AEGAEUM 27 Annales darchéologie égéenne de 'Université de Liege et UT-PASP BETWEEN THE AEGEAN AND BALTIC SEAS PREHISTORY ACROSS BORDERS Proceedings of the International Conference Bronze and Early Iron Age Interconnections and Contemporary Developments between the Aegean and the Regions of the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Northern Europe University of Zagreb, 11-14 April 2005 Edited by loanna GALANAKI, Helena TOMAS, Yannis GALANAKIS and Robert LAFFINEUR Université de Litge Histoire de art et archéologie de la Gréce antique University of Texas at Austin Program in Aegean Seripts and PrehistoryMACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE BETWEEN CULTURAL SPHERES?" Introduction Macedonia holds a key position in the search for possible routes of communication between the Aegean and the Balkan interior. In addition to the other usable routes via the Adriatic Sea in the west and the Black Sea in the east, the river systems of the central Balkan Peninsula have always been the object of the scientific search for distribution routes from the Aegean to Central Europe. Accordingly, the Axios-Vardar-Morava, the Strimonas and the Nestos-Mesta Rivers represent lines of connection that lead from the coasts of Macedonia into the Balkan hinterland and ultimately to the Danube. The following contribution aitempts to illustrate the function that Macedonia served during the Late Bronze Age between the Danube River and the Aegean. The paper examines the extent to which this region was integrated into a network of communication. Itconcentrates on the following questions: Are there any differences between these networks? Can these networks be distinguished? Were they used constantly during the entire Late Bronze Age? These questions are answered best and most clearly by a category of finds, a category that, firstly, comprises common items of use by Late Bronze Age societies, and, secondly, is present in large enough quantities that would allow a reliable statistical evaluation, Objects of prestige, such as weaponry and dress accoutrement, often used in reference to questions of far-reaching contacts, arc rare in Macedonia and neighbouring regions and in some cases are even absent; when present, they shed light only on a short, usually vaguely datable, moment within the Late Bronze Age.! Further, the exchange of distinguished and valuable objects, such as weapons and Jewellery of precious metals, is subject to specific rules? and refers to only a small part of the population.* Besides, our knowledge concerning their occurrence strongly depends on cult =~ T would like 10 thank Bernhard Tinsel and Reinhard Jung for valuable discussions, and Emily Schalk for translating the paper 1 For weapons and ls in the northern Aegean and the central Balkans, sce 1. HANSEL, “Eine datierte RapierMinge mykenischen Typs von der unteren Dona,” PZ 48 (1978) 200206; K. KILIAN, "Nordgrenze des agiischen Kulturbereiches in-mykenischer und nachinykenischer Zeit” Jahnsbeicht des Institus fr Vongchichte der Unie. Frankfurt aM. (1076) exp. 117, Big 4 118, fg. 7; 1. PANAYOTOV, “Bronce rapier swords and double axes from Bulgaria,” Threca 5 (1980) 173-198, A. HARDING, The Mycenaeans and Europe (1984) 158-162; J. BOUZEK, The Aegern, Anatol and Erope: Cultural Intereations in the Seed milena ton BC. (SIMA XXIX, 1985) 9048: 1 KILIANDIRIMEIER Die Scheerter in Grischentand (anperhal. der Peloponnes), Bulgarien nd Albanien (PEF IV/ 12, 1998}; R. KRAUS, “Der Depostund von Oyca Mogila, Kee Svitov (Bulgarien): Zur Datierung der Bronzchorte von der unteren Donat Uber mykensche Schwert in B. HOREJS, R. JUNG, E. KAISER and 1, TERZAN (eds) lneprtationsyaum Broneait. Bernhard Hanal vom seinen Scher greidnet (Univerittsorchungen sar Pribisarhen Arcologie 121, 2008) 189210; F SCHALK, “Kin Tienmeitel aus Olynth/ Agios Manas, Griechenland,” in sf. 96-108; for a umimaty of ‘Mycenaean prestige objects” in the North Aegean, see K. WARDLE, *Mycenscan Trade and Influence in Northern Greece." in C.W. ZERNER (ed), Wave and legen: Pater a evidence for trae (198) IVP-141; R. JUNG, *Aspekte des mykenischen Handels und Produktenaustauschs” in HOREJS ol (ap i) 43-0, exp. 52-58. For structures of ade andl exchange among prehistoric societies, sce B, HANSEL, “Troia im Tausche und Handelsverkehr der Agiis oder Troia cin Handelsplat2” in Der neue Stet won Tria. Eive Bilana (2003) 105-114 for the Aegean and the Mediterranean, see HARDING (supra n. 1) 174L and JUNG (supra. 8 HARDING (supra n, 1) 67 ff, esp. 166 {luxury goods” in the Aegean): K. HESSE, “Handel, Tausch und Prestigegiterwirschaft in auBereuropaiseher Ziilsation,” in B. HANSEL (ed), Handel, Tawoh nd Verte in bronze und raesencitihen Sadaxewrpa (PAS 11, 1995) S138; KILIAN-DIRLMEIER (supra 1} 1451294 Barbara HOREJS or social norms,* which between the Danube and central Greece were very diverse, as reflected by differences observed in burial customs? and hoard practices. Analyses of pottery from this area, by contrast, offer more promising opportunities. On the one hand, pottery is available throughout the Balkan Peninsula in sufficient amounts for statistical evaluation and is therefore of comparative usefulness, while, on the other, most of the pottery represents vessels of common every day use, hardly influenced or distorted by cultic or social hierarchical aspects. In addition, the relatively well documented find circumstances of pottery throughout the Danube-Aegean area have made it possible to evaluate the entire time span of the Late Bronze Age and not just phases within this period. Moreover, pottery is a category of finds that enables us to answer some of the questions concerning the long- term and systematic use of routes of communication in the area under study. This being said, not every category of pottery is suitable for answering the questions presented here. Cooking vessels used daily for preparing food are subject to certain traditions and practices, which cause a very conservative and slow development in this repertoire of forms. Although various spheres of influence can be detected even in this category of pottery found between the Danube and the Aegean, the exact routes of communication are more a matter of guesswork than of tangible evidence.7 The development of fine wares in Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age, by contrast, is all the more dynamic and constitutes a multifaceted spectrum of the most diverse categories and vessel forms.* Indeed, it is this rich repertoire that forms the basis for the examination presented here. 4 J, MULLER, “Zur doppelien Hermeneutik archologischer Interpretation,” jn M. HEINZ. and M.K.H. EGGERT (eds), Znichen Evlren wd Versichen?Betrige su den evhenntnstheraischen Grundlagen archdologiscer Interpretation (2008) 195-19 5 Selected burials: D. MITREVSKI, ProtrHistvical Communities in Macedonia through Burials end Burial “Manifestations (1987) (E-R.O. Macedonia); B. HANSEL, Beige sur rgionaten und chronologischen iederang der ern Halltattet an der unteren Dona (BAM 16-17, 1976) 7687; Gel. GEORGIEY. “Dic Erforschung det Bronzezeit in Nordwestbulgarien,” in B. HANSEL (ed), Stdsteuropa swischen 1600 wud 1000 o. Ch (PAS 1, 1982) 187.202; K. KIS[OV, "Kepasmscara or sxcHara Gpowsoea coxa 8 rpoOunre xowriencn or Llenspaniare Poon,” Archarlegija. 