The prehistoric settlement beneath the Heraion on Samos deserves to be better known than it is, as it provides a nearly continuous stratified sequence beginning at least as early as the Middle Chalcolithic (last half of the 5th millennium BC) into the Middle Bronze Age. By the late Early Bronze Age (3rd millennium BC) it was one of the largest settlements in the Aegean and western Anatolia with its estimated 35,000 m2 enclosed in a circuit wall (surpassing in size well known EBA sites such as Troy or Kolonna on Aigina). Despite the “overburden” of the Archaic and later sanctuary buildings, some 2,500 m2 of the EBA settlement have been excavated, including a nearly 150-meter stretch of fortification wall also dating to the EBA. Since Milojčić’s 1961 publication of the 1953 and 1955 excavations (as Samos I), only preliminary reports of later excavations of the prehistoric levels have appeared, until the present volume in which Hans Peter Isler presents the results of the 1966 excavations to the north of the temenos wall of the sanctuary.[1]
This small excavation was undertaken in anticipation of expanding one of the excavation storage buildings located north (and outside) of the north wall of the sanctuary. Milojčić had excavated at least two levels of EBA architectural remains in an adjacent grid square (F6), so it was expected that the 40.5 x 10 m trench (squares G5-H5-H4)[2] would produce prehistoric remains that could be correlated with that earlier work. But the excavation was backfilled before an accurate state plan could be made, and the only plan (Plan 2) of the remains available is a measured sketch plan Isler had made in the field. The pottery was in bad shape in part due to the fiery destruction of the remains, but skillful restoration work over many years resulted in a large quantity of restored vessels of many shapes. Because of Isler’s other duties, the original 1976 manuscript languished unpublished. A study season in 2004, following additional restoration work on the ceramics, led to a revised manuscript that was not completed until 2018. Unfortunately, much in the volume reflects its 1976 origins, especially in the scholarship cited. Throughout the volume there is little bibliography from the last decades beyond references to some of the recent work at the Heraion, cited in the context of discussing the history of excavations of the prehistoric settlement in chapter 1.
Despite these issues, Isler presents us with a very large body of ceramics and small finds from several closed contexts, all dating to the destruction of the settlement at the end of the Heraion IV phase, that is, the penultimate phase of the EBA at the Heraion as outlined by Milojčić (i.e., EB III). The 1966 trench is most likely contemporary with the nearby Heraion IV “Megaron” I and Magazine excavated by Milojčić. The great value of this trench is the exposure of parts of at least 3 multi-room structures and perhaps one “anta”-type building (also called a megaron) on either side of a pebble-surfaced street with large deposits of nearly complete (not intact, but restorable) ceramic vessels and a wealth of small finds. The best-preserved structure, Building 1 in the southeast portion of the trench, comprises at least four rooms; Isler suggests that it was of the multi-room type such as Milojčić excavated further southwest. One building towards the middle of the 1966 trench may be of the anta/megaron type also similar to those Milojčić excavated just to the southwest, but the other poorly preserved walls probably belong to at least two more of the multi-room building type.
The core of this volume is the presentation of the pottery and small finds. Each of the four rooms (though only one excavated completely) in Building 1 had a large collection of vases (ranging from 9 to 31 restored pots) and small finds, especially spindle whorls (20 total). Three additional closed deposits of ceramics and small finds were found in the western portion of the trench, but given the poor preservation of the walls in that area it is difficult to directly associate these other closed deposits with particular rooms or structures. Altogether, the seven closed deposits comprise 128 vessels and 116 small finds, out of 180 vessels and 212 small finds presented in this volume. Nearly every vessel and object is illustrated with a photograph and a line drawing. Chapter 2 (nearly 70% of the text) catalogues the finds by type, beginning with ceramic vessels, followed by small finds of clay, stone, metal, and bone. Then in chapter 3, Isler discusses the contexts and their finds as individual groups. Chronology, both relative and “absolute,” is the subject of chapter 4. A very brief chapter 5 explores the “fall” of the EBA settlement. The last chapter compares the material culture of the Heraion with that of other sites in Western Anatolia and the Aegean, focusing on the production of the various material classes, pottery techniques (especially hand versus wheel), decoration, shapes, and so on. A concordance is included. No separate bibliography appears in the volume, but there is list of abbreviations of works cited in footnotes that do not appear in the regular DAI lists, chiefly monographs but also some frequently cited items; only three works in this list date to after Isler’s 1973 preliminary report.
Chapter 2 begins with a description of six types of clay used for the ceramic vessels and objects, based on macroscopic inspection and taking into account clays used in other periods at Samos.[3] For vessel forms, Isler follows the Troy system as much as possible, though given the distance between these two sites that there would be shapes or variations at Samos not well attested at Troy is to be expected. Some 49 separate vessel forms are identified (conveniently presented at the same 1:5 scale in schematic line drawings on six “Typentäfeln”), grouped into vessels for eating and drinking, pouring (i.e., jugs), storage (jars), and other shapes. For each of the 49 forms a brief catalog of examples is presented, followed by a discussion with frequent and extensive references to comparanda, primarily in Milojčić’s Samos I, the Troy publications (before Korfmann’s work), and Beycesultan, aiding in comparisons of this material. The photographs and the drawings of the vessels are in separate sections at the back, organized in the order of discussion in the text (i.e., by form), making it easy to follow along. A section on incised decoration on vessels includes several fragments that cannot be identified by type; other than a solid red slip and burnished surface on some vessels, incision is the principal decoration apparent on these vessels. Few vessels sport added plastic decoration, as this is rare at the Heraion.
