Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSalavoura, Eleni
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-26T13:01:45Z
dc.date.available2020-10-26T13:01:45Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.PublishedIn: Østby, E. (ed.), Ancient Arcadia 2005: 35-48en_US
dc.identifier.isbn82-91626-25-1
dc.identifier.issn1105-4204
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1956/24340
dc.descriptionPapers from the third international seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at the Norwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May 2002en_US
dc.description.abstractThis paper has a double purpose: it outlines our knowledge about Mycenaean Arcadia and in parallel it attempts to draw perspectives for the research in this neglected area. The region which we examine - as defined by Pausanias' description - is landlocked and restricted to small high plains and basins, surrounded by great masses of mountains. Travelers of the 18th and 19th centuries passed through Arcadia, but they were interested mainly in identifying the classical sites. More information is obtained by excavated sites and field surveys. Unfortunately few excavations have been made, fewer have been published. R. Howell's survey remains, 3S years after its publication, the only extensive research, but it focuses on the eastern part of the province. This may possibly be the reason why eastern Arcadia seems to be densely populated in contrast to the southern and western part of the region. On the whole 42 sites are recorded. Most of the Mycenaean settlements were located on rather steep-sided hills that could be easily defended. The natural formation of the region favours the development of rural settlements. It may not be accidental that, with the exception of Analipsis, no administrative centre has been located until now. So Arcadia looks like a 'periphery', although it is surrounded by major Mycenaean centers. Perhaps the frontier regions were included in the sphere of influence of significant sites outside Arcadia. Nevertheless, the exact kind of these relations and the degree of influence are hard to establish by the data available. The altitude and cold winters presuppose that seasonal pastoralism had been developed. The only two sites where significant quantity of LH pottery of good quality has been found, are Analipsis and Palaiokastro. LH I and II material from Asea and Analipsis implies relations with Argolid and northeastern Peloponnese, but there are also elements which indicate Minoan influence. The majority of the material from Palaiokastro belongs to LH mc, middle and late phases. The pottery and the Naue type 11 swords confirm that the site belongs to a northwest Peloponnesian koine, part of a larger West Mainland koine. The material combines the shapes and motifs found in Elis and Achaea with a large amount of Minoan influence; to this combination local idiosyncrasies are added forming a unique local style. Much work still needs to be done. Obviously many more sites have yet to be recorded in northern, central, southern and especially western Arcadia, in the fertile valleys across the rivers Ladon and Alpheios. However, collecting surface sherds alone hardly ever gives the complete record of a site's history. Further investigation of the sites already mentioned and further study of finds from the excavations could yield more precise information.en_US
dc.language.isoellen_US
dc.publisherThe Norwegian Institute at Athensen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesPapers of the Norwegian Institute at Athensen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries8en_US
dc.rightsCopyright The Norwegian Institute at Athens. All rights reserved.
dc.titleΜυκηναϊκή Αρκαδία: αποτίμηση των γνώσεών μαςen_US
dc.title.alternativeMykenaike Arcadia: apotimese ton gnoseon masen_US
dc.typeChapteren_US
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Humaniora: 000::Arkeologi: 090::Klassisk arkeologi: 092en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record