35/2 (1998) 1-18 (Bulgaria); Z. ANDREA, Cultura Hlve ¢ Tumoe wf Pelle Kons (1985): F. PRENDL, “The Prehistory of Albania,” in The Cambridge Ancient History vol. 3/1 (1982) 187.239; 8. ALIU, “Tuma ¢ Prodanit,” Mita 14/1 (1984) 97657; 1D, "Tuma ¢ Peart” Tia 25 (1995) 119148; ID: “Tuina € Shuikés.” livia 26 (1996) 57-78; ID., Tremula ¢ Laarasit (2004): L. BEKO, "Mortuaty Custotns ta the Late Bronze Age of southeastern Albania,” in G. TOUCHAIS and J. RENDARD (eds), 1: Mahenie dant L Europe prétstorique, Actes du clloque de Lovient, 8-10 juin 2000 (BCH Suppl. 42, 2002) 171198 (ATbantay G. KARAMITROUMENTESSIDI, “Ax6 vy avant} gpcova omy Atay. AEMTH 8 (1989) 45659; EAD, “Av Ke KoGvng” AEMTH 12 (1998) 439-464: EAD., “Avavi 2000: avaowagi vexpotaeiou botepne axazh yiixos," AEMTH T4 (2000) 591-606; E. POULAKLPANDERMALI, “Avuoxugh} Ay. Anunepion Okbnov.: AEMTH 1 (1987) 201-205; EAD., "Ot avooxapés tov Oniynos,” AEMTH 2 (1988) 173-180; EAD. “Der rmakedonische Olymp und seine frihen Nekropolen,” in I. VOKOTOPOULOU (ed), Makedoien-ie Griechen des Norden (1984) 122-127 (West Macedonia); D-V. GRAMMENOS, “Toyo nie Vowepng Exo 100 Xaiod xu G5 apmirmeas omy xeptoz tov Nevpoxoriov Apauag,” AE (1979) 26-71; ID, “Broncezciiche Forschungen in Ostmakedonien,” in HANSEL (gf. vit. 1982) 89°98; Ch. KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI, “Late Bronze Age in Eastern Macedonia,” Thracia prachistorica (Suppl. Pulpudeua 3, 1989) 931-258; EAD. Mpcaroteopnt; Ghar. Ta vosporagsia tov owrquot Karol (1992); EAD., “Makeconien in der Bronzerci” in VOROTOPOULOU (op ct.) 103-113; M. VALLA, "Enatu épeuva ac vexporugsio bovepng exog fabxot Oz ‘aud Téxpa dnpoxtiorpov,” AEMTH 14 (2000) 99-108 (East Macedonia) 0 far, we don't know any regula burials from Central Macedonia in the LBA. 6 For the interpretation of depositions, see 8. HANSEN, Studion su den Metalldeponierangen wsrend der dlteren Umnenfelderceitewischen Rhinetal und Karpulenbecken (Universitdisschungen cur Prakstorichen.Arthige 21, 1994), B. HANSEL, Gaten an die Gitter, Schdtze der Bronaezeit Europas (1997) esp. 13-15: €. METZNER. NEBELSICK, “Ritual und Herrschafe, Zur Struktur von spatbronzezeilichen Metallgeflkdepots ‘schen Nord: und Siidosteuropa,” in C. METZNERNEBELSICK (ed). Rituale on der VorgeschichteAntte und Gegenwart. Intrdissiptindne Tagunyg vom 1-2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universitat Berlin (Internationale Archologie Arbitsgemeinschaft Symposium, Tagurg, Kongreh, Bd. 4, 2003) 99117; for hoards in Greece see Th SPYROFOULOS, Yoropoyonqvaino’ Ewe! Opopot (1972), 7 See B. HOREJS, “Kochen zwischen den Kulturen ~ 2wischen Karpatenbecken und Agi,” in HOREJS o a (supra. 1) Th 8 A HOCHSTETTER, Kastonas. Die handgemachte Keranik, Schichton 19 bis T(PAS 3, 1984); B. HOREJS, Die Sfritbronsrcitche handgemachte Keramik der Schichten 13 Us 1 aus der Toumba von Olynthus (Agios Mamas) (npubtished PhD thesis, University of Berlin, 2005; to be published inthe PAS series}MACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE 295, ‘The central question of this contribution is the role played by Macedonia in its location amongst various and different cultural spheres during the second half of the second millennium BC. Was this region a mediator between different cultural zones, through which ideas and concepts, in addition to material goods, were transferred? Or was Macedonia more of a buffer zone, through which only a few isolated Aegean elements were able to penetrate into the inner Balkan and Danube areas? In order to answer these questions, itis necessary first to discuss the methodological foundation of research in this area thus far. ‘The “World System” model, which has been applied frequently in recent years, applies only toa small degree in its definition and our line of inquiry. Namely, from a “Mycenocentric” point of view, Macedonia as well as the central Balkans as far as the Danube would be marginal areas, between which the “World System” model makes no further differentiation.® It has already been shown that ideas and technologies can extend beyond the actual periphery and that exchange routes existed over long distances, without causing any kind of dependency upon a “core area."! The “World System” model helps us in recognising the function of marginal areas as mediators of cultural goods and values, but not further. Macedonia and its function being the main focus of this examination calls, in my opinion, for a neutral and impartial observation of Macedonia as well as the neighbouring areas. Considering the present state of our knowledge, the role of our region is best defined by a model of means of communication. Model | (PI. LXXIIfa) presents communication routes that lead from region A via the adjacent region B to region C, and likewise in the reverse direction as well, thus characterising region B as a mediator. Model 2 (Pl. LXXIIIa), on the contrary, shows a communication model in which regions A and B or B and C form a well-functioning exchange network, but without passing the knowledge or objects gained further that is to the next region, being C or A. In the latter case region B serves, more or less, asa buffer zone via which nothing is farther transferred. The following analysis aims at clarifying whether Macedonia represents region B as in model 1, that is, a mediator between the Damube and the Aegean, or whether ~ as in model 2 ~ it functioned as a buffer zone. Macedonia Information and documentation on Bronze Age Macedonia is manifold and in general relatively substantial, owing to nearly one century of research activities in this area.'! A great number of datable sites are known, many of which have been published with finds and stratigraphy ~ at least in the form of preliminary reports." It goes without question that the politically defined area of Macedonia today does not represent a closed and homogeneous cultural region; on the contrary, the area is notable for distinctive geographical regions! and for in burial customs and forms of settlement," some of which show marked differences. The state of research in the areas of West, Central and East Macedonia is equally varied." While these differences are of major importance in micro-regional studies, in the analysis of a large! geographical area they are less significant. The similarities observed in the material record in The term ‘periphery taust apply only'to societies that underwent stractaral transformation as a result of regular exchanges of material products with privileged consumers elsewhere” (A, SHERRATT, “What would a Bronze-Age World System look hike? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later Prehistory." JEA 1/2 [1998] 198, esp. 5; note that these elements are not identifiable in the area under study. 10 SHERRATT (sxpran. 