Late Bronze Age Settlement History of Emporio on Chios Reconsidered

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2, 32–51 Late Bronze Age Settlement History of Emporio on Chios Reconsidered Kristina Jarošová ABSTRACT This paper proposes arevision of the Late Bronze Age ceramic sequence from the eastern Aegean island of Chios. More specifically, it puts forth anew stratigraphic and typological assessment of the Late Bronze Age ceramic material from Areas D, E, and F at the settlement of Emporio. As the 2nd millennium BC deposits originally seemed to have been of disturbed and mixed nature, the pottery from these deposits was dated by its excavator only typologically, not having been assigned to any well -defined periods. However, due to the preservation of arelatively precise documentation from the excavations it is now possible to reconstruct the original stratigraphic contexts, which, upon closer inspection, seem to be far less disturbed than expected. As aresult, three Late Bronze Age occupation periods at Emporio have been identified, corresponding roughly to the Early Mycenaean, Palatial Mycenaean, and Post -palatial Mycenaean periods on the Greek mainland, equivalent to Troy VI and VII on the Anatolian coast. This paper thus presents this new periodisation and suggests up -to -date chronological correlations for the previously identified strata. KEYWORDS Aegean; Late Bronze Age; pottery; chronology; Minoanisation; Mycenaeanisation; Interface. INTRODUCTION The pottery from Emporio was originally published by its excavator, Sinclair Hood, in 1981 and 1982 (Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Excavations in Chios 1938−1955, Volume Iand Volume II). As the 2nd millennium BC deposits seemed to have been of avery disturbed and mixed nature, Hood dated all the pottery from these deposits predominantly typologically and did not assign them to any well -defined periods, in contrast to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) sequence. The EBA sequence in the main excavation Area Aended during what Hood termed Period I, contemporary with Troy IIg/III and Poliochni Giallo phase. According to Hood, the next well -stratified strata come only from the end of the 2nd millennium BC, roughly equivalent to Late Helladic (LH) IIIC. Hood established three artificial horizons for the 2nd millennium BC sequence in- -between EBA and LH IIIC without any well -stratified contexts or relevant architecture. First, any fragments that looked chronologically earlier to him but did not seem to have been of EBA II style anymore, were grouped together as Troy III−V. Second, he suggested aMiddle Bronze Age (MBA) phase, which he deemed contemporary with Troy VI and in which he included all of the matt -painted and grey ware finds. And finally, he isolated aso -called ‘pre -Mycenaean’ group, in which he included the rest of the unpainted pottery, which did not look obviously ‘Mycenaean’ in character without providing any further specification (as first pointed out by Pavúk 2010, 939–940; for the description of excavations in Areas D, E, and F see Hood 1981, 147–164; Hood 1982, 568–622). His naming of the strata reflects this uncertainty, as he used the term ‘periods’ for the earlier strata and the term ‘stages’ for the strata postdating Period I, with added Arabic numerals in Area F and Roman numerals in area D for further subdivisions. 33KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ Thanks to the preciseness of his documentation, it was possible to reconstruct the original stratigraphic contexts, which are far less disturbed compared to what Hood expected. The more recent re -examinations have demonstrated more clearly that contexts were not contaminated by later building activities as much as had been thought previously. First, the re -examination of the finds in the Archaeological Museum of Chios by Peter Pavúk1 showed that both the artificially created group called Troy III–V, most of the matt -painted pottery, as well as alarge part of the so -called pre -Mycenaean pottery actually all belong to asingle horizon dating roughly to the Early Mycenaean period (termed preliminarily LB 1 here). The grey ware finds comprise only afew sherds in Emporio and come from distinctive levels. With several different fabrics represented, all of them seem to have been imported and can be broadly considered as Anatolian grey ware. However, typologically these pieces have not been assigned to any given period so far (Pavúk 2010, 939; Girella– Pavúk 2015, 403; Girella– Pavúk 2016, 21). The present work builds upon preliminary results of Pavúk’sanalysis. He has entrusted me with further elaboration of his initial work, which targeted the Early Mycenaean period exclusively. For my Master Thesis at Charles University in Prague, Ihave included and sequenced all of the post -EB II material