio and the area of Kavos on Keros.

© Cambridge Keros Project.

development of the wider settlement plan over its long lifespan (Boyd 2013: 378). Nonetheless, despite
the difficulties imposed by the terrain, the surviving remains do illuminate a number of aspects related to
domestic architecture (Boyd 2013: 371–77). Because of the sloping ground, terraces with stone-built
retaining walls were constructed. These were suitable for building as well as for cultivation (Boyd 2013:
372–74). The houses were, as a rule, single-storeyed with flat roofs, made of wood and schist slabs, as is
the norm for Cycladic vernacular architecture. The main building material was marble imported from
other islands, such as Naxos (ID661; Dixon 2013: 321-23).
The best understood part of the settlement is that of the summit (Figs 111 and 112). It consists of possibly
two-storeyed building complexes of suggested communal character dated to the Early Cycladic III (phase
C) (ID848; Boyd 2013: 375, 377–78, 382–83; Renfrew 2013: 714). Of particular note are a large, elongated
‘megaroid’ building with an apse, which is thought to have fulfilled a public, possibly ritual function, a
semicircular enclosure and a courtyard suitable for small gatherings (ID848; Renfrew 2013: 713, 715).
Although extensive, habitation on the islet is considered to have been predominantly seasonal rather
than permanent (Renfrew 2013: 709–10), and Dhaskalio is thought to have served as an ancillary
settlement to the sanctuary of Kavos, offering shelter to numerous pilgrims from other islands (Renfrew
2013: 711). The large numbers of imports attested (ID661, ID1697), it is suggested, support the hypothesis
of the seasonal occupation of the site by people arriving by sea (Renfrew 2013: 707–08; Sotirakopoulou
2016: 390–91). According to another view, the bulk of the imports is connected with the existence of
restricted local resources and supports the idea that Dhaskalio was reliant on external support for the
fulfilment of everyday needs (Broodbank 2000: 225; Renfrew 2013: 708). Whatever the case, both
Dhaskalio and Kavos were undoubtedly prominent in the Cycladic communication and trade systems
(Broodbank 2000: 260–62; Sotirakopoulou 2016: 390).

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 137

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

110. Kavos: head of a marble figurine from the Special 111. Dhaskalio: building complexes on the summit.
Deposit South. © Cambridge Keros Project. © Cambridge Keros Project.

112. Dhaskalio: building complexes on the

summit. © Cambridge Keros Project.

138 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

Although Dhaskalio is a defensible location, no clear traces of fortification have been discovered there.
Similarly unfortified in this phase were the settlements at Ayia Irini and Skarkos. In contrast, Markiani
on Amorgos was protected by a defensive wall. The fortification, founded during the Early Cycladic I
phase, was reinforced with a ‘horseshoe-shaped’ bastion during the following ECII (Marangou 2006b:
86; Renfrew 2006: 248–49), when the settlement increased considerably in terms of both size and
population (Renfrew 2006: 253; Whitelaw 2006: 20). The architectural remains discovered are dated to
the ECII and the so-called Kastri Group phase (see below; Marangou 2006b: 87–93; Renfrew et al. 2006:
37–55). Part of a building complex of possible domestic use is located close to the summit of the site and
comprises rooms, a drainage channel and a curved structure used as a storage facility. Conspicuous is the
discovery of a structure used as a craftsman’s workshop.
Compared to the aforementioned sizeable sites, Markiani was a considerably smaller settlement
(Renfrew 2006: 249; Whitelaw 2006: 20) and thus provides an opportunity to explore some of the factors
that affected the character of Early Cycladic communities. Located in a privileged area for agricultural
exploitation, the community here was self sufficient and there is very little indication of inter-island trade
(Renfrew 2006: 249, 251–53; Whitelaw 2006: 20). The choice of an easily defensible location for the site
of the settlement and the construction of the fortification are indicative of increased inter-community
competition and conflict (Marangou 2006c: 257). Despite the fact that Markiani did not play a prominent
role in the wider trading systems, the construction of the fortification, the evidence of craft specialization
and the discovery of objects such as a seal and sealings testify to the existence of an advanced internal
socioeconomic organization (Renfrew 2006: 253–54).
An increased interest in defence in the later Early Bronze II, as implied by the proliferation of fortified
sites such as Markiani, defines the cultural developments attested in the Cyclades during the late third
millennium BC. This period is known as the Kastri Group phase (2,500–2,300/2,200 BC), named after
the fortified acropolis on Syros (see below). This phase is defined by the introduction in the Cyclades of
a group of drinking and pouring vessels of Anatolian origin (Renfrew 1972: 150, 172–73, 194, 203–04,
207, 533–34, fig. II.2, table 9.II; Sotirakopoulou 1993; 2016: 354–77; Broodbank 2000: 309–19, 332–33;
Αngelopoulou 2008; 2014: 117–18, 483–503). Their appearance has been interpreted as symptomatic of
a critical period that saw profound cultural changes. In terms of habitation, the appearance of fortified
settlements is characteristic. Fortified sites such as Kastri, Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos
and Kynthos on Delos were abandoned after a short period of occupation (Doumas 1972a: 158–67). The
turmoil indicated by this evidence has been attributed to an influx of migrants originating from Asia Minor
or the northeastern Aegean (Rutter 1979: 8–9; 1983: 71; Gale and Stos-Gale 1984: 268–71; Doumas 1988:
26–29; Manning 1995: 61).
The acropolis at Kastri on the northeastern coast of Syros (Fig. 113; ID539, ID653, ID841, ID1309,
ID2127, ID2689, ID3097) occupies a steep hilltop which provides exceptional visual control over a wide
area from southern Euboea down to the northeastern and central Cyclades (Τsountas 1899: 115–21; Bossert
1967; Doumas 1972a: 158–62; Broodbank 2000: 244, 215; Marthari 2008b; 2010a; 2010b; 2012b; 2013;
2014; 2015a; 2015b). Excavations have revealed a settlement of approximately 0.5ha in size with an
estimated population of 100–150 people. The acropolis was densely built with small, tightly packed,
irregular stone-built houses, each comprising one or two rectangular or rounded rooms, accessible through
narrow passages (Fig. 114; ID1309, ID2689, ID3097). The hill’s accessible northern slope was protected
by a double fortification wall, consisting of an outwork and an inner wall with horseshoe-shaped bastions
(Figs 115 and 116; ID539, ID653, ID2689). Recent investigations have provided new evidence for the
existence of a third curved enceinte around the hilltop which protected a roofed area used for storage and
small gatherings (ID539, ID653, ID841, ID1309; Μarthari 2008b: 116–18; 2010a: 50–52; 2010b: 87–91).
The citadel was probably abandoned after an enemy attack. Numerous sea pebbles found at the towers
of the fortification wall as well as in the area between the outer wall and the main wall with bastions are
thought to have been used as sling shots (Tsountas 1899: 120; Doumas 1990: 90). A similar interpretation
has been reached with regard to the large numbers of sea pebbles discovered at the acropolis of Korfari ton
Amygdalion (see below; Doumas 1967: 412; 1988: 25–26; 1990: 90; 1992: 67; Angelopoulou 2014: 33).