9) 6 11 Fora general overview, see KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHARI (supra n. 5, 1994); K. WARDLE, “The Prehistory of Northern Greece: A Geographical Perspective from the fonian Sea to the Drama Phin," in Aquino ovat NG. Hammond (Parartina Mokedonikon 7, 1897 12 Most important sites and related literature: 8, ANDREOU, M. FOTIADIS and K, KOTSAKIS, “Review of Aegean Prehistory V: The Neolithic and Bronze Age of Northern Greece," in T, CULLEN (ed), Argan Prokstry. A Review (2001) 259°327, exp. 285. fig. 2 13 NGL, HAMMOND, a Histor of Macedonia 1 (1972), 14 S.ANDREOU, “Expioring the Patterns of Power inthe Bronze Age Settlements of Northern Greece.” in K BRANIGAN (6c). Urdanism mn the Aegean Bronce Age (Sheff Sturn Argenn Archaveleg 4, 2001) 1BO47S. Fora dscusion concerning all the recently published sites see HORE]S (supra n. 8) 10-13, 2022296 Barbara HORE] the area between the Aliakmonas River to the west and the central Macedonian plain up to the Nestos River to the east are indeed far greater than the differences. In consequence, three elements in the pottery repertoire could be defined, which can be observed in West, Central and East Macedonia. These comprise, first, the distribution of typical Macedonian forms; second, characteristic Balkan elements, and thind, certain recognisable Aegean influences. Without any ethnic implications, the division of a pottery spectrum is designated entirely according to geographical regions, in which certain vessel types were produced in large quantities, where an uninterrupted development in ceramic forms can be followed, from their emergence to their end, and where their highest frequency of occurrence is found at a supra-regional level. Macedonian Types From the manifold spectrum of Macedonian vessel types of the Late Bronze Age four examples of fine pottery will be presented here,'° which help us reach conclusions concerning the routes of communication. For example, some typical bow! forms in Macedonian tell settlements (“toumbas") display a broad distribution pattern, Bowls with incurving rim are relatively frequent in the area between the Axios and Nestos Rivers, appearing in Central Macedonia at least as early as LH 1,” where they remain in use throughout the entire Late Bronze Age. Analogous bowls are found in the area extending from Zagére (Albania) to Devetaki and Jagnilo (northern Bulgaria) (Pl. LXXIIIb).!8 A conspicuous indicator is provided by the socalled wishbone handled bowls, named after their characteristic handle form.!" Bowls with wishbone handles appear in Central Macedonia and Thessaly as early as the Middle Bronze Age, but become a leading form in Macedonian settlements only in the developed Late Bronze Age (by LH IIIA).2” The form is found in an area extending from Lianokladhi on the Sperchios River to Ngiire on the Adriatic Sea and also along rivers in the Korcé basin (Pl. LXXIVa). That area in turn is linked by routes via the Aliakmonas river to the bay of Thessaloniki, where wishbone handled bowls are especially frequent. This vessel type spread as far North as Krakra near Pernik (Bulgaria) via the Strimonas River. Wishbone handled bowls are found occasionally in the Rhodope Range and quite frequently along the course of the Maritsa (Evros), Tundéa and Jantra rivers (Pl. LXXIVa).2! Further proof of constant communication between the regions along river courses is provided by certain types of amphorae. Those with a conical neck are similarly present in Central Macedonia at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and remain in use until the end of the second millennium BC. There is a scattering of the conical necked amphora to be noted along the Axios-Vardar River route as far as Donja Brnjica (Serbia) likewise along the Strimonas River to Kamenska Cuka (Bulgaria) and via Nestos River to the inner Rhodope Mountains and the Maritsa River (Pl. LXXIVb)2° A further example of the widespread dissemination of a typical Macedonian vessel form can be observed in the characteristic Late Bronze Age large 16 “An exception is made for the haneimade pottery that belongs to the category of fine wares. This distinction is based om the exaunination of ea. 40,000 sherds from the settlement of Prehistoric Olynthus (Agios Mamas) and comparative material from Kastanas. The category of fine pottery consists of wares, whose clay is of & fine to very fine temper. The individual particles are hardly visible with the eye and in relation to coarse pottery they are scantily attested. The surface might have been smoothed with a hard object ot polished with 8 cloth or the likes, rendering a dense, smooth and slightly shiny appearance. In only few cases the surface was covered with a clay slip (HOREJS [supra n. $] 30) 17 ‘They already appear in immense quantities at the Olynthus Toumba in level 18 and, thus, date to the horizon of MH IIBLH I (HOREJS [supra n. 8] 75 fb; 391 £2.) 18 See references in Pl, LXXIIb, 19 In contrast to other regions, wishbone handled bowls in Macedonia appear in four different vessel and rim iations whose wishbone handle is trapezoid or triangular, Yet the analysis of the entire distribution area Of this vessel form has shown that, though chronologically significant in Macedonia, these variations do not play any role in the overall view (see HOREJS [supra n. 8) 8288), 20 HOREJS (supra n. 8) 85 21 See references in Pl. LXXiVa 22 ‘The eauliest appearance of this amphora type in Prehistoric Olynthus was recorded in level 18 (MH [IIB LET) (HOREJS [supra n. 8) 150 ff; 821 fF, 23 See references in Pl, LXXIVb,SL MACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE, 207 ‘ bowls. The types discussed here (PI. LXXVa) emerge at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age and continue to be used in the following centuries.2" Like wishbone handled bowls, we can trace them along the Nestos, Strimonas and Axios Rivers as far as Skopje (F.Y.R.O. Macedonia). ‘They also appear on the Adriatic coast and in Epirus, from Pinios River to the gulf of Volos (PL. LXXVa) ‘The distribution of these four characteristic Macedonian vessel types in the Late Bronze Age reveals two important factors: firstly, individual Macedonian types are found scattered widely in neighbouring regions and in particular along river courses. Secondly, vessel types are found in neighbouring regions: in central Balkans as far as the Danube to the north and irus and Thessaly to the west and south respectively. According to our communication model (PI. LXXIIla), in which Macedonia represents the region B, there is evidence of at least a unilateral relationship between Macedonia and the central Balkans (region C), on the one hand, and the Aegean (region A), on the other Balkan Types The distribution of typical Balkan types presents a completely different picture.2° The simple, undecorated globular kantharos sa characteristic element of the Gerkovna or Zimnic Plovdiv culture in Bulgaria.” Undecorated globular kantharoi occur among the pottery forms as a standard object of use at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in central Macedonia as wwell,28 but their area of distribution does not extend farther to the west or south (PL LXXVb).2? To my knowledge they are unknown in Albania, Epirus and Thessaly. Hence, the limit of their distribution lies near the Axios River and the gulf of Thessaloniki (PI. LXXVb). The distribution of a typical Balkan cooking vessel, the pyraunos, is similar. Originally from the Danube area, the variation with a builtin pot and round mantel spread as far as Macedonia, where it also came into use during the early Late Bronze Age.” Although to date no pyraunoi are known in the area of Serbia, their frequency along the Vardar River suggests their spread via river courses from the Danube area to Macedonia.