published from Emporio. Using the stratigraphic information provided by Hood, Ireconstructed all of the original contexts as fully as possible, including the better -preserved LH IIIC ones, which have never been presented contextually (Jarošová 2016). The newly reconstructed potential stratigraphic levels have been typologically dated anew, following the up -to -date information from western Anatolian coastal sites, which was not available to Hood back in his days, combined with better knowledge of the Mycenaean pottery and the re -assessment of the finds from Emporio by Penelope Mountjoy (1998, 53–67; 1999, 1147–1155). The following pages briefly describe the site of Emporio, concentrating on its re -defined stratigraphy, chronology, and pottery classification from all areas that yielded relevant Late Bronze Age (LBA) levels. This article ultimately offers anew definition of individual wares. Important comparison with the Aegean, and especially the area of the so -called eastern Aegean– western Anatolian Interface, will be also discussed, as well as the issue of settlement dis-/continuity. All of this effort has been on purpose primarily based exclusively on the previously published material only. Afull restudy of the material published by Hood, which is now stored in the Chios Museum, will be presented together with P.Pavúk in aseparate paper.2 The so -far unpublished material which is currently being investigated by the present author will be published once the study is fully completed. THE SITE OF EMPORIO: STRATIGRAPHY AND COMMENTS ON SINCLAIR HOOD’SEXCAVATIONS The Emporio site lies in the south -eastern part of Chios in the municipality unit Mastichochoria (with Pyrgi as the largest village), situated on the southern end of the modern Emporio village harbour (Fig. 1). This southern end comprises arocky promontory (the so -called Acropolis hill), with alittle harbour that offers good anchorage and afavourable landing place on the southern and eastern part of Chios between Chios Town and Kato Phana, another site with LBA finds and alook -out post (also possibly aharbour), lying only 9 km from Emporio 1 Who studied the pottery in October 2009. 2 Amore detailed assessment will be published in the Annual of the British School at Athens. 34 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 1: Map of Emporio Acropolis and Bay with excavation areas (after Hood 1981, fig. 47; courtesy of The British School at Athens). 35KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ (Beaumont 1999; 2004; 2007, 143). Majority of the prehistoric sites on Chios have never been systematically examined with the exceptions of Emporio, Kato Phana in the south, and Ayio Gala in the north (for the first thorough list of prehistoric sites see Hood 1981, 2–9; amore extensive overview was compiled later by Yalouris 1986). Sinclair Hood directed works on Chios for the British School at Athens from 1952 to 1955. He noticed asettlement at Emporio for the first time in 1952, and excavations started during the same year. The main emphasis was put on the excavations of prehistoric levels, with aspecial focus on settlement stratigraphy, including important Bronze Age deposits. According to brief preliminary reports and the final publication of Prehistoric Emporio (Hood 1981; 1982), his main observations about the settlement at Emporio and its prehistoric material can be summarised as follows. The majority of the prehistoric material recovered here belongs to early periods, that is from the beginning of the Early Neolithic to the beginning of EBA (in Aegean terms). This ‘early’ material was divided by Hood into ten periods (designated as Period X−I), based on major building developments and differences in pottery from Area A, which includes only early prehistoric levels. The ten periods fall into five main groups, which are marked by distinct changes in pottery fashions from the earliest parts of the Early Neolithic (Period X as the earliest) through to EBA (with the first wheel -made pottery in Period I; Hood 1981, 85–91; Hood 1982, vii–viii, 715–725; for amore recent re -assessment of this earlier material from both Ayio Gala and Emporio see Alram -Stern 1996, 474–480; Schoop 2005, 235–237, 258–259, Taf. 143–146; Lambrechts 2014; Schwall 2018, 86–89, Abb. 11). At Emporio, the 2nd millennium BC levels with architectural remains were preserved mainly in Areas D and F, together with built tombs in Area E. Unfortunately, all these areas have been exposed to erosion and disturbances since antiquity, especially during Roman and Byzantine building activities, and some of the levels are therefore mixed. As has been foreshadowed at the beginning of this article, these levels are, in fact, less mixed than it was originally thought. Before Iembark on ashort description of individual areas, for the sake of clarity it should be