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 139

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

113. The fortified acropolis at Kastri on Syros and the cemetery of Chalandriani. © ASA.

114. Kastri on Syros: aerial view of the fortification wall and the
houses of the fortified acropolis. © ASA.

140 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

116. Kastri on Syros: aerial view of the fortified

acropolis. © ASA.

115. Kastri on Syros: the fortified acropolis.

© ASA.

The settlement on Mount Kynthos on Delos occupies the island’s highest hilltop with a single conve-
nient access route. A thick fortification wall protected small rounded houses separated by narrow passages
(MacGillivray 1980: 5–8).
The low hill of Korfari ton Amygdalion on the southeastern coast of Naxos lies a short distance northwest
of the bay of Panormos, one of the safest natural harbours of the island. The site is defensible and provides
an excellent view over the sea routes leading to Amorgos, Keros, the Kouphonisia, Schinoussa and Herakleia.
Excavations on the summit of the hill have brought to light the remains of a fortified acropolis extending
over an area of 285m2 (Figs 117 and 118; Doumas 1967: 411; 1972a: 165–66; 1988: 25–26; 1990: 90–92;
1992: 67–68; Angelopoulou 2003; 2007; 2008; 2010; 2014). Twenty small stone-built rooms have been
revealed along with an ellipsoid fortification made of large boulders. The rectangular or trapezoidal rooms
(1.58–9.32m2) in the interior of the acropolis are accessed through narrow corridors 0.50–0.80m wide.
The defensive wall follows the hill’s contours and is reinforced by five horseshoe-shaped towers. An
outwork protected the western, easily accessible side of the hill and demonstrates that the acropolis was
part of a more complex defensive system similar to that found at Kastri. The end of the Naxian citadel
was violent, possibly the result of an enemy attack. Intact vessels, numerous sea pebbles – perhaps used
as sling shots – (Fig. 119) and a bronze spearhead (Fig. 120) were found in the area of the entrance amidst
extensive traces of fire.
The acropolis at Panormos has revealed important new evidence concerning the character and signif-
icance of the Kastri Group phase of fortified habitation sites. The key element of its design is the
construction of corridors that make the fortified area a unified and easily controlled unit and also give
access to all the rooms in the interior. The attempt to secure unhindered communication via these narrow
passages suggests that the preserved architectural remains may not belong to a settlement, as previously
believed (Doumas 1972a: 165–66; 1990: 90; Sotirakopoulou 1993: 16; Stampolidis and Sotirakopoulou
2011: 32–34), but rather to a single fortified building unit. The form of the elliptical wall, which tightly
encircles the inner space on the acropolis, also implies the independence of the structure. Recently
recovered evidence suggests that the fort on the summit formed an essential part of an extended and as
yet unexplored settlement on the slopes of the hill, which surrounded the acropolis (Angelopoulou 2008:
151; 2014: 67–69, 511; 2016: 65). The completion of a defensive structure such as this fortified acropolis
was evidently the result of collective work. The citadel might have served as a place of refuge in times of
danger. It may also have had another, but related, function: the majority of the ceramics found inside are

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 141

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

117. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: aerial

view of the fortified acropolis. © The Southeast Naxos Sur-
vey Project.

118. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: the

fortified acropolis. © Anastasia Αngelopoulou.

119. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: sea

pebbles/sling shots found in the area of the entrance of the acropolis.
© Anastasia Αngelopoulou.

120. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos:

bronze spearhead. © Anastasia Αngelopoulou.

storage vessels (Figs 121 and 122), and this suggests that the acropolis was created not only to protect the
inhabitants of the nearby settlement but also the commodities that were essential for the survival of the
community (Angelopoulou 2008: 151; 2014, 511; 2016, 65).
The emergence of the fortified settlements of the Kastri Group is one of the most distinctive cultural
phenomena of the Cycladic Early Bronze Age. The evaluation of the settlements’ significance presupposes
their inclusion within a wider cultural environment which forms the cultural background to their
appearance and development. In this respect, recent advances in the study of the early Cyclades have
provided new insights into this critical period.

142 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

The discovery of the early fortified sites of Strofilas and Markiani demonstrates that the practice of
constructing fortifications to protect settlements – as well as the need to protect them – was not an
innovation of the Kastri-Group period, as previously believed (Doumas 1972a: 158–67); it was, in fact, a
long-established tradition. Cultural continuity is especially evident in the topographic setting of the fortified
settlements. The choice of naturally defensible hilltops suitable for the control of the maritime communi-
cation routes over extensive sea areas, reveals the employment of similar strategies in order to confront
hostility.
The close links between the Kastri-Group period and the preceding tradition are also evident in a
number of other respects. Thus, the evidence from Markiani confirms continuity in habitation over a long
timespan and shows that the Kastri Group fortified settlements were not, as a rule, short-lived. At Kynthos,
the introduction of the Kastri Group is preceded by an earlier occupation phase linked with the Early
Cycladic II. Last, but not least, early activity at Panormos is suggested by the discovery of aryballoi of
the so-called Kampos Group dated to the final ECI, transitional ECI to ECII or to early ECΙΙ. Uninterrupted
cultural development is also evident in material culture. A recent study of the ceramic assemblages found
at Panormos has shown that the Kastri Group diagnostic types (Fig. 123) are incorporated in a pottery
tradition characterized by the presence of distinctive forms which are assigned to the earlier part of the
ECII phase (Keros-Syros culture: Angelopoulou 2014: 505–09). The same ‘genetic’ relation between
Kastri Group and the Keros-Syros culture is also attested at the acropolis of Markiani (Eskitzioglou 2006:
139) and Kastri (Marthari 2012b: 143; 2013: 117) and at the unfortified settlements of Ayia Irini (period
III) (Wilson 1999: 90–94, 229) and Dhaskalio (phase B) (Sotirakopoulou 2016: 352), which continued to
exist in the later phase. Similarities with the preceding period are also discerned in the economic activities
attested in the Kastri Group of fortified acropoleis. Farming comprises the basic subsistence strategy, as
implied by the discovery of food remains, storage vessels and stone tools used for the processing of crops
(Fig. 124). In addition to subsistence activities, a wide range of traditional crafts were also practised, such
as metalworking, weaving and woodworking (Τsountas 1899: 121–26; Bossert 1967: 60–64; Renfrew
2006: 249–51; Marthari 2008b: 118; 2010a: 52; 2010b: 90; 2013: 118, 2015a: 108–09; Αngelopoulou
2014: 514).
Cultural change during the Kastri-Group period is marked by the intensification of contacts with regions
to the east and the introduction of new cultural elements. In terms of the pottery, the new Anatolianizing
forms reflect the adoption of new drinking customs (Wilson 1999: 238; Broodbank 2000: 285, 316). Their

121. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: storage 122. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: storage
vessel (collared jar). © Anastasia Αngelopoulou. vessel (‘krater’). © Anastasia Αngelopoulou.