*! The use of pyraunot is attested in Albania and Epirus, but apparently not in Thessaly." Of the many variations utilised in the Carpathian Basin, only one type of pyraunos with a builtin pot and round mantel reached Macedonia, where it was adopted. Pottery with incrusted decoration demonstrates most drastically the paucity of Balkan elements that reached central Greece. As is well known, incrusted pottery is typical among several cultural groups in the Danube area, as roughly designated here (PI. LXXVIa). Pottery with incrusted decoration is somewhat infrequent in the central Balkans, where, nonetheless, it is repeatedly attested along rivers." Incrusted vessels are extremely numcrous in East and Central Macedonia, yet they do not extend beyond the Yannitsa basin in the west and south, 24 HOREJS (Gsuprn n, 8) 8996. 25 See references in PL. LXXVa. 26 ‘The term "Balkan" ishere used to desig Basin north of the River Danube. 27S. MORINTZ and N. ANGHELESCU, *O noua Cultura a Epocii Bronzului in Romsnia,” Stulié si Ceretani de Ixtorie Veche 21 (1970) 373415, esp. 407 M1; HANSEL (supra n. 5) 77 fl; for a discussion on the state of research concerning the cultural groups in die Bulgarian Late Bronze Age, including recent literature, see HOREJS (supra 0, 8) 22-24. 28 They are represented in the Olynthus Toumba from level 13 (MH IIIB-LH 1) (o level 2 (LH IIIG Late). 29 See references in Pl, LXXVb, 80 HOREJS (supra n, 7) 79-82. BL HOREJS (supra n. 7) 82, fig. 7; 90 (with references). 32 HOREJS (supra n. 7), 33 HOREJS (supra n. 7) 80 fig. 5.6. 34 Map of Danubian cultural groups Zuto Brdo-Girla Mare after M. SANDOR-CHICIDEANU, Cultura Zito Eno Girla Mare. Contribuit la cunoasteren epwc bronauui ta Dunaven Mijlcie si Infeioara (2008) pl. 202; Tei alter HANSEL 1976 (supra n. 5) 53-58; map 2; Coslogeni after ibid. 79-76; map 2 35. Fora discussion concerning inerusted pottery shapes and origin sce HOREJS (supra n, 8) 5865. characteristic forms of the central Balkans and/or the Carpathin298 Barbara HOREJS if one disregards the single find near Pevkakia Magula at the gulf of Volos.® The distribution of incrusted pottery indicates a similar boundary to that of the globular kantharoi discussed above (Pl. LXXVb), which runs from the gulf of Thessaloniki to the Yannitsa basin, These three examples should demonstrate that typical Balkan pottery shapes were transmitted above all via rivers that served as communication routes from the Danube area to Macedonia, and that the types were produced in the appropriate local styles. Balkan pottery reached Macedonia, where it became a characteristic element in the repertory. However, this pottery has not been observed farther west or south, nor did it ever reach the Aegean repertory. According to our model of communication (Pl. LXXIIla), elements of region C (the Balkans) did not spread through region B (Macedonia) to reach region A (Aegean), thus characterising Macedonia more as a buffer zone than a mediator (PI. LXXIIa: model 2). This analysis has clearly shown that communication between the Danube area, the central Balkans and Macedonia was certainly not unilateral; on the contrary, it reflects a constant increase in a dialog, which however was not transferred beyond Macedonia. Aegean Influences Let us now turn our attention to the Aegean. What typical Aegean influences arrived in Macedonia during the Late Bronze Age? Can structured distribution routes be identified? If so, are they ultimately connected with the broader communication network between Macedonia and the central Balkans? Distinct indications of long-term contacts with the Aegean world are represented by imported goods and imitations of various categories of “Aegean” pottery. During the time of the Shaft Graves Gray Minyan pottery appeared in coastal sites in Central Macedonia, whose shape and ware correspond exactly io the types in central and southern Greece, Most likely imported, the Minyan pottery remained limited to the coastal areas without reaching the Macedonian hinterland.‘ A sequel to the Minyan imports is the emergence of a local development, the so-called Imitation Minyan pottery. This pottery is handmade and was undoubtedly produced in Macedonia. Examples of Imitation Minyan pottery can be observed along the Axios River up to Kastanas and perhaps Episkopi, but this category generally remains limited to coastal regions." Shortly after the first imports of Gray Minyan ware in Macedonia ~ at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age - a fundamental change in house construction took place.*® Besides the traditional structures of timber and wattle-and-daub, houses now started to be built of sun-dried mudbrick erected upon stone foundations. Adapted from the south, this new building technique. like Minyan pottery, can be observed in the same region, namely the coast (PI. LXXVIb). 36 T would like to thank J, Maran for permission to study the documentation concerning the unpublished Late Bronze Age pottery from Pevkakia Magula in the archives ofthe University of Heidelberg. 37 Fora discussion on Gray Minyan pottery in northern Greece, its distribution and date. sce 1. HOREJS, “Transition from Middle to Late Bronze Age in Central Macedonia and its Synchronism with the ‘Helladic World,” in F. FELTEN, W. GAUB and R. SMETANA (eds), International Workshop *Midil Helladic Pty and Synchronisms," Oc. 31-Nos. 2, 2004 Salburg (in press). 