noted that individual excavation areas were composed of trenches, and both the areas and the trenches were labelled by partly identical capital letters, which causes some confusion for the reader today. Area D is situated on the western slope of the Acropolis hill (Hood 1981, 147–150, figs. 79–81). Here, two trenches contained 2 nd millennium BC material: Trenches Q and M. While Trench M did not actually contain any 2 nd millennium BC deposits, and the excavated Mycenaean sherds were intrusive in the EBA strata, the adjoining Trench Q, on the contrary, did not include any earlier Bronze Age deposits, but showed evidence for two Mycenaean building phases. Sinclair Hood named them Stage Iand Stage II (Hood 1982, 150). The earlier one of these (Stage I) ended with adestruction by fire (the burnt debris in Hoods’ Levels 4, 5, and 6). Fragments of LH IIIB pottery (Level 7) were found under the floor level of StageI. Numerous fragments of LH IIIC pottery came from the level above the floor. Stage II, on the other hand, remained poorly preserved, but several LH IIIC pottery fragments were excavated there. Area E likely represents remains of acemetery, situated on the adjacent slope and west of the Acropolis hill. Only two cist graves (Tomb 3 and Tomb 4) were preserved. Interestingly, there was an EBA II chamber tomb just higher up the gentle slope (Hood 1981, 150–153, fig. 83, pl. 29 d, e). While Tomb 4 was empty, Tomb 3 contained Mycenaean decorated pottery of aLH IIIB date (Hood 1982, 582–583, fig. 260, pl. 117:a; Mountjoy 1999, 1149). LH IIIB tombs of the same type have been documented at Archontiki on the neighbouring island of Psara, where aMycenaean cemetery was in use from LH IIB to LHIIIC. Except for afew tombs, all of the burial structures were orientated north– south (just as at Emporio Tomb 3, but no traces of body were preserved in this tomb; Charitonidis 1961–1962, 266; Hood 1981, 152–153, fig. 83; 36 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Achilara 1996; Archontidou -Argyri 2006, 41). Similar cist graves to those at Psara have been found at Panaztepe (Erkanal -Öktü 2018, 54–57, Taf. 96, 98, 99), and less well defined cist graves have also been detected at Makara on Lesbos (Charitonidis 1961–1962, 265) and Beşik Tepe in the north (e.g., alikely LH IIIA2 Cist 75 with aslab; Basedow 2000, 49, Taf. XXXVI:1). Area F is situated on the northern edge of the Acropolis hill, overlooking the shielded Harbour bay (Hood 1981, 154–164, figs. 88–95). Several soundings were made below the Roman occupation levels: Trenches S, F, D, B, K, L, and J, revealing 3 m deep Bronze Age deposits, partly located on quite asteep slope. Unlike in Area D, Hood defined eight stages here designated by Arab numerals. Level 8 was of apost -Bronze Age date, but the contexts were still pre -Roman, likely belonging to an Archaic phase yet to be defined at the site. Two clearly dated LBA building phases were distinguished in this area. They were named Stage 6 and Stage 7 by Hood. While the latter one was considered a‘Mycenaean’ building phase belonging to Final LH IIIC (Stage 7), the date of the earlier period (Stage 6) could not be securely assigned and was therefore termed ‘Pre -Mycenaean’ by Hood. Nevertheless, pottery from both stages was presented in the final publication all together and conceptualised as Mycenaean (even though Hood pointed out that pottery coming from Stage 6 could also be earlier and non -Mycenaean in character; Hood 1982, 579–580). Thus, lumping together Stages 6 and 7 has made amore specific dating of Stage 6 problematic, and overall Hood’sterm ‘pre -Mycenaean’ is of relatively little help (Hood 1981, 158–161). In any case, the later LBA building phase ended with adestruction and final abandonment during LHIIIC. In order to better understand the stratigraphy in Area F, one needs to start at the beginning of the sequence, even if briefly. Here, Stages 1–4 clearly belong to EBA, with the latest Stage 4 said to have been contemporary with Troy II (Hood 1981, 154). The major question, therefore, concerns what happened between the end of the EBA and the beginning of the LBA sequence. Even though Hood mentioned repeatedly that there is no evidence for any architectural remains or deposits in areas excavated at Emporio that would have come from the later part of EBA (Hood 1981, x, 158; Hood 1982, 568), he nevertheless created an artificial Stage 5 to bridge the settlement gap. Based on pottery fragments, which to him seemed older than the main LBA group and which were considered contemporary with Troy III−V, acontinuity of occupation throughout EBA into,MBA was suggested. However, the existence of,MBA is another point of contention at Emporio, as it is based mostly on fragments of grey and matt -painted wares thought to be contemporary with TroyVI. Yet, there is almost no evidence of