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 143

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

123. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos: one- 124. Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) on Naxos:
handled cup. © Anastasia Αngelopoulou. grinding stone with raised rim. © Anastasia Αngelopoulou.

appearance is associated with the introduction of the potter’s wheel (Renfrew 1972: 533; Wilson 1999:
238; Broodbank 2000: 285; Angelopoulou 2014: 483). The adoption of such a significant technological
novelty would have been premature if the handmade pottery industry had not already reached a high level
of specialization. Characteristic examples of such high-quality handmade pottery products are the large
pithoi with conical necks from Panormos (Angelopoulou 2014: 179–94, 501; 2016: 73). Their thin walls
(no greater than 1cm in thickness) are noticeable in comparison with their large overall dimensions. In
terms of metallurgy, the advent of artefacts made of copper with a high percentage of tin is distinctive.
The use of tin-bronze alloys at this time is another innovation. Metal objects made of tin-bronze found at
the acropolis of Kastri (Τsountas 1899: 124; Bossert 1967: 61–67; Renfrew 1972: 314; Gale and Stos-
Gale 1984: 268–71; 2008: 405; Stos-Gale et al. 1984: 23) are closely comparable with artefacts of similar
type and alloy from Asia Minor (Troy) and the northeastern Aegean (Thermi on Lesbos, Poliochni on
Lemnos: Branigan 1974: 8, 17, 24–27, 30, 34–35; Gale and Stos-Gale 1984: 268–69). The spearhead from
Panormos is a type of weapon that has no Aegean counterpart. Ιts closest typological parallels are attested
in Troy, Cyprus and Ras-Shamra in Syria (Αngelopoulou 2014: 454–57; Mastrotheodoros and Bassiakos
2014: 460, 469–73). Close affinities with the metallurgical tradition of Asia Minor and the islands of the
northeastern Aegean can also be recognized in the copper finds from Markiani (Birtacha 2006: 217;
Andreopoulou-Mangou 2006: 218) and Dhaskalio (ID2759; Georgakopoulou 2013: 669). In architectural
terms, strong cultural affiliations with the east are especially evident in the defence systems. Fortifications
with semicircular bastions are thought to originate in Syro-Palestine, from where they spread throughout
the Mediterranean in the mid-third millennium BC (Cosmopoulos 1991: 156; Sotirakopoulou 2008: 545).
Furthermore, the acropolis at Korfari ton Amygdalion has revealed new aspects of these connections with
Asia Minor in terms of settlement plan and organization. The citadel at Panormos, which is surrounded
by a larger habitation site, recalls Early Bronze II settlements in Asia Minor, such as Troy (Düring 2011:
284), Karataş-Semayük (Mellink and Lawrence Angel 1966: 245; 1970: 247; 1973: 294; Warner 1979:
137) and Liman Tepe (Erkanal 1996: 78–80; 1999: 240–41; 2008: 182–83), that extended around fortified
citadels containing public buildings (Düring 2011: 287).
The unbroken cultural evolution suggests that the creators of the fortified settlements were the islanders
themselves and not migrants seeking a new home. The use of tin – which is not found in Greece – during
the Kastri-Group period created new demand for its acquisition. It was through the trade routes established
for the circulation and acquisition of new metals that other cultural elements related to pottery and archi-
tecture reached the Cyclades (Broodbank 2000: 317–18; Αngelopoulou 2014: 502–03). The evidence for

144 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

external contacts, recognized in almost all of the Kastri-Group settlement sites (Angelopoulou 2014: 503),
substantiates the active involvement of the islanders in trade transactions and thus indicates that the
communities of this troubled period were not isolated.
The appearance of large buildings protected by fortifications indicates the emergence of more complex
social structures during the Early Bronze II. The monumental House of Tiles at Lerna in the Argolid
(Wiencke Heath 2000: 648–49) and an apsidal building surrounded by a defensive wall at Thebes in
Boeotia (Aravantinos and Psaraki 2011) are considered to be the residences of people of high social status,
who regulated the management and distribution of goods. A ‘central’ authority, whatever its structure may
have been, would have facilitated the construction of a communal structure such as the acropolis at Korfari
ton Amygdalion, as well as the storage and management of goods secured in the citadel. The Naxian
acropolis offers strong new evidence for the possible existence of some sort of redistributive system. The
members of the local community would be the most plausible recipients of the accumulated ‘social’ wealth.
On the other hand, the possibility that foodstuffs were used in inter-communal exchange transactions, in
times of periodic or sustained shortfalls in local production, cannot be excluded.
Τhe Kastri Group of defended communities reflects the advances of the Early Cycladic II in terms of
prosperity, social complexity and cultural growth. The identity of the intruders who violently destroyed
the acropoleis at Kastri and Panormos will remain unknown until systematic research of Aegean
civilization sheds more light on aspects of inter-communal relations and conflicts. In this regard, the
number of uninvestigated Early Cycladic fortified settlements point to how promising further study of
this subject would be (Doumas 1972a: 152, 166; 1990: 92; Renfrew 1972: 517–20; Fotou 1983: 27, 29,
31–32; Μarangou 1994: 471, 475–76).
Many of the dispersed Early Bronze Age sites were permanently abandoned by the end of the third
millennium. The last phase of the Early Bronze Age (Phylakopi I culture) is characterized by the
appearance of large dominant nucleated settlements that can be considered small towns, such as Phylakopi
itself on Melos, Akrotiri on Thera and Paroikia on Paros (Renfrew 1982b: 38; Barber 1983: 77;
Broodbank 2000: 326–31; Angelopoulou 2016: 66–67). Among the sites of this period, Phylakopi is an
important source of information; with an extent well over 1ha, it is the largest known Early Bronze Age
settlement in the Cyclades. The relation between the Kastri-Group and Phylakopi I has been a subject of
academic interest for decades. However, recent evidence from Dhaskalio demonstrates continuity in
material culture as well as in occupation between the two cultural traditions (Sotirakopoulou 2016: 369–
70). Whether the changes attested by the aggregation of populations within nucleated settlements reflect
a reaction to the challenges of the Kastri-Group period is an interesting – as yet unanswered – question.
Further research is undoubtedly needed in order to address this as well as other issues related to the devel-
opment of the Early Cycladic world.