88 _Tmmiation Minyan pottery spresentin he Olynthus Toumba(HOREJS (xxpran.8) 197-207;alsoat Molyvopyrgos (W.A. HEURTLEY, Prehistoric Macedonia [1939] 12; 210 no, 896397); Torone (A. CAMBITOGLOU and. JK. PAPADOPOULOS, “Excavations at Torone 1986: A Preliminary Report” Mediterranean Archaeology 1 (1988) 180217; ID, “Excavations at Torone 1988," Mediterranean Archaeology § (1990) 99-142, esp, 142; 1D, “Excavations at Torone 1989,” Mediterranean Archaeology (1901), esp. 165, fg. 2; A. CAMBITOGLOU, JK. PAPADOPOULOS and O. TUDOR JONES (cds) Tovone L. The Exzavations of 1975, 1976 und 1978 (2001) fig, 48,3.163.22; 49,3.23-3.25); Kastanas (HOCHSTETTER [supra n,$) 64; pl. 2,10); Toumba Thessaloniks S. ANDREOU and K. KOTSARIS, “H zpototopis Toiyna rs Geooahoviens, lads ka Via sponiyana,” AEMTA 10 (1996) 869387, esp. 382 fig, 10,TKA 859); possibly a Episkopi/Toumba Sata as well N. MEROUSSIS and L. STEFANI, “Kavoixyon xu goo sepifiaiAov oxy xpeToeopin Huodia:csspdcyare xe npooness nd ‘ty exipaveuc speuva roy ery 1993-1996," Apia Maxsdovia 6/2 (1999) 735.751, esp. 740, 39 See B. HANSEL, “Stationen der Bronzezcit zwischen Griechenland und Mitteleuropa,” BerRGK 88 (2002) 69.07, esp. 75 IMACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE, Building with mudbricks reached the Macedonian hinterland only after some time. In a developed phase of the Late Bronze Age, about LH IIIB, this method of construction was also employed in Koprivlen near Godse Deléev (Bulgaria):"? yet it was not adopted in the Bulgarian hinterland or in other settlements of the central Balkans. The inhabitants of Macedonian tell settlements adopted the mode of mudbrick houses from the south, sometimes combining it with local building traditions. This practice continued until at least the end of the Late Bronze Age. The utilisation of functioning communication routes is also well demonstrated by the phenomenon of the spread of matt-painted pottery. The present paper is not the proper place to discuss the genesis and development of this much debated potiery.2 The pottery is here used as yet another example of Macedonia’s relationship with the Aegean world, Matt-painted vessels are characteristic of the Middle Helladic period in central and southern Greece and at a few sites are still detected in early and middle Mycenaean times.** At the same time - in LH Iand afterwards ~ this category can also be identified in Chalkidiki and appears to derive from Thessalian forerunners.“ Within the entire pottery spectrum of the Late Bronze Age several individual micro-regional groups can be discerned and defined on the basis of pottery shapes, techniques and decoration. Without going into detail, it suffices to remark here on the chronological aspect. ‘The oldest group among these micro-regional assemblages of mattpainted pottery in northern Greece (PI. LXXVHa: group 1) is found in Chalkidiki. It strongly resembles the group in the gulf of Volos (PI. LXXVIla: group 8) andl can be dated as early as LH I to LH IIA. In. LHIILA at the latest this pottery spreads further to the gulf of Thessaloniki (PL LXXVIla: group 2) and is also present at the same time along the Axios River (PI. LXXVIla: group ). From the Axios the pottery spreads to the Yannitsa basin (Pl. LXXVIla: group 5). And it is specifically in this chronological horizon that matt-painted pottery becomes a characteristic element of Late Bronze Age settlements. Only a short time later this class of pottery reaches the middle Vardar River (Pl. LXXVIa: group 4), where it is found in graves of the so-called “transitional period” that probably does not begin before the 13" century BC. Also somewhat delayed is the appearance of the matt-painted group in the Aliakmonas River (PI, LXXVIa: group 6), attested there in LH IITA at the earliest, that is, tong after the emergence of matt-painted pottery in Chalkidiki and later than the groups along the Axios River and the gulf of Thessaloniki, The group in the Koreé Basin must be regarded, in my opinion, as chronologically uncertain; its date within the Late Bronze Age is still ambiguous. Some offshoots of matt-painted pottery can be observed in East Macedonia too, and north of the Rhodope Mountains, at Kamenska Cuka, where only a few sherds were recorded. Thus, the phenomenon of matt-painted pottery in the Late Bronze Age shows yet again the significant role played by rivers as ways of distribution. 40 Mudbrickarchitecture appears further north in thesettlements of Kastanas (B. HANSEL, Kastanas. Die Grabung sund der Baubefund (PAS 7, 1989] 70 {€) and Assiros (K. WARDLE, "Change or Continuity: Assiros Toumba at the Transition from Bronze to Iron Age,” AMTHT 10 [19065] 446-452) Bret in LH TA or LH IIB, while i twas in earlier use at coastal sites like the Olynthus Toumba (HANSEL (supra n, 89) 75 I) and the Toumba Thessalonikis (ANDREOU and KOTSAKIS (supra n. $8) 973 I.) as well as at Torone (CAMBITOGLOU and PAPADOPOULOS [supra n. $8, 1990] 140 {£; CAMBITOGLOU and PAPADOPOULOS (supra n. 88, 1991} 162 ff). 41 St ALEXANDROV, “The Late Bronze Age Setuement at Koprivlen,” in A. BOZKOVA and P. DELEV (eds), Koprivien, vol. 1. Rescue Archaeological Investigations along the Gotse Delchev - Drama Road 1998-1999 (2002) 67-68, northern Greece see discussion in HOREJS (supra n. 8) 208.282; 42 For the elass of mattpainted pottery 7 (2003), EAD., "H auaopézpejmy xepaji ard tv OawBortov Ayio Maya, Tpéira exorehéquara,” AEMTH 343.358, 43 HOREJS (supra n, 42, 2009) 351 ft, 44 Matt-paimted potiery appears for the first time in level 8 (LH HI A) at Olynthus Toumba. Ie displays a strong resemblance in shape, ornamentation and ware to similar vessels from Pevkakia Magula (HOREJS [supra 1. 8]274 ff), 45 HOREJS (supra n, 8) 255-278, 46 For a discussion of the individual sites, stylistic groups 1. 8) 255278. il recommended literature, see HOREJS (supra800 Barbara HOREJS It illustrates that, after its adoption from an Aegean environment, this ceramic class spread to become a characteristic element of Late Bronze Age Macedonia; yet it only reached as far as the middle Vardar River and did not extend beyond into the central Balkans. The final, clearly Aegean component in Macedonia to be discussed here is Mycenaean pottery. Early Mycenaean pottery appears only occasionally, for example at Torone*? or Olynthus Toumba.'* From the time of LH IIIA, it spreads further into Macedonia, but only in LH TIC does Mycenaean pottery become a stable component of the Macedonian spectrum." Iss distribution in the northern Aegean (here not differentiated chronologically) presents quite a striking picture (Pl. LXXVIIb): in central Macedonia Mycenaean pottery occurs in immense quantities. It was adopted into the traditional pottery repertoire by the local population and produced in local workshops in the immediate area.>? Mycenaean vessels are likewise relatively numerous in the area of Mt Olympus and along the Aliakmonas River."! However, the mapped occurrences fade away as soon as East Macedonia is reached. The river routes into the inner Balkans, that functioned for other classes, do not seem to have been used in the distribution of Mycenaean pottery. To date no vessels have been found in settlements and graves north of| Godse Deléev that can be identified with certainty as Mycenaean.5? Aegean influences in architecture and pottery production during the Late Bronze Age in Macedonia as discussed here provide a clear picture: specific elements of early Mycenaean to postpalatial times derive without question from the Aegean cultural milicu and confirm that communication did indeed exist between these regions. However, in view of the material remains, itwas notnecessarily a balanced form of communication, norwasit constant throughout all phases.