architectural remains that could be dated to this period. Only Wall 30 in Area F was identified as apossible candidate (Hood 1981, x, 158−161, fig. 88; for the originally devised pottery groups see Hood 1982, 568−578, fig. 254−257). NEW EXAMINATION AND PERIODISATION OF POTTERY FINDS FROM EMPORIO As stated above, the ceramic material found mainly in Areas D, E, and F was originally published only typologically and with little consideration for stratigraphy, as Hood thought that it was all coming from disturbed strata. However, Pavúk (2010) noticed that the finds described as ‘Pre -Mycenaean’ do cluster in Hood’sStage 6 (in Area F) and Pre -Stage I(in AreaD) and that their association does make sense if one approaches the Chian assemblage from aWestern Anatolian point of view, so to speak, in the sense that vessels from Emporio seem to reflect shapes known in western Anatolia and not on the Greek mainland. It was thus decided to re -analyse the assemblage and reconstruct all of the original stratigraphic contexts 37KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ using Hood’sindications (Jarošová 2016). As will be shown in the following pages, this was aworth -while undertaking. Since Hood’snotebook sections indicated all identified levels for each trench, and since he indicated to which level almost every single published piece belonged, it was decided to try and follow these original assignments and reconstruct the original contexts as excavated by Hood. Best results were achieved for Trench Q in Area D and for Trenches B, D, and F in Area F. Plates with pottery drawings were created accordingly as well. For the non -Mycenaean shapes, anew terminology was introduced based on the knowledge of pottery shapes from Anatolia and the surrounding islands. Retaining Hood’soriginal stage designations by trench, each stratum was dated anew in relative terms (by ceramic typologies and in respect to vertical stratigraphy) (Fig. 2). While the earlier post -EBA strata were dated using comparative examples from other sites on the eastern Aegean islands and western Anatolian coast, the new dating of the stratigraphically later contexts has been based on Mycenaean painted pottery, which has been more precisely dated by Mountjoy (1998, 53–67 and Mountjoy 1999, 1147–1155). Not only did this detailed examination confirm Pavúk’sobservation that the artificially created group called Troy III–V, most of the matt -painted pottery, as well as the so -called pre -Mycenaean pottery actually all belong to the same horizon dating roughly to the Early Mycenaean period, but also anew dating of the Emporio sequence could be proposed, which now complements and supersedes the one suggested by Girella and Pavúk (2016, fig. 2.5). The LBA settlement sequence at Emporio can now be divided into three broad horizons termed preliminarily here LB 1, 2, and 3: LB 1 covers the Early Mycenaean period on the Greek mainland (LH I–II), followed by apossible gap during LH IIIA. LB 2, corresponding to the PaFig. 2: Updated chronology of the Late Bronze Age levels at the site of Emporio (after Jarošová 2016). Chios, Emporio Area, Trench Level New relative dating Hood’s stages D, Q 7 LH IIIB Pre–I D, Q 6, 5, 4, 3 LH IIIC Middle I D, Q 2 LH IIIC Late II E, Tomb 3 LH IIIB F, B 7, 6 LH I–II 6 F, B 5 LH IIIC Middle 7 F, B 4 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, B 2 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, B 1 LH IIIC Late 7 F, D 5 LH I–II 6 F, D 4 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, D 3 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, D 2 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, D 1 LH IIIC Middle–Late 7 F, F 3 and 2 LH I–II 6 F, F 1 LH IIIC Middle 7 38 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 3: Representative selection of pottery dated to the LB 1 period. 1–9, 11–12– unpainted; 10– matt‑ ‑painted; 13, 14– coarse. All to scale 1:3, unless stated otherwise. Adjusted after Hood 1982; courtesy of The British School at Athens. 39KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ latial period on the Greek mainland, is evidenced by LH IIIB strata in AreaD. There might be another short gap during LH IIIC Early, followed by awell -evidenced settlement in LH IIIC Middle and Late, constituting the local LB 3. The ceramic developments can be summarised as follows: LB 1 (c. LH Iand LH II) includes matt -painted pottery and local unpainted pottery including some kitchen wares and pithoi. Among especially distinctive open shapes are conical cups (Fig. 3:1, 3), ogival handleless cups (Fig. 3:4), S -cups (Fig. 3:2, 5), and bead -rim bowls (Fig. 3:7). Representative closed shapes are tea -pots/bridge spouted jars (Fig. 3:8), trefoil mouthed jugs (Fig. 3:9, 11), and jugs with cutaway spout (Fig. 3:10). LB 2 (c. [LH IIIA?]