The small finds are given nearly as much attention as the pottery in the second part of chapter 2, a very welcome component of this volume. Many of the finds relate to textile production: 73 spindle whorls, 15 sherds pierced and reworked into weights, and 7 larger weights (most likely loom weights though Isler is hesitant to label them as such). Of note, incised decoration is found on the majority of the spindle whorls, similar to the situation at Troy. Isler suggests that some spindle whorls with identical decoration form groups, a very interesting proposition when they were found in the same closed deposits. Stone tools made from both obsidian and chert fall into a variety of types such as blades, scrapers, and piercers. The presence of both an obsidian and a chert core (there are worked pieces whose material is identical to the that of the core) indicate working of these materials here at the Heraion. This is to be expected, as coastal sites throughout the Aegean are connected via various exchange routes with Melos. The absence of central Anatolian obsidian sources contrasts with the situation in the Izmir region where these non-Melian obsidians form a substantial portion of the assemblage in the EB III period. This suggests that unlike the Izmir region which was connected by overland trade routes with central Anatolia and eventually Mesopotamia in EB III,[4] Samos was not, at least for the acquisition of raw materials for stone tool usage. Two open-face molds for metal tools were found, one of which has forms for making seven tools on four surfaces, the other at least five tools on two surfaces. Metal objects themselves were few (all copper-based but no analyses have yet been possible).
For those interested in households, chapter 3 on the find groups is extremely valuable, for here Isler lists all the finds for each group and then comments on their relationship to the architecture and to each other before suggesting a purpose for the room. Only Room 1 from Building 1 was completely excavated of all the spaces, so there may have been additional materials in the spaces with the other six closed deposits. More could have been done to emphasize the various crafts and other productive activities represented by these objects.
The short chapter 4 on “relative and absolute chronology” appropriately draws comparisons with the stratigraphy and material first from Milojčić’s excavations, then from Troy, Beycesultan, Tarsus, and Crete, though this section suffers from the lack of references to recent (post mid-1970s) scholarship. The section misleadingly called “absolute chronology” is really again only comparative to relative chronologies. Isler argues that the 1966 level is most likely identical to the “Burnt House Layer” of Milojčić, i.e., Heraion 4, though he notes that some of the vessel forms of the 1966 levels may be slightly later.[5] Heraion V, as Isler notes, was in 1966 poorly attested in excavated material.
Chapter 5 on the “fall” of the Heraion settlement invokes large-scale migration and the influx of new peoples, invoking John Caskey’s seminal paper on the EBA from 1960,[6] among other works of that time. Likewise portions of chapter 6, such as the discussion of pottery production methods, lacks the more nuanced observations on rotary technology characteristic of the last two decades of ceramic studies.
While I have been somewhat critical of this volume because of its dated scholarship, Isler is to be commended for seeing this material to publication—it would have been easy to let it continue to languish. The detailed presentation of the material and its contexts will provide future scholars with a wealth of information to incorporate into their studies of the later EBA archaeology of the eastern Aegean and western Anatolia, in which now the Heraion on Samos can finally play a role.
Notes
[1] A brief report on the 1966 excavations by Isler appeared in 1973: H.P. Isler, “An Early Bronze Age Settlement on Samos,” Archaeology 26:3 (1973): 175–175.
[2] Isler’s Plan 1 shows the relationship of his 1966 trench to Milojčić’s earlier trench, but very little else of the prehistoric settlement is shown. Unfortunately, the very useful map of the prehistoric settlement, color-coded to the five EBA phases identified by Milojčić, in the various publications by Ourania Kouka seems to have the orientation of Isler’s trench incorrect, though approximately in the correct area.
[3] Isler 6 n. 31 notes that scientific analyses of the clay types were not performed for “bureaucratic and practical” reasons. A program of petrographic analysis of ceramics has now been undertaken and published by Sergios Menelaou.
[4] See V. Şahoğlu, “The Anatolian Trade Network and the Izmir region during the Early Bronze Age,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24 (2005) 339–361, not cited by Isler.
[5] O. Kouka (Siedlungsorganisation in der Nord- und Ostägäis während der Frühbronzezeit (3. Jh. v.Chr.), Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2002) assigned Isler’s 1966 trench and material to Heraion V, largely on her study of the entire EBA settlement of the Heraion. She notes the changes in house types and their orientation that mark Heraion V from its predecessor Heraion IV, as well as the appearance of various ceramic shapes, though she did not have access to Isler’s material.
[6] J.L. Caskey, “The Early Helladic Period in the Argolid,” Hesperia 29 (1960): 286–303.