®* Neither during the Shaft Grave period nor during the developed phase of the Late Bronze Age, nor even at the end of that age, did Aegean influence spread beyond Macedonia, Categories of Aegean pottery and mudbrick building styles are not present in the central Balkans or along the Danube, a fact that points again to communication model 2 (PI. LXXITTa). WK CAMBITOGLOU and JK. PAPADOPOULOS, “The Easiest Mycenaeans in Macedon (supra a, 1) 289.802 48 RJUNG, “Der Charakter der Nordkontakte der minoischen und mskenischen Zivilisationen umn 1600 vt." in, BERTEMES and H. MELLER (eds), Der Grif nach dn Sternen. Wie Eurmpas Plt su Macht und Pein amen, frterntionae Symposium Halle 1621. Fe, 2005 (in press). 49. ‘Themost important overviews of Mycenaean potteryin Macedonia, including further literature are: WARDLE (oupra n. 1, WARDLE.(oupra.n. 11); KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHARI (pra n. 3, 1904) E- KIRIATZ1, S ANDREOU, 8. DIMITRIADIS and K. KOTSAKIS, “Coexisting traditions: Handmade and wheelmade pote in Late Bronze Age Gentral Macedonia," n R LAFFINEUR and Ph. BETANCOURT (eds) TEXNH. Erafismen, Craftsmen and Csoftmonship in the Aegean Bronse Age. Proceedings of te 6 Infemat. Agean Confernce, Philadelphia, Temple Uninsty 18.21 Apri 1996 Argarum 16, 1997) 801-966, S- ANDREOU and KOTSAKIS, “aMoxnyetichsepovoins, «Mosmeixh azpregpeas: H Toijza Oorowhovien. ja Dn mg enoxis ypiaob orn MaxsSovia” in H Hepippene ov Mcp noguon deOoeesmansovIe Siete, Hi 2829 Ze. 1994 (Praktita 1999) 107-116; 8. JUNG, Kastanas. Die Dehcheilenkoramih de Shichten 19 bis 11 (PAS 18, 2002); 1D, “H yoxqvate spay mie MaxeSovieskern macia mm,” nN. KYPARISSL-APOSTOLIKA and M PAPAKONSTANTINOU (eds), 1 Mepipipria rv Moma xdouoo. Biotic dioureypovid Zenda, Ae 26-30 Sex. 1999 2008) 211225; ID, "Late Helladc IMC atthe Totimbes of Kastands and Olynthos and the problems of Macedonian Mycenaean Pottery” oS. DEGERJALKOTZY and M. ZAVADIL (eds), Lif IC Chronology and Spnclvonisns Procedings ofthe inernational Worksop held at the Austrian Academy of Scenes at Vienne May 7 ad 8, 2001 (2008) T5114; JUNG (aupra n. U); Ie, “Spithronzeacches Topferhandwerk im nordgiischen Rausn,” in B. KULL (ed) Die Role ds Hancterks und seiner Produ in vrsehfichen nd ‘dhiphisorischen Gealluchafen im Vergleich (Monographie Instnamention. in pres). JUNG (opr n. 49, in press). Soe references in PL EXXVIb The definition of fragments found a¢ Drama°Kajijaka” as Mycenaean in Lichardus’ publication (} LICHARDUS, R-ECHT-TLK-ILIEV, Ch]. CHRISTOV. JS, BECKER and W.R THIELE, "Die Spitbronseze an der unteren Tund?a und die ostgiachen Verbindungen in Sidostbulgarien,” Eurasia Antiqua 8 [2002] 164 ft fig. 13414) sl remains a matter of debate especialy since they were only deserved 4s "Aegean" in a Inte, more detailed publicstion . LICHARDUS, A. TOL. L. GETOV. F. BERTEMES J. KUBINIOK and LK. ILIEV, °Die bulgarisehsdeutschen Forschungen in der Mikroregion von Drama,” in FOL, J, LIGHARDUS and V. NIKOLOV (eds), Die Thrakor Ds gldene Reich des Orpheus (2004) 37.1); the pottery, unfortunately, was neither illustrated nor listed inthe catalogue 58 Foradiscussion of change in the exchange system between the Mycenaean mainland and Macedonia during {he course ofthe Late Bronze Age, ce JUNG (pra 1) in ZERNERMACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE, 301 ‘Mediator or Buffer? Returning to the introductory question once again: Was Macedonia a mediator ora buffer zone between the cultures of the Aegean and the Balkans? In any case a condensed analysis presented here can offer but a small aspect of the complicated networks and relationships that developed during the Late Bronze Age. Yet these individual aspects are indicative of certain structures of communication, which are reflected in model 2, discussed at the beginning of the paper (PL LXXIIla) and which can be summarised in three points 1. Typical Macedonian pottery forms were disseminated along river courses to the north as well as to the west and south. The distribution pattern of these types shows that Macedonia, designated as region B in model 2, was itself connected with a geographically large-scale communication network and quite appropriately defined as a crossing point between cultural spheres. 2. Typical Balkan pottery types found their way to Macedonia precisely through this communication network. The vessels suggest that a regular and durable communication existed between the Danube and the Macedonian coast during the Late Bronze Age. Furthermore, this communication was not unilateral, but involved a continued exchange among areas located between the Danube and the Macedonian coast. Yet elements from the central Balkans (PI. LXXIla: region C) never spread beyond Macedonia into the ‘Aegean (PI. LXXIIla: region A). That is to say, further transfer via Macedonia cannot be recognised (PI, LXXIIa: model 2). 8. Macedonia was already linked into an Aegean network at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Nevertheless, only the coastal regions, where contacts with central and southern Greece first took place, appear to have been part of this network for a considerable period of time. Imports on the coast never reached the Macedonian hinterland, nor did they reach the central Balkans via the routes of communication. Ultimately, in a developed and late phase of the Late Bronze Age, Mycenaean pottery arrived in the Macedonian hinterland, without spreading farther. In this case as well, the mediation of region A (the Aegean) through region B (Macedonia) to region C (the Balkans) cannot be discerned (Pl. LXXIIla: model 2). Various differing models of communication have been tested in relation to the archaeological material, The above analysis shows that while Balkan and Aegean influences did indeed meet in Macedonia, they were not transmitted any farther through Macedonia. ‘On the contrary, the analysis shows very clearly that Macedonia was a kind of barrier in both directions (PI. LXXIIa; model 2). Therefore, during the Late Bronze Age Macedonia was not a mediator, but rather a buffer zone, through which only few Balkan elements reached the south and likewise few Aegean elements passed through to the north. Barbara HOREJS302 PLLXXIIa PLLXXIIb PL LUXXIVa Barbara HOREJS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ‘Ways of Communication, Model 1 and 2 (by the author). Distribution map of bowls with an incurved rim (after HOREJS [supra n. 8) 75 ff; map 4): 1: Toumba Thessalonikis 2: Kallipetra 3: Zagoré 4: Mikro Vouni 5: Elaphi 6: Katyani 7: Monovrisi 8: Stathmios Angistas 9: Devetaki 10: Jagnilo 16: Kastanas 17: Thermi A 18: Gona 19: Olynthus Toumba, Distribution map of wishbone-bowls: 1. Koukos: unpublished; 2. Assiros: WARDLE (stra n. 40) 451 fig. 1.1.34; W.A. HEURTLEY, “Report on excavations at the Toumba and Tables of 1926,” BSA 27 (1925.26) pl. 3a;b,5.9-11; HEURTLEY (supra n, 38) pl. 18,408; 4, Molyvopyrgos: W.A. HEURTLEY and C. RALEGH RADFORD, “Two Prehistoric Sites in Chalkidice,” BSA 29 (1927-28) 166 fig. 41,5; HEURTLEY (supra n. $8) 209 no, 385-388; 5. Amphipolis: unpublished (Amphipolis Museum); 6. Pevkakia: unpublished; 7, Mikro Vouni: unpublished; 8, Kouphouyannos: L. STEFANI, “Avaoxagi axov Agova mg Eyvarias. Ato xpotoropixéc eyxaractdoeic omy eployti ts Acuxémerpag HuaOias,” AEMTHT 14 (2000) 552, fig. 4; 9. Burrel: D. KURTI, “Tumat ilire t& Burrelit,” Hixia 18 (1988) 106 pl. 4,4; 10, Nguré: J. KOGI, “Fortifikiment parahistorike né bregdetin kaon,” Miia 21 (1991) 63 1. 