–LH IIIB) constitutes the smallest segment of LBA pottery from the site. It consists mainly of local unpainted pottery and afew Mycenaean painted vases (of avery good quality, though it is unclear whether local or imported), and some grey ware sherds (which are likely imported). Among representative types are conical cups (Fig. 4:1), thick- -walled deep round bowls with horizontal handles (Fig. 4:6, 7), kylikes, from which FS 258 is very frequent in the painted variant, but the unpainted class also occurs often (Fig. 4:4, 5), jugs with circular mouth (Fig. 4:8), stirrup jars (FS 182) (Hood 1982, pl. 126:2848, 2849), and various types of small to medium jars. Another representative shape is the large Mycenaean flask (FS 186/189) (Fig. 4:9). The cist grave from Area E yielded Mycenaean painted pottery that contained amug (FS 226), abowl with one handle (FS 244), and an alabastron (FS 94), which are also common shapes of the period (Fig. 4:2, 3, 10). LB 3 (c. LH IIIC) includes the highest amount of pottery from the LBA strata. This group includes some of the grey ware but consists mainly of local unpainted ware and Mycenaean painted ware (see representative shapes in Fig. 5). The most commonly represented shapes are carinated cups (Fig. 5:7), kylikes (FS 275) (Fig. 5:3), ledge -rim bowls (Fig. 5:1), kalathoi (FS 291) (Fig. 5:2, 9; for the interior design see Hood 1982, pl. 121:2758), as well as basins, kraters, jugs, and different types of variously sized jars. Cooking jugs and pithoi are also present (see representative examples on Fig. 6; pithoi of this period are mentioned in the text below). Among the most frequent Mycenaean shapes of this period are deep bowls with horizontal handles (FS 285) (Fig. 5:4), small bowls with one horizontal handle (FS 242) (Fig. 5:6), hydriae (FS 128) (Fig. 5:11), amphorae (FS 70) (Fig. 5:10), ring -based kraters (FS 282), and stirrup jars (FS 175). An amphoriskos (FS 59) is an exceptional shape (Fig. 5:8). NEW CLASSIFICATION OF POTTERY WARES The pottery from Emporio has now been re -classified into six different ware -groups: matt- -painted ware, local unpainted ware, Mycenaean painted ware, grey ware, kitchen ware, and pithoi. Anew typological terminology has been established, reflecting better the ‘Pre- -Mycenaean’ part of the pottery sequence, which does not match the standard Mycenaean shapes according to Furumark’stypology (Jarošová 2016). This re -classification has also been based on autopsy in the Archaeological Museum of Chios, conducted by the author in years 2017–2019. Both local and imported wares/fabrics have been distinguished, but planned petrography will provide final assessment of these groupings. The majority of the finds seems to be of local origins, and only some of the Mycenaean painted wares (especially the LH IIIB ones) and likely all of the grey wares seem to have been imported (Pavúk 2010). Hood suspected also one piece of matt -painted ware to be imported, but that remains to be verified (Hood 1982, 574, 578; pl. 115a:2681). 40 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 4: Representative selection of pottery dated to the LB 2 period. 1, 5–8– unpainted; 2–4, 9–10– Mycenaean painted. All to scale 1:3, unless stated otherwise. Adjusted after Hood 1982; courtesy of The British School at Athens. 47KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ PITHOI The pithoi at Emporio are of alocal character. They have been found primarily in Area F. This coarse ware is very hard fired, contains inclusions of small stones and commonly also mica (including gold mica). Sherds are usually orange or grey in the break and pale orange or reddish on the surface. The surface of the vessels is usually left plain or washed in pale brown colour, smoothed or slightly burnished. One fragment was painted (Hood 1982, pl. 119b:2906). Principally, the pithoi are of the necked -type with ring or flat base, with raised bands on the body, or decorated with horizontal grooves. The height of the vessels is estimated to be up to 1 meter (Hood 1982, 611–612). Atypical pithos usually has two or three horizontal handles (for more illustrations, see Hood 1982, fig. 276:2900, 2901), but avariant with alternating vertical and horizontal handles is also present (Fig. 3:14). Acomparable vessel has been found in Panaztepe (Erkanal -Öktü 2018, 87, Taf. 85:AH 1) and is considered to be an import from Chios by the excavator. Further parallels for the variety with three horizontal handles can be found at Ayia Irini on Kea (Caskey 1972, 397, pl. 94: H 29) and afragment with horizontal ribs comes from the Chian settlement of Volissos: Levkathia (Hood 1982, 8). MINOANISATION AND MYCENAEANISATION Emporio seems to have been re -settled at the end of the AegeanMBA or early in LBA; ahiatus is now expected for the most ofMBA. It shows an interesting mix of island cultures with Anatolian elements (Girella − Pavúk 2015, 