Bibliography
Andreopoulou-Mangou, H. (2006) ‘Note on the chemical analysis of the Markiani metal objects’, in L.
Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An
Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 218–19
Αngelopoulou, A. (2003) ‘Η ‘ομάδα Καστριού’ και το Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου’, in
Α. Vlachopoulos and Κ. Birtacha (eds), Αργοναύτης. Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Καθηγητή Χρίστο Γ.
Ντούμα (Αthens) 159–90
— (2007) ‘Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου. Μία οχυρωμένη Πρωτοκυκλαδική ακρόπολη’,
in I.K. Probonas and S.E. Psarras (eds), Η Νάξος δια μέσου των αιώνων. Πρακτικά του Γ’ Πανελλήνιου
Συνεδρίου (Κόρωνος 4–7 Σεπτεμβρίου 2003) (Athens) 101–26
— (2008) ‘The “Kastri Group”: evidence from Korfari ton Amygdalion (Panormos) Naxos, Dhaskalio
Keros and Akrotiri Thera’, in N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds), ‘Horizon-Ορίζων’:
Α Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (Cambridge) 149–64
— (2010) ‘Το Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου και η σημασία του για την εξέλιξη του
Κυκλαδικού Πολιτισμού την Τρίτη Χιλιετία π. Χ.’, Naxiaka 36 (74), 13–29

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 145

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

— (2014) Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου. Μία οχυρωμένη Πρωτοκυκλαδική ακρόπολη
(Athens)
— (2016) ‘Κυκλαδικοί οικισμοί της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού’, in N.C. Stampolidis, I.G. Lourentzatou,
A. Angelopoulou and E. Legaki (eds), Κυκλαδική κοινωνία 5000 χρόνια πριν (Athens) 59–67
Aravantinos, V. and Psaraki, K. (2011) ‘Mounds over dwellings: the transformation of domestic spaces
into community monuments in EH II Thebes, Greece’ in E. Borgna and S. Müller Celka (eds), Ancestral
Landscape: Burial Mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans –
Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–2nd millennium BC). Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine,
May 15th–18th 2008 (Lyon) 397–408
Barber, R.L.N. (1983) ‘The definition of the Middle Cycladic period’, AJA 87, 76–81
Barber, R.L.N. and MacGillivray, J.A. (1980) ‘The Early Cycladic period: matters of definition and termi-
nology’, AJA 84, 141–57
Birtacha, K. (2006) ‘The metal objects’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds),
Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the
1985–1991 Investigations (London) 211–17
Bossert, E.-M. (1967) ‘Kastri auf Syros’, ADelt 22 Mel., 53–76
Boyd, M.J. (2013) ‘The structure and architecture of the settlement’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N.
Brodie, G. Gavalas and M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and
the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 1 (Cambridge) 341–85
— (2015) ‘The architectural features of Kavos’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas
and M.J. Boyd (eds), Kavos and the Special Deposits. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of
Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 2 (Cambridge) 533–48
Branigan, K. (1974) Aegean Metalwork of the Early and Middle Bronze Age (Oxford)
Broodbank, C. (2000) Αn Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge)
Caskey, J.L. (1971) ‘Investigations in Keos part I: excavations and explorations, 1966–70’, Hesperia 40,
359–96
— (1972) ‘Investigations in Keos part II: a conspectus of the pottery’, Hesperia 41, 357–401
Cherry, J.F., Davis, J.L. and Mantzourani, E. (1991) ‘Prehistoric northern Keos: analysis and interpretation
of the survey finds’, in J.F. Cherry, J.L. Davis and E. Mantzourani (eds), Landscape Archaeology as
Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands from Earliest Settlement until Modern Times
(Los Angeles) 217–32
Cosmopoulos, M. (1991) ‘Exchange networks in Prehistory: the Aegean and the Mediterranean in the
third millenium BC’, in R. Laffineur and L. Basch (eds), ΤHALASSA: L’ Egée Préhistorique et la Mer.
Aegaeum 7, 155–68
Davis, J.L. (1987) ‘Perspectives on the Prehistoric Cyclades: an archaeological introduction’, in P. Getz-
Preziosi (ed.), Early Cycladic Art in North American Collections (Seattle) 4–45
— (1992) ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory I: the islands of the Aegean’, AJA 96, 699–756
Davis, J.L., Tzonou-Herbst, I. and Wolpert, A.D. (2001) ‘The islands of the Aegean. Addendum: 1992–
1999’, in T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (Boston) 77–94
Dixon, J. (2013) ‘The petrology of the walls’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas and
M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean
Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 1 (Cambridge) 309–23
Dixon, J. and Kinnaird, T. (2013) ‘Sea-level change and the Early Bronze Age topography’, in C. Renfrew,
O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas and M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary
on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 1 (Cambridge)
45–55
Doumas, C. (1967) ‘Κυκλάδες: Κέρος, Νάξος’, ADelt 19 (1964) Chr., 409–12
— (1972a) ‘Notes on Early Cycladic architecture’, AA 87, 151–70
— (1972b) ‘Early Bronze Age settlement patterns in the Cyclades’, in P.J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G.W.
Dimbleby (eds), Man, Settlement and Urbanism (London) 227–30