2.40.46; Ti. Luarasi ALIU (supra n. 5, 2004) pl. 26,284; 12, Pachok: N. BODINAKI, “Varreza tumulare e Pazhokut,” Hira 19 (1982) 91 pl. 2.5; 13. Symiza: P, LERA, “Vendbaninnt ilir né Gradishtén e Symizés,” Iliria 22 (1992) 200 V. GRAMMENOS and M, FOTTADIS, “Axé zou npotoroprroig oxtopous rg Avarolixfig Maxdovias.” Ardpeonozoyixé 1 (1980) 42 ne. 216; 15. Asenovee: M. KANCEV, “Matériaux du site préhistorique de Age du Bronze récent et du Hallstatt ancien pris’ d’Asenovec, depart. de Sliven,” Thracia 3 (1974) 68 fig. 4 left; 16, Devetakis HANSEL (supra n. 5) T. 12.5.6; 17. Emen: J. NIKOLOVA and N. ANGEL OY, “Passonkut a Emenexara newepa," Ievestiia na Artheologicheskiia institut 24 (1961) 310, fig. 17 middle above; 18, Krakra: A, RADUNCEVA, “Tpancropnicexn cermma (VIL xia. np. . €,)," in T. IVANOV (ed.), Pepuns T (1981) 11-51, 44 fig. 38,5 below left; 19. Nova Zagora: R. KANTINCAROV, “Habitations de l"ige du bronze moyen du tell de Nova Zagora (Bulgarie de Sud),” Thracia 1 (1972) 141 fig. 5.a below right; 20, Argissa Magula: E. HANSCHMANN, Die deutschen Ausgrabungen auf der Angissa ‘Magula in Thessalien IV. Die mittlere Bronzezeit (BAM 23, 1981), 117 f. pl. 17,6: 21. Kastro Palia: A. BATSIOUI ArchDelt 40°A (1985) pl. 16,65 22. HOCHSTETTER (supra n. 8) 88; 975 pl. 141.3; 17,5; 29,1; 30,1.24.11; 82,7; 34,11; 49,3; 58,9: 57,3.13; 61,95 68,1 (“calotte-shaped"); pl 13,1; 14,2; 30,1; 49,1.2 57-4; 61.3 (“incurved rim"); 23. Toumba Thessalonikis: E, KIRIATZI, Kapa) Tegvotoyia nau Hapa). H Kepagurs tne Yorepne Exoys tov Kadai axo vyy Toiyera Ocarwovinne (Cnpublished PhD thes University of Thessaloniki, 2000) 158; fig. 5.30,KA 150.KA 1842.KA 1680; fig. 5.31,KA 969.KA 1019; 24, Angelochori: N. MEROUSSIS and L. STEFANI, “Incised and mattpainted pottery fom Late Bronze Age settlements in Western Macedonia: technique, shapes and decoration,” in LAFFINEUR and BETANCOURT (supra n, 49) 356 pl. 151.4; 25. Trem: M. KORKUTI, “Vendbanimi prehistoik i Trenit,” Iiria 1 (1971) pl. 845 26. Kallipetra: 1, STEFANI, “Avaoxug otov Agova tg Eyvarias. Abo xpoictopixéc ByRaraotdces omy Repwoxf ms AevRénetpag HuaBiac,” AEMTH 14 (2000) 545 fig. 4 right; ‘STATHIOU, “Moxnyaiika an6 1 Néo Tuvia BOsov,”PL. LXXIVb MACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE 308, 27, Lianokladi: A,}.B. WACE and MS. THOMPSON, Prehistoric Thessaly (1912) 185; 186 fig. 134.2 28. Kavallaris M. PAPA, "Oxupouévos oxionss oro Kafia2Adpt,” AEMTH 8 (1989) 388, fig, 6; 29. Mesimeriani: D.V. GRAMMENOS and K, SKOURTOPOULOS, “Meonepiav ‘oiquna Tprhdgov Geaoatovixns,” AEMTH 6 (1992) 347 fig. 9; 30, Perivolaki: W.A. HEURTLEY, “Report an the excavations at the Toumba of Sarats Macedonia, 1929," BSA 30 (19289) 185 fig. 10,5; HEURTLEY (supra 38) 222 nn 439; 251 pl. 21,439; 31. Maroneia: unpublished (Komotini Museum); 32. Kalindria: HEURTLEY (supra n. 38) 205 fig. 71,4; 33. Podgorie: P. LERA, “Dy vendhanime prehistorike né Podgorie,” Hiria 13 (1983) 69 pl 6,7: 34, Karyani: Ch. KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKI, “Ilpotatopixis oxcioy6s Képoavns,” ArchDeli 27:8 (1972) 528 fig. 4.9; 35, Garkvisteto: KISJOV (supra n. 5) 7 fig. 10 middle right; 36. Cairite: Ch. VALCANOVA, “KeeoGpoion0 woruno noreGenue or epesurTe poxomn,” Ezuestija na muzeite of jusna Balgarija (1984) 52 fig. 37. Gorno Pavlikenis M. KANCEV and P. PAVLOV, “Kxevo6ponsoso cenute xpaitc Topo Tlaamuxens, Jlosemxn oxpar,” Godishnik na muceite of Severna Bulgeriia 12 (1986) fig. 2 38. Jagnilo: G. TONCEVA, “Fouilles d'une nécropole et d'un site de "ge du Bronze récent elu village Yagnilo, dep. de Varna,” Thracia 4 (1977) 158 pl. 8,14; 10,1; 39. Razkopanica: P. DETEV, “Le tell Razkopanica,” Izvestiia na Arkieologicheskiia institnt/ Bulletin de UInstitut archéologique 36 (1981) 170 fig. 38; 40. Archontiko: MEROUSSIS and STEFANI 1997 (op. cit. site 24) 355 pl. 149,¢ 41. Dimini: V. ADRIMISISMANI. “lH joxnvatixi 2623, oro Ayuivis Nebtepa S:Boqive jw may Toad,” in E, DE MIRO, L. GODART and A. SACCONI (ed), Alli ¢ memorie det seconda congresso internazionale di micenologie. RomaNapoli, 14-20 ottobre 1991 (Incunabulae Graeca 98, 1996) pl. 1,8: 42. Melitaia: G. BAKALAKIS, “Ilpoforopisd ovvorsionss néipa m Meizaia,” Beaoadind 2 (1959) 84 fig. 5; 43, Sesklo: WACE and THOMPSON 1912 (op. cit site 27) 185; 44, Tsanglis ibid; 45. Ts 46. Zerelia: ibid; 47. Kiperi: Th. PAPADOPOULOS, “Das myken (Epirus),” AMZ 96 (1981) 20; 21 fig. 5, nr. 48.5 48. Dodona: K. WARDLE, "Cultural Groups of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age in Northwest Greece,” Godiinjak Centra za bathanoloska istrazivanja 15 (1977) 176; 49. Stivos: HOREJS (supra n. 8) pl. 132510812; 50, Thermi A: HEURTLEY (supra n, 5) 224 nr. 452; 249 pl. 18,452; HOREJS (supra n. 8) 1 I3L.S16; BI. Kastri (Thasos): KOUKOULECHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) pl 1 52, Stathmos Angistas: EAD., “Orxioudc ms votepns exoyiis tov z0hKo0 oxov Zradl6 Arviowas Zeppiiv,” Avf)perxoioyme 1 (1980) pl. 10,161,207; 58. Godse Deleev: ALEXANDROV (supra'n, 41) 328. fig, 1,9; 54, Limnotopos: HEURTLEY (supra n. 5) 85; 55. Maliq: unpublished (Koreé Museum): 56. Daphnoudi: D.V.GRAMMENOS, “Axo tous npotoropixotis epvorxtopotic mgavaroiixtig Maesovias.” ArchDelt 30:4 (1975) 200, no. (10); 57. Verjis tid, 200, no, 3 (12); 58. Gona: HOREJS (supra n. 8) pl. 129,81; 59. Olynthus Toumba: HOREJS (supra n. 8) map 67. Distribution map of Amphorae with conical neck (after HOREJS [supra n. 8] 149 fs map 13) I: Assiros 2: Axiochori 3: Batak 4: Carkvisteto 5: Donja Brnjica 6: Edenica 7: Exochi 8: Kamenska Cuka 9: Kastanas 10: Kastri (Thasos) 11: Klucka (Hipodrom) 12: Ljubéa 13: Phaia Petra 14: Plovdiv 15: Potami 16: Progled 17: Stathmos Angistas 18: Olynthus Toumnba 19; Toumba Thessalonikis 20: Ulanei 21: Varos (Prilep). sche Kuppelgrab von Kiperi bei Parga304 PLLXXVa PL LXXVb PL LXXVIa PLLXXVIb PLLXXVIa PL LXXVIIb Barbara HOREJS Distribution map of different types of globular large bow! (" [supra n. 8] 89 ff; map 8). I: Assiros 2: Mesimeriani 5: Toumba Thessalonikis 4: Nikopolis 5; Platania 6: Angissa 7: Pevkakia 8: Cetush 9: Nguré 10: Himaré 11: Soyjan 12: Potami 13: Kastri (Thasos) 14: Klucka, Hipodrom 15: CarkviSteto 16: Gerkovna 17: Sandanski 18: Godse Deléev 19: Kastanas 20: Olynthus Toumba, Distribution map of globular undecorated Kantharoi (“Kugetkantharoi") (after HOREJS. [supra n. 8] 105 ff; map 10). 