404). In amore restricted context, the island of Chios plays an important role for the overall assessment of the so -called eastern Aegean– western Anatolian Interface (Mountjoy 1998). In the case of the Aegean Bronze Age, this material informs on the processes of Minoanisation (Broodbank 2004; Knappett– Nikolakopoulou 2008) and Mycenaeanisation (Mountjoy 1998; Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella 2016). If we accept Mountjoy’s(1998) division of the eastern Aegean into the Upper and Lower Interface, it is important to reconsider the position of the island of Chios in terms of the Interface. According to Mountjoy, Chios should belong to the Upper part (Mountjoy 1998, fig. 1). However, the site has now shown many links to the south during the LB 1 period (which is also the case of Çeşme -Bağlararası, located on the opposite Anatolian coast), which makes it worthwhile to consider the new concept of ‘Central Interface’ (Girella– Pavúk 2016, 34). The nature of the Minoan and Mycenaean involvement on the island of Chios, as seen predominantly through the pottery and small finds, can now be described as follows. Emporio was likely deserted during the so -called ‘Pre -contact Stage’ of Minoanisation in,MBA, as defined by Girella and Pavúk (2016). There are only afew items (e.g. pendant mould, see Hood 1982, pl. 137:39) that can be considered as belonging to the ‘Contact Stage’. In contrast, the so -called ‘Hybrid Stage’ is now mostly well represented by the matt -painted pottery and by several Aegean/Minoan shapes of the local LB1 period (Girella– Pavúk 2016, 18–24). As far as the Mycenaean influence (or Mycenaeanisation) at Emporio is concerned, we have evidence from LH IIIB onward from both the settlement and funerary context. While non- -Mycenaean shapes continue to be used during LH IIIB, possibly in the tradition of hybrid shapes found already in the preceding period, the LH IIIC period seems to be entirely Mycenaean in terms of shape forms and the fact that Mycenaean shapes were clearly imitated in local ware. Overall, the LB 1 period shows hybrid material culture with some influences in pottery from the southern Aegean, stemming mainly from the earlier process of Minoanisation. The next 48 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 period, LB 2, corresponds chronologically with the Mycenaean palatial period and shows an integration of Mycenaean forms into the local culture, for example through imports of LH IIIB Mycenaean painted pottery, but many non -Mycenaean shapes are present. The last period, LB 3, is defined completely by Mycenaean features and mass production of locally imitated Mycenaean painted pottery. The absence of clear LH IIIA2 material is actually surprising, as it is this phase that is well represented at almost all sites in the eastern Aegean, yielding Mycenaean pottery. CONCLUSIONS This article presents the first results of anew re -evaluation of the published ceramic material from the site of Emporio on Chios. All of the published 2nd millennium BC pottery from the site was newly sorted according to the original stratigraphic contexts, re -evaluated, and re- -dated. This new evaluation makes it now possible to assign the majority of the pottery into three major horizons: LB 1 (roughly contemporary with LH I–II on the Greek mainland), LB 2 (roughly LH IIIB), and LB 3 (LH IIIC Middle and LH IIIC Late).7 This redating also changes the originally -postulated theories about continuity and discontinuity of the settlement activities throughout the Bronze Age. Ahiatus can now be detected between the end of EBA II and the beginning of LBA. Short occupation gaps possibly occurred during LH IIIA and LH IIIC Early. Afew sherds from the Archaic period aside (Hood’sStage 8), the site was fully re -occupied only in the Roman period. Re -assessed here are two main excavation areas with evidence for the 2 nd millennium BC.In Area F on the Acropolis Hill there were two major building phases dated to LBA: Stage 6 (‘Pre -Mycenaean’) and Stage 7 (‘Mycenaean’). The analysis showed that Sinclair Hood’sloosely defined ‘pre -Mycenaean’ phase can now be dated to the early part of LBA (ca. LH Ito LH II). This early phase is directly followed by anew settlement dating to LH IIIC Middle and Late. There is currently no evidence for habitation on the said terrace during LH IIIA, but individual residual LH IIIB sherds were present in the LH IIIC strata and on the surface. Area D, aterrace on the western slope of the acropolis Hill, shows aslightly different chronological sequence. Here, the early part of LBA is barely preserved. Almost directly on the bedrock is ahabitation stratum termed pre -Stage Iby Hood. This can be now dated to LH IIIB, adating that has not been properly recognised before.8 Two following building phases in Area D were termed Stage Iand Stage II by Hood. Both phases can be dated to LH IIIC, but it seems that almost all fragments dated by Mountjoy to LH IIIC Middle concentrate in StageI. The following Stage II is less well preserved and of amore mixed character, yielding both LH IIIC Middle and IIIC Late pottery. While Stage Ideposit was destroyed by fire, the cause of the end of Stage II is not clear (Hood 1981, 149–150). 