146 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

— (1977) Early Bronze Age Burial Habits in the Cyclades (Lund)

— (1988) ‘EBA in the Cyclades: continuity or discontinuity?’, in E.B. French and K.A. Wardle (eds),
Problems in Greek Prehistory. Papers Presented at the Centenary Conference of the British School of
Archaeology at Athens, Manchester, April 1986 (Bristol) 21–29
— (1990) ‘Όπλα και οχυρωματικές κατασκευές’, in L. Marangou (ed), Κυκλαδικός Πολιτισμός. Η Νάξος
στην 3η π.Χ. χιλιετία (Athens) 90–92
— (1992) ‘An Early Cycladic “hooked-tang” spearhead from Naxos’, Kypriakai Spoudai 54–55 (1990–
1991), 67–68
Düring, B.S. (2011) The Prehistory of Asia Minor: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban
Societies (Cambridge)
Erard-Cerceau, I., Fotou, V., Psychoyos, O. and Treuil, R. (1993) ‘Prospection archéologique à Naxos
(région nord-quest)’, in R. Dalongville and G. Rougemont (eds), Recherches dans les Cyclades (Lyon)
59–96
Erkanal, H. (1996) ‘Early Bronze Age urbanization in the coastal region of western Anatolia’, in Y. Sey
(ed.), Housing and Settlement in Anatolia: A Historical Perspective (Istanbul) 70–82
— (1999) ‘Early Bronze Age fortification systems in Izmir region’, in P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis,
R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds), MELETEMATA: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to
Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters his 65th Year. Aegaeum 20, 237–42
— (2008) ‘Liman Tepe: new light on Prehistoric Aegean cultures’, in H. Erkanal, H. Hauptmann, V.
Şahoğlu and R. Tuncel (eds), The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age
(Ankara) 179–90
Eskitzioglou, P. (2006) ‘The pottery of Markiani phase IV’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and
G. Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement.
Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 139–57
Fotou V. (1983) ‘Les sites de l’ époque néolithique et de l’ âge du Bronze à Naxos (recherches
archéologiques jusqu’ en 1980)’, in G. Rougemont (ed.), Les Cyclades: matériaux pour une étude de
géographie historique (Paris) 15–57
Gale, N.H. and Stos-Gale, Z.A. (1984) ‘Cycladic metallurgy’, in J.A. MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber
(eds), The Prehistoric Cyclades (Edinburgh) 255–76
— (2008) ‘Changing patterns in Prehistoric Cycladic metallurgy’, in N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and
C. Renfrew (eds), ‘Horizon-Ορίζων’: Α Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (Cambridge)
387–408
Georgakopoulou, M. (2013) ‘Metal artefacts and metallurgy’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie,
G. Gavalas and M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins
of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 1 (Cambridge) 667–92
Hekman, J.J. (1996) ‘Chalandriani on Syros: an Early Bronze Age cemetery in the Cyclades’, AE 133
(1994), 47–74
— (2003) The Early Bronze Age Cemetery at Chalandriani on Syros (Cyclades, Greece) (Assen)
Karantzali, E. (1996) Le Bronze Ancien dans les Cyclades et en Crète: les relations entre les deux régions
influence de la Gréce Continentale (Oxford)
MacGillivray, J.A. (1980) ‘Mount Kynthos in Delos: the Early Cycladic settlement’, Bulletin de corre-
spondance hellénique 104, 3–45
Manning, S.W. (1994) ‘The emergence of divergence: development and decline on Bronze Age Crete and
the Cyclades’, in C. Mathers and S. Stoddart (eds), Development and Decline in the Mediterranean
Bronze Age (Sheffield) 221–70
— (1995) The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age: Archaeology, Radiocarbon and
History (Sheffield)
Marangou, L. (1984) ‘Evidence for the Early Cycladic Period on Amorgos’, in J.L. Fitton (ed.), Cycladica:
Studies in Memory of N.P. Goulandris. Proceedings of the 7th British Museum Classical Colloquium,
June 1983 (London) 99–103