1: Olynthus Touma 6: Sandanski 7: Axiochori 8: Tournba Thessalonikis 9: Angelochori 10: Ulanci 11: Gerkovna 12: Devetaki 13: Gradesnica 14 Krufoviea 15: Nova Zagora 16: Novo Selo 17: Ostrov 18: Plovdiv 19: Razkopanica 20: Tutlata 21: Godse Detéev 22: Novgrad 23: Batak 24: Dolno Linevo 25: Badarsi 26: Pleven- Railaka 27: Ruse 28: Atia 29: Kastanas. Distribution map of incrusted decorated pottery in different shapes (after HOREJS [supra n. 8] 58 ff; map 1). I: Ai Vlasis Pentapolis 2: Agios Antonios 3: Agio Pnevma 4: Alonia 5: Angelochori 6: Apsalos 7: Asprovrisi (AKbounar) 8: Assiros $: Axiochori (Wardaroftsa) 10: Cairite 11: Carkvisteto 12: Gepelare 13: Cerkovna 14: Cranéa 15: Crni Kao (Cmokalacka bara) 16: Cuprija (Kasarna) 17: Dikili Tash 18: Elaphi 19: Exochi 20: Godse Deléev 21: Gona 22: Jagodina (Panjevacki rit; Sarina meda) 23: Kalindsia (Kilindir) 24 Kamenska Cuka 95: Karyianis (Toumba Paliokastro) 26: Kastanas 27: Kastri (Serres) 28: Kastri (Thasos) 29: KluckaHipodrom (Skopje) 30: Kragujevac 31 Majur (Vecina mala) 32: Mesimeriani ‘Toumba 33: Mikrokampos 34: Monovisi 35: Muselievo 36: Nikiphoros 37: Ni (Mediana) 38: Obre? 39: Palaiokomi 40: Paliokastro 41 Paracin (Gloidak; Kneselacka) 42: Paradeisos 48: Perivolaki (Saratsé) 44: Phaia Petra 45: Pirot (Maditka) 46: Platania TI 47: Potami 48: Profits Ilias 49: Razkopanica 50: Rutevac (@kotska gradina) 51: Salamanlé 52: Stathmos Angistas 53: Stivos 54: Thermi A (Sedes) Verji 60: Vrtiste (Veli Gesma) 61: Pevkakia 62: Livadi 63: Pavonia 64: Episkopi (Toumba Slata) 65: Zimnicea 66: Olyntius Toumba. Distribution map of mudbrick construction: 1. Assiros: WARDLE (supra n. 40) 446-52; 2. Gona: L. REY, “Obscrvations sur les sites préhistoriques et protohistoriques de la Macédoine,” BGH 40 (1916); HEURTLEY (supra n, 5) 28 t1; 3. Bastanas: HANSEL (supra n. 40) 70 ff 4, Koprivlen: ALEXANDROV (supra n. 41) 67. 5, Limnotopos (Vardina): HEURTLEY (supra n, : 6. Mesimeriani: D.V. GRAMMENOS and 8. KO'ISOS, Ayaoxagy arov xpotoropixé orkiayté “Meonuspiavi Toijna.” Topas N. Beaaadovinjc (2002): 7. Molyvopyrgos: W.A. HEURTLEY and C. RALEGH RADFORD, Sites in Chalkidice,” BSA 29 (1927-28) 156-160; 8, Perivolaki (Saratsé): HEURTLEY (supra n. 5) 2631; 9. Thermi A (Sédes): ibid. 24; 10. Torone: CAMBITOGLOU and PAPADOPOULOS (supra n, $8, 1990) 140 fl CAMBITOGLOU and PAPADOPOULOS (supra n. 88, 1991} 162 fF. 11, Olynthus Toumba: HANSEL (supra n. 39) 75 ff, fig. 7: 12, Toumba Thessalonikis: ANDREOU and KOTSAKIS (supra n. 38) 373 ff Stylistic groups of matt-painted pottery in the Late Bronze Age (after HOREJS [supra 1.8] 250-282; map 15). Distribution map of Mycenaean pottery in the Northern Aegean without chronolo, differentiation (after. KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKL [supra n. 5, 1992) with additions 1, Aiani Livadia: G. KARAMITROU-MENTESSIDI, Béiov —Néria Opeatic. Appauoiopxs Epevva nat lotoptxt} Toxoypagia (1999) 12 2. Agios Athanasios (Apidea): ibid. 120; 3. Agios Dimitrios (Spathes): POULAKI-PANDERMALI (supra n. 5, 1994) 125 no. 76, 126 no. 77. 805 4. Akrini: KOUKOULE-CHRYSANTHARI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 58: 5, Angelochoris L. STEFANI, “Ouoyi6s ts YEX ovo Ayyehoxopt Hyadiac: xpoxm avaccupn épewva,” AEMTH 8 (1994); EAD., “Owwiopds me’ YEX ovo Ayyehoyps Hyadiag: Avaoxagy) 1996, 1997," AEMTH 11 (1997); 6, Anthrophytos A: KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 1; chatsseln”) (after HOREJS in the Late Bronze Age, ‘wo PrehistoricMACEDONIA: MEDIATOR OR BUFFER ZONE 7, Anthrophytos B: ibid. no. 2 8. Aspri Toumba: ibid. no. 3; 9. Asprovryssi: ibid. no. 4; 10, Agar Tepe: ibid. no. 51; LL. Assiros: ibid. no. 5; 12, Axiochorit ibid. no. 39 13, Barg: BEJKO (supra n. 5) 22, fig. 40 14, Boubousti: KOUKOULL-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5 15, Chrysavgis ibid. no. 14: 16, Demir Kapija: K. KILIAN, “Trachtaubchdr der Kisenzeit zvischen Agiis und Adtia,” PZ 50 (1974) 96 pl. 42,11; 17. Dourmousli: KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 6; 18. Drama: LIGHARDUS et at. (sujira n, 52, 2002) 154 ff; LICHARDUS et al. (supra 1, 52, 2004) 37 fi OUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 7 20. Epivates: ibid, no. 8; 21, Exochis ihid. no. 48; 22. Galatista: ibid. no. 9; 23. Galliko: ibid. no. 10; 24. Godse Deléev (Koprivlen): ALEXANDROV (supra n. 41) 74 ff, 987 fig. 275 25. Gona: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 43; 26. Kalindria: ibid. no. 125 27. Kaisarea: A, CHONDROYIANNIMETOKI, “Axé my mpoiotopixi| épenva omy Kotha tov pévov pov tov AMtaxjove,” in Apyaia Maxedovia 6 (1999) 250; KARAMITROU: MENTESSIDI (op, cit. site 1) 124 28, Kastanas: JUNG (supra n. 49, 2002); 29, Kastri (Thasos): KOUKOULL-CURYSANTHAKI (supra 30. Kolitsakis CHONDROYIANNIMETORI (op. cit. site MENTESSIDI (op. cit. site 1) 124 (Bairia): 31. Kozani: KOUKOULL-CHRYSANTHARI (supa n. 5, 1992) no. 54; 82. Kouphalia A: ibid. no. 15; 33. Kouphalia Toumba: ibid. no. 29: 34. Kryovrissi: CHONDROYIANNE-METOKI (supra site 27) 247 ff: KARAMITROU MENTESSIDI (op. ct. site 1) 124; 35, Lakkovikia: KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKI (supra n, 5, 1992) no, 453 36, Limnotoposs ibid. no. 35: 37, Livadhi Toumba: ibid. no. 30; 38. Margéllic: BEJKO (supra n, 5) 22 fig. 4c; 39. Maroneia: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 50; 40, Mesimeriani Touma: ihid. no. 16; 41. Nea Kallikratia: ibid. no. 17; ibid. no. 18; 1992) no. 5 5, 1992) no. 49; ) 250; KARAMITROU- 44, Neochoronda: ibid. n0. 96; 45. Nikitis ibid. no. 20; 46, Paliokastro Karyiannis: ibid. no. 52: 47. Palio Leptokaria: POULAKIPANDERMAL (supra n. 5, 1987); 48. Paionias: KOUKOULLCHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 2 49. Pazok: BEJKO (supra n. 5) 22, fig. 4°; 50. Pentalophos A: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 44; 51, Pentalophos B: iid. no. 21; 52, Peristeronas N. Thessalonikis: ibid. no. 38; 53. Perivolaki: ibid. no. 37; 54, Petra, Tries Elies: POULAKI-PANDERMALI (supra n. 455. Phlogita: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 199 56. Philadeliphiana Toumba: ibid. no. 23: 57. Phtelia: KARAMITROU-MENTESSIDI (op. cit. site 1) 123; 58. Pigi: KOUKOULL-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n. 5, 1 8 59. Polymylos: KARA MITROU-MENTESSIDI (op. cit. site 1) 123;306 Barbara HOREJS. OUKOULL-CHRYSA\ ibid. no. 31; 62. Rehové: BEJKO (supra n. 5) 22, fi. 4b 63. Rhymniou: KARAMITROUMENTESSIDI (ap. ct. site 1) 123; 64. Scholario: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (supra n, 5, 1992) no. 34 65. Siatista: KARAMITROU-MENTESSIDI (op. cit. site 1) 120, fig. 124; 66, Sochos Toumba Ourdss KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHAKI (sufra n. 5, 1992) no. 24 67. Sparto: KARAMITROU-MENTESSIDI (op. cit. site 1) 123; 68, Stathmos Angistas: KOUKOULL-CHRYSANTHARI (supra n. 5, 1992) no. 465; 69. Stivos A: ibid. no. 25; 70. Toumba Thessalonikis: ibid. no. 11; 71. Thermi Toumba: ibid. no. 72. Olynthus Toumba: ibid. no. 41; 73. Toroni 74, Toautsit VTHART 1992 (supra n. 5) no. 47; 76. Visoj: V. SANEV etal, Urgeschichte Makedoniens (1976) 31, fig. 521; 77. Xylokeratia: KOUKOULI-CHRYSANTHARI (supra n. 5, 1992) no 178. Troy: P.A. MOUNTJOY, “Local Mycenaean Pottery at Troia,” Studia 1 250.967 ica 7 (1997)Ways of Communication- Lf eS aN a Mudbrick-constructions } ‘in the Late Bronze a : ; Lest —— I crusted decorated pottery| cj ferent shapes —LXXVII cos Pe OX 8 of mat SE k.| Mycenaean pottery in the Northern Aegean } without chronological differentiation pH