7 Should, in the future, evidence for habitation contemporary with LH IIIA appear, it can be hypothesised that it will likely belong to LB 2, given the developmental tendencies on other eastern Aegean Islands, as currently understood. 8 Apossibly non -contaminated or closed character of the stratum was first recognised by Girella and Pavúk (2016), who dated it to LH IIIA2. This contribution’ssuggested dating to LH IIIB is based on the full -scale re -evaluation of the material, which matches the date of the cist -grave in the nearby Area E. 49KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The text of this paper was prepared as part of the ‘Along Interface’ Project, funded by the Czech Science Foundation (Award 17-19746S). Iwould like to thank the British School at Athens for granting the necessary permissions to study and re -publish the 2nd millennium BC finds from Emporio and the Ephorate of Antiquities of Chios for making the assessment of finds stored in the Archaeological Museum of Chios possible. Special thanks go to Peter Pavúk, the supervisor of my MA thesis. ABBREVIATIONS FM: Furumark Motive (after Furumark 1941) FS: Furumark Shape (after Furumark 1941) BIBLIOGRAPHY Achilara, L. 1996: Mycenaean Events from Psara. In: E.L. De Miro– G.A. Sacconi (eds.): Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso internazionale di Micenologia. Incunabula Graeca 98. Roma, 1349–1353. Alram -Stern, E. 1996: Das Neolithikum in Griechenland, mit Ausnahme von Kreta und Zypern. Die Ägäische Frühzeit 2. Forschungsbericht 1975–1993. Wien. Archontidou -Argyri, A. 2006: Psara. Ena stathmos stin periphereia to Mykinaikou kosmou. Psara. Aykurt, A. 2010: Late Bronze Age Pottery from Çeşme Bağlararası. Olba 18, 1–63. Basedow,M.A. 2000: Beşik ‑Tepe. Das spätbronzezeitliche Gräberfeld. Studia Troica Monographien 1. Mainz am Rhein. Bayne, N. 2000: The Grey Wares of North–West Anatolia in the Middle and Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age and their Relation to the Early Greek Settlements. Asia Minor Studien 37. Bonn. Beaumont, L. 1999: New Work at Kato Phana, Chios. The Kato Phana Archaeological Project. Preliminary report for 1997 and 1998. The Annual of British School at Athens 94, 265–287. Beaumont, L. 2004: Excavations at Kato Phana, Chios: 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Annual of British School at Athens 99, 201–255. Beaumont, L. 2007: Chios. The Kato Phana Archaeological Project. In: J. Corbet– V. von Graeve– W.-D. Niemeier– K. Zimmermann (eds.): Frühes Ionien, eine Bestandsaufnahme. Milesische Forschungen 5. Berlin, 37–148. Lambrechts, B. 2014: Identity and Interaction in the Neolithic Island Aegean. The Production, Circulation and Consumption of Ceramic Vessels on Chios. Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 52, 65. Broodbank, C. 2004: Minoanisation. Proceedings of Cambridge Philological Society 50, 46–91. Buttler, W. 1935–1936: Vorgeschichtliches in der Stadt Samos. Nachträge. Athenische Mitteilungen 60/61, 184–200. Caskey, J.L. 1972: Investigation in Keos, PartII. AConspectus of the Pottery. Hesperia 41/3, 357–401. Charitonidis, S. 1961–1962: Archaiotites kai mnimeia ton nison Aigaiou. Archailogikon Deltion 17 B, 261–267. Cultraro, M. 2007: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Sequence in the Northern Aegean Islands. The Evidence of Poliochni, Lemnos. In: F. Felten– W. Gauß– R. Smetana (eds.): Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop held at Salzburg, October 31st to November 2nd, 2004. Ägina- -Kolonna. Forschungen und Ergebnisse 1. Wien, 323–332. 50 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Davis, J.L.– Cherry, J. 2007: The Cycladic Pottery from Late Bronze ILevels. In: A.C. Renfrew– N. Brodie– C. Morris– C. Scarre (eds.): Excavations atPhylakopi inMelos1974–1977. The Annual of British School at Athens, Suppl. 42. London, 265–306. Erkanal -Öktü, A. 2018: PanaztepeI. Die Friedhöfe von Panaztepe. Türk Tarih Kurumu 51a/1. Ankara. Erkanal, H.– Keskin, L. 2009: Relations between the Urla Peninsula and the Minoan World. In: C. Macdonald– E. Hallager– W.-D. Niemeier (eds.): The Minoans in the Central, Eastern and Northern Aegean. New Evidence. Acts of aMinoan Seminar 22–23 January 2005. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 8. Athens, 97–110. Furumark, A. 1941: The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification. Stockholm. Girella, L.