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 147

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

— (1994) ‘Νέες μαρτυρίες για τον Κυκλαδικό πολιτισμό στην Αμοργό’, in C. Tzouvara-Souli, A.
Vlachopoulou-Oikonomou and C. Gravani-Katsiki (eds), ΦΗΓΟΣ, Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Καθηγητή
Σ. Δάκαρη (Ioannina) 467–88
— (2006a) ‘The discovery of the settlement and the investigations in 1985’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas,
C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age
Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 3–8
— (2006b) ‘The architecture’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή
Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991
Investigations (London) 81–93
— (2006c) ‘The settlement archaeology of Amorgos’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G.
Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement.
Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 256–57
Marthari, M. (1997) ‘Από τον Σκάρκο στην Πολιόχνη: Παρατηρήσεις για την κοινωνικοοικονομική
ανάπτυξη των οικισμών της Πρώιμης Εποχής του Χαλκού στις Κυκλάδες και τα νησιά του
βορειοανατολικού Αιγαίου’, in C.G. Doumas and V. La Rosa (eds), Η Πολιόχνη και η Πρώιμη Εποχή
του Χαλκού στο βόρειο Αιγαίο. Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αθήνα, 22–25 Απριλίου 1996 (Athens) 362–82
— (1998) Σύρος. Χαλανδριανή-Καστρί. Από την έρευνα και την προστασία στην ανάδειξη του αρχαιολογικού
χώρου (Αthens)
— (1999) Το Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Ίου. Σύντομη περιήγηση στις αρχαιότητες της Ίου μέσω των
εκθεμάτων του Μουσείου (Athens)
— (2008a) ‘Aspects of pottery circulation in the Cyclades during the Early EB II period: fine and semi-
fine imported ceramic wares at Skarkos, Ios’, in N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew (eds),
‘Horizon-Ορίζων’: Α Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (Cambridge) 71–84
— (2008b) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2006), 111–19
— (2010a) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2007), 49–53
— (2010b) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2008), 87–92
— (2012a) ‘Αποκαταστάσεις-Διαμορφώσεις-Καθαρισμοί. Ίος. Σκάρκος (2002–2004)’, ADelt 56–59
(2001–2004) Chr., 140–41
— (2012b) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2009), 141–44
— (2013) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2010), 113–18
— (2014) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2011), 85–86
— (2015a) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2012), 107–10
— (2015b) ‘Ανασκαφή στο Καστρί Χαλανδριανής Σύρου’, Prakt (2013), 333–34
— (2017) ‘Cycladic figurines in settlements: the case of the major EC II settlement at Skarkos on Ios’, in
M. Marthari, C. Renfrew and M.J. Boyd (eds), Early Cycladic Sculpture in Context (Oxford and
Philadelphia) 119–64
Μastrotheodoros, G. and Bassiakos, Y. (2014) ‘Αναλυτικές και τεχνολογικές μελέτες χάλκινων
αντικειμένων από την ακρόπολη στο Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου’, in Α.
Angelopoulou, Κορφάρι των Αμυγδαλιών (Πάνορμος) Νάξου. Μία οχυρωμένη Πρωτοκυκλαδική
ακρόπολη (Αthens) 458–73
Mellink, M.J. and Lawrence Angel, J. (1966) ‘Excavations at Karataş-Semayük in Lycia, 1965’, AJA 70,
245–57
— (1970) ‘Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1969’, AJA 74, 245–59
— (1973) ‘Excavations at Karataş-Semayük and Elmalı, Lycia, 1972’, AJA 77, 293–307
Renfrew, C. (1972) The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium
BC (London)
— (1982a) ‘Prehistoric exchange’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity: The Archae-
ology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge) 222–27
— (1982b) ‘Bronze Age Melos’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff (eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology
of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge) 35–43

148 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Early Cycladic fortified settlements

— (2006) ‘Markiani in perspective’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds),

Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the
1985–1991 Investigations (London) 247–56
— (2013) ‘The role of the settlement at Dhaskalio: an overview’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie,
G. Gavalas and M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins
of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of 2006–2008 1 (Cambridge) 705–21
Renfrew, C., Gavalas, G. and Sotirakopoulou, P. (2013) ‘The development of the excavation: stratigraphy
and phasing’, in C. Renfrew, O. Philaniotou, N. Brodie, G. Gavalas and M.J. Boyd (eds), The Settlement
at Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of
2006–2008 1 (Cambridge) 63–77
Renfrew, C., Marangou, L. and Doumas, C. (2006) ‘Outline of excavations 1988–1990’, in L. Marangou,
C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas (eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze
Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 25–69
Renfrew, C., Philaniotou, O., Brodie N., Gavalas, G. and Boyd, M.J. (2015) Kavos and the Special
Deposits. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice: The Excavations of
2006–2008 2 (Cambridge)
Rutter, J.B. (1979) Ceramic Change in the Aegean Early Bronze Age: The Kastri Group, Lefkandi I and
Lerna IV: A Theory Concerning the Origin of Early Helladic III Ceramics, (Los Angeles)
— (1983) ‘Some observations on the Cyclades in the later third and early second millennia’, AJA 87, 69–
76
Schofield, E. (1998) ‘Town planning at Ayia Irini, Kea’, in L.G. Mendoni and A. Mazarakis Ainian (eds),
Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology (Athens) 117–22
Sotirakopoulou, P. (1993) ‘The chronology of the “Kastri Group” reconsidered’, BSA 88, 5–20
— (2008) ‘The Cyclades, the east Aegean islands and the western Asia Minor: their relations in the Aegean
Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age’, in H. Erkanal, H. Hauptmann, V. Şahoğlu and R. Tuncel (eds),
The Aegean in the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age (Ankara) 533–57
— (2016) The Pottery from Dhaskalio. The Sanctuary on Keros and the Origins of Aegean Ritual Practice:
The Excavations of 2006–2008 4 (Cambridge)
Stampolidis, N.C. and Sotirakopoulou P. (2011) ‘Early Cycladic architecture’, in V. Şahoğlu and P.
Sotirakopoulou (eds), Across: The Cyclades and Western Anatolia During the Third Millennium BC
(Istanbul) 32–40
Stos-Gale, Z.A., Gale, N.H. and Gilmore, G.R. (1984) ‘Early Bronze Age Trojan metal sources and Anato-
lians in the Cyclades’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 3.3, 23–43
Televantou, C.A. (2006a) ‘Ο οικισμός του Στρόφιλα στην Άνδρο’, in A. Sampson (ed.), Προϊστορία του
Αιγαίου. Παλαιολιθική-Μεσολιθική-Νεολιθική (Athens) 185–94
— (2006b) ‘Προϊστορική Άνδρος’, in Ν. Stampolidis (ed.), Γενέθλιον (Athens) 4–11
— (2007) ‘Ανιχνεύοντας τον ρόλο της Άνδρου κατά τους προϊστορικούς χρόνους’, Νήσος Άνδρος.
Παράδοση, Πολιτισμός, Περιβάλλον, Ανάπτυξη, Κοινωνία (Athens) 61–97
— (2008) ‘Strofilas: a Neolithic settlement on Andros’, in N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas and C. Renfrew
(eds), ‘Horizon-Ορίζων’: Α Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (Cambridge) 43–53
— (2012) ‘Ανασκαφή Στρόφιλα Άνδρου’, Prakt (2009), 119–40
— (2013) ‘Ανασκαφή Στρόφιλα Άνδρου’, Prakt (2010), 119–21
— (2014) ‘Ανασκαφή Στρόφιλα Άνδρου’, Prakt (2011), 87–91
— (2015a) ‘Ανασκαφή Στρόφιλα Άνδρου’, Prakt (2012), 111–13
— (2015b) ‘Ανασκαφή Στρόφιλα Άνδρου’, Prakt (2013), 185–89
Τsountas, C. (1899) ‘Κυκλαδικά ΙI’, AE 17, 73–134
Wagstaff, M. and Cherry J.F. (1982) ‘Settlement and population change’, in C. Renfrew and M. Wagstaff
(eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge) 136–55
Warner, J. (1979) ‘The megaron and apsidal house in EBA western Anatolia: new evidence from Karataş’,
AJA 83, 133–47

Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017 | 149

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108
 Archaeology in Greece 2016–2017

Warren, P.M. and Hankey, V. (1989) Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol)
Whitelaw, T. (2006) ‘The surface survey of 1987’, in L. Marangou, C. Doumas, C. Renfrew and G. Gavalas
(eds), Μαρκιανή Αμοργού/Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of
the 1985–1991 Investigations (London) 9–24
Wiencke Heath, M. (2000) Lerna: A Preclassical Site in the Argolid. The Architecture, Stratification and
Pottery of Lerna III 4 (Princeton)
Wilson, D.Ε. (1999) Ayia Irini, Periods I–III: The Neolithic and Early Bronge Age Settlements. Part 1:
The Pottery and Small Finds. Keos 9 (Mainz)
Wilson, D.E. and Eliot, M. (1984) ‘Ayia Irini, period III: the last phase of occupation at the EBA
settlement’, in J.A. MacGillivray and R.L.N. Barber (eds), The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions
to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (Edinburgh) 78–87

150 | Archaeological Reports for 2016–2017

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. HKUST Library, on 15 Feb 2018 at 10:08:55, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0570608418000108