– Pavúk, P.2015: Minoanisation, Acculturation, Hybridisation. The Evidence of the Minoan Presence in the North East Aegean between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. In: N. Stampolidis– Ç. Maner– K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul, 387–420. Girella, L.– Pavúk, P.2016: The Nature of Minoan and Mycenaean Involvement in Northeastern Aegean. In: Gorogianni– Pavúk– Girella (eds.) 2016, 15–42. Gorogianni, E.– Pavúk, P.– Girella, L. (eds.) 2016: Beyond Thalassocracies. Understanding Processes of Mi‑ noanisation and Mycenaeanisation in the Aegean. Oxford. Günel, S. 1999: PanaztepeII. Die Keramik von Panaztepe und ihre Bedeutung für Westkleinasien und die Ägäis im 2. Jahrtausend. Türk Tarih Kurumu VI/51. Ankara. Heidenreich, R.1935–1936: Vorgeschichtliches in der Stadt Samos. Die Funde. Athenische Mitteilungen 60/61, 125–183. Hood, S. 1981: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, I. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. 16. London. Hood, S. 1982: Prehistoric Emporio and Ayio Gala. Excavations in Chios 1938–1955, II. The Annual of the British School of Archaeology at Athens, Suppl. 16. London. Hood, S. 1986: Mycenaeans on Chios. In: J. Boardman– C.E. Vaphopoulou -Richardson (eds.): Chios. AConfer‑ ence at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford, 169–180. Jarošová, K. 2016: Keramika střední apozdní doby bronzové zlokality Emporio na ostrově Chios [Middle and Late Bronze Age Pottery from Emporio on Chios]. Unpublished,M.A. Thesis, defended at Charles University, Prague. Knappett, C.– Nikolakopoulou, I. 2008: Colonialism without Colonies? ABronze Age Case Study from Akrotiri, Thera. Hesperia 77/1, 1–42. Lamb, W. 1930–1931: Antissa. The Annual of the British School at Athens 32, 41–67. Lamb, W. 1936: Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos. Cambridge. Meriç, R.– Mountjoy, P.2002: Mycenaean Pottery from Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) in Ionia. APreliminary Report. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52, 79–98. Momigliano, N. 2012: Bronze Age Carian Iasos. Structures and Finds from the Area of the Roman Agora (c. 3000– 1500 BC). Missione Archeologica Italiana di Iasos 4. Roma. Mountjoy, P.A. 1998: The East Aegean–West Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age. Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48, 33–67. Mountjoy, P.A. 1999: Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. Rahden/Westf. Mountjoy, P.A. 2015: The East Aegean–West Anatolian Interface in the 12th Century BC. Some Aspects Arising from the Mycenaean Pottery. In: N. Stampolidis– Ç. Maner– K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul, 37–80. Pavúk, P.2010: Minyan or not. The Second Millennium Grey Ware in Western Anatolia and its Relation to Mainland Greece. In: A. Philippa -Touchais– G. Touchais– S. Voutsaki– J. Wright (eds.): MESOHELLADIKA. 51KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ The Greek Mainland in the Middle Bronze Age. International Conference, Athens, 8–12 March 2006. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Suppléments 52. Athens, 931–943. Schoop, U.D. 2005. Das anatolische Chalkolithikum. Eine chronologische Untersuchung zur vorbronzezeitlichen Kultursequenz im nördlichen Zentralanatolien und den angrenzenden Gebieten. Urgeschichtliche Studien 1. Remshalden. Schwall, Ch. 2018: Çukuriçi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. in Westanatolien und der Ostagäis. OREA 7. Wien. Şahoğlu, V. 2007: Çeşme -Bağlararası. ANew Excavation in Western Anatolia. In: F. Felten– W. Gauß– R. Smetana (eds.): Middle Helladic Pottery and Synchronisms. Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Salzburg, October 31st to November 2nd, 2004. Ägina -Kolonna, Forschungen und Ergebnisse 1. Wien, 309–322. Şahoğlu, V. 2015: Çeşme -Bağlararası. AWestern Anatolian Harbour Settlement at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. In: N. Stampolidis– Ç. Maner– K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Culture, Migration and Integration in the Aegean Islands and Western Anatolia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age. Istanbul, 593–608. Wrede, W. 1935–1936: Vorgeschichtliches in der Stadt Samos. Fundtatsachen. Athenische Mitteilungen 60/61, 112–124. Yalouris, E. 1986: Notes on the Topography of Chios. In: J. Boardman– C.E. Vaphopoulou -Richardson (eds.): Chios. AConference at the Homereion in Chios 1984. Oxford, 141–168. Zerner, C.W. 2008: The Middle Helladic Pottery, with the Middle Helladic Wares from Late Helladic Deposits and the Potters’ Marks. In: W.D. Taylour– R. Janko (eds.): Ayios Stephanos. Excavations at aBronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laconia. Annual of the British School at Athens, Suppl. 44. London, 177–298. Kristina Jarošová Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, CZ-11000 Prague 1 [email protected]