Late Bronze Age Settlement History of Emporio on Chios Reconsidered

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2, 32–51 La e B onze Age Se lemen His o y o Empo io on Chios Reconside ed K is ina Ja ošo á ABSTRACT This pape p oposes a e ision o he La e B onze Age ce amic sequence om he eas e n Aegean island o Chios. Mo e speci ically, i pu s o h anew s a ig aphic and ypological assessmen o he La e B onze Age ce amic ma e ial om A eas D, E, and F a he se lemen o Empo io. As he 2nd millennium BC deposi s o iginally seemed o ha e been o dis u bed and mixed na u e, he po e y om hese deposi s was da ed by i s exca a o only ypologically, no ha ing been assigned o any well -de ined pe iods. Howe e , due o he p ese a ion o a ela i ely p ecise documen a ion om he exca a ions i is now possible o econs uc he o iginal s a ig aphic con ex s, which, upon close inspec ion, seem o be a less dis u bed han expec ed. As a esul , h ee La e B onze Age occupa ion pe iods a Empo io ha e been iden i ied, co esponding oughly o he Ea ly Mycenaean, Pala ial Mycenaean, and Pos -pala ial Mycenaean pe iods on he G eek mainland, equi alen o T oy VI and VII on he Ana olian coas . This pape hus p esen s his new pe iodisa ion and sugges s up - o -da e ch onological co ela ions o he p e iously iden i ied s a a. KEYWORDS Aegean; La e B onze Age; po e y; ch onology; Minoanisa ion; Mycenaeanisa ion; In e ace. INTRODUCTION The po e y om Empo io was o iginally published by i s exca a o , Sinclai Hood, in 1981 and 1982 (P ehis o ic Empo io and Ayio Gala. Exca a ions in Chios 1938−1955, Volume Iand Volume II). As he 2nd millennium BC deposi s seemed o ha e been o a e y dis u bed and mixed na u e, Hood da ed all he po e y om hese deposi s p edominan ly ypologically and did no assign hem o any well -de ined pe iods, in con as o he Ea ly B onze Age (EBA) sequence. The EBA sequence in he main exca a ion A ea Aended du ing wha Hood e med Pe iod I, con empo- a y wi h T oy IIg/III and Poliochni Giallo phase. Acco ding o Hood, he nex well -s a i ied s a a come only om he end o he 2nd millennium BC, oughly equi alen o La e Helladic (LH) IIIC. Hood es ablished h ee a i icial ho izons o he 2nd millennium BC sequence in- -be ween EBA and LH IIIC wi hou any well -s a i ied con ex s o ele an a chi ec u e. Fi s , any agmen s ha looked ch onologically ea lie o him bu did no seem o ha e been o EBA II s yle anymo e, we e g ouped oge he as T oy III−V. Second, he sugges ed aMiddle B onze Age (MBA) phase, which he deemed con empo a y wi h T oy VI and in which he included all o he ma -pain ed and g ey wa e inds. And inally, he isola ed aso -called ‘p e -Mycenaean’ g oup, in which he included he es o he unpain ed po e y, which did no look ob iously ‘Mycenaean’ in cha ac e wi hou p o iding any u he speci ica ion (as i s poin ed ou by Pa úk 2010, 939–940; o he desc ip ion o exca a ions in A eas D, E, and F see Hood 1981, 147–164; Hood 1982, 568–622). His naming o he s a a e lec s his unce ain y, as he used he e m ‘pe iods’ o he ea lie s a a and he e m ‘s ages’ o he s a a pos da ing Pe iod I, wi h added A abic nume als in A ea F and Roman nume als in a ea D o u he subdi isions. 33KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ Thanks o he p eciseness o his documen a ion, i was possible o econs uc he o ig- inal s a ig aphic con ex s, which a e a less dis u bed compa ed o wha Hood expec ed. The mo e ecen e -examina ions ha e demons a ed mo e clea ly ha con ex s we e no con amina ed by la e building ac i i ies as much as had been hough p e iously. Fi s , he e -examina ion o he inds in he A chaeological Museum o Chios by Pe e Pa úk1 showed ha bo h he a i icially c ea ed g oup called T oy III–V, mos o he ma -pain ed po e y, as well as ala ge pa o he so -called p e -Mycenaean po e y ac ually all belong o asingle ho izon da ing oughly o he Ea ly Mycenaean pe iod ( e med p elimina ily LB 1 he e). The g ey wa e inds comp ise only a ew she ds in Empo io and come om dis inc i e le els. Wi h se e al di e en ab ics ep esen ed, all o hem seem o ha e been impo ed and can be b oadly conside ed as Ana olian g ey wa e. Howe e , ypologically hese pieces ha e no been assigned o any gi en pe iod so a (Pa úk 2010, 939; Gi ella– Pa úk 2015, 403; Gi ella– Pa úk 2016, 21). The p esen wo k builds upon p elimina y esul s o Pa úk’sanalysis. He has en us ed me wi h u he elabo a ion o his ini ial wo k, which a ge ed he Ea ly Mycenaean pe iod exclu- si ely. Fo my Mas e Thesis a Cha les Uni e si y in P ague, Iha e included and sequenced all o he pos -EB II ma e ial published om Empo io. Using he s a ig aphic in o ma ion p o ided by Hood, I econs uc ed all o he o iginal con ex s as ully as possible, including he be e -p ese ed LH IIIC ones, which ha e ne e been p esen ed con ex ually (Ja ošo á 2016). The newly econs uc ed po en ial s a ig aphic le els ha e been ypologically da ed anew, ollowing he up - o -da e in o ma ion om wes e n Ana olian coas al si es, which was no a ailable o Hood back in his days, combined wi h be e knowledge o he Mycenaean po e y and he e -assessmen o he inds om Empo io by Penelope Moun joy (1998, 53–67; 1999, 1147–1155). The ollowing pages b ie ly desc ibe he si e o Empo io, concen a ing on i s e -de ined s a ig aphy, ch onology, and po e y classi ica ion om all a eas ha yielded ele an La e B onze Age (LBA) le els. This a icle ul ima ely o e s anew de ini ion o indi idual wa es. Impo an compa ison wi h he Aegean, and especially he a ea o he so -called eas e n Ae- gean– wes e n Ana olian In e ace, will be also discussed, as well as he issue o se lemen dis-/con inui y. All o his e o has been on pu pose p ima ily based exclusi ely on he p e iously published ma e ial only. A ull es udy o he ma e ial published by Hood, which is now s o ed in he Chios Museum, will be p esen ed oge he wi h P.Pa úk in asepa a e pape .2 The so - a unpublished ma e ial which is cu en ly being in es iga ed by he p esen au ho will be published once he s udy is ully comple ed. THE SITE OF EMPORIO: STRATIGRAPHY AND COMMENTS ON SINCLAIR HOOD’SEXCAVATIONS The Empo io si e lies in he sou h -eas e n pa o Chios in he municipali y uni Mas icho- cho ia (wi h Py gi as he la ges illage), si ua ed on he sou he n end o he mode n Empo- io illage ha bou (Fig. 1). This sou he n end comp ises a ocky p omon o y ( he so -called Ac opolis hill), wi h ali le ha bou ha o e s good ancho age and a a ou able landing place on he sou he n and eas e n pa o Chios be ween Chios Town and Ka o Phana, ano he si e wi h LBA inds and alook -ou pos (also possibly aha bou ), lying only 9 km om Empo io 1 Who s udied he po e y in Oc obe 2009. 2 Amo e de ailed assessmen will be published in he Annual o he B i ish School a A hens. 34 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 1: Map o Empo io Ac opolis and Bay wi h exca a ion a eas (a e Hood 1981, ig. 47; cou esy o The B i ish School a A hens). 35KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ (Beaumon 1999; 2004; 2007, 143). Majo i y o he p ehis o ic si es on Chios ha e ne e been sys ema ically examined wi h he excep ions o Empo io, Ka o Phana in he sou h, and Ayio Gala in he no h ( o he i s ho ough lis o p ehis o ic si es see Hood 1981, 2–9; amo e ex ensi e o e iew was compiled la e by Yalou is 1986). Sinclai Hood di ec ed wo ks on Chios o he B i ish School a A hens om 1952 o 1955. He no iced ase lemen a Empo io o he i s ime in 1952, and exca a ions s a ed du ing he same yea . The main emphasis was pu on he exca a ions o p ehis o ic le els, wi h aspecial ocus on se lemen s a ig aphy, including impo an B onze Age deposi s. Acco ding o b ie p elimina y epo s and he inal publica ion o P ehis o ic Empo io (Hood 1981; 1982), his main obse a ions abou he se lemen a Empo io and i s p ehis o ic ma e ial can be summa ised as ollows. The majo i y o he p ehis o ic ma e ial eco e ed he e belongs o ea ly pe iods, ha is om he beginning o he Ea ly Neoli hic o he beginning o EBA (in Aegean e ms). This ‘ea ly’ ma e ial was di ided by Hood in o en pe iods (designa ed as Pe iod X−I), based on majo building de elopmen s and di e ences in po e y om A ea A, which includes only ea ly p ehis o ic le els. The en pe iods all in o i e main g oups, which a e ma ked by dis inc changes in po e y ashions om he ea lies pa s o he Ea ly Neoli hic (Pe iod X as he ea lies ) h ough o EBA (wi h he i s wheel -made po e y in Pe iod I; Hood 1981, 85–91; Hood 1982, ii– iii, 715–725; o amo e ecen e -assessmen o his ea lie ma e ial om bo h Ayio Gala and Empo io see Al am -S e n 1996, 474–480; Schoop 2005, 235–237, 258–259, Ta . 143–146; Lamb ech s 2014; Schwall 2018, 86–89, Abb. 11). A Empo io, he 2nd millennium BC le els wi h a chi ec u al emains we e p ese ed mainly in A eas D and F, oge he wi h buil ombs in A ea E. Un o una ely, all hese a eas ha e been exposed o e osion and dis u bances since an iqui y, especially du ing Roman and Byzan ine building ac i i ies, and some o he le els a e he e o e mixed. As has been o eshadowed a he beginning o his a icle, hese le els a e, in ac , less mixed han i was o iginally hough . Be o e Iemba k on asho desc ip ion o indi idual a eas, o he sake o cla i y i should be no ed ha indi idual exca a ion a eas we e composed o enches, and bo h he a eas and he enches we e labelled by pa ly iden ical capi al le e s, which causes some con usion o he eade oday. A ea D is si ua ed on he wes e n slope o he Ac opolis hill (Hood 1981, 147–150, igs. 79–81). He e, wo enches con ained 2 nd millennium BC ma e ial: T enches Q and M. While T ench M did no ac ually con ain any 2 nd millennium BC deposi s, and he exca a ed Mycenaean she ds we e in usi e in he EBA s a a, he adjoining T ench Q, on he con a y, did no include any ea lie B onze Age deposi s, bu showed e idence o wo Mycenaean building phases. Sin- clai Hood named hem S age Iand S age II (Hood 1982, 150). The ea lie one o hese (S age I) ended wi h ades uc ion by i e ( he bu n deb is in Hoods’ Le els 4, 5, and 6). F agmen s o LH IIIB po e y (Le el 7) we e ound unde he loo le el o S ageI. Nume ous agmen s o LH IIIC po e y came om he le el abo e he loo . S age II, on he o he hand, emained poo ly p ese ed, bu se e al LH IIIC po e y agmen s we e exca a ed he e. A ea E likely ep esen s emains o aceme e y, si ua ed on he adjacen slope and wes o he Ac opolis hill. Only wo cis g a es (Tomb 3 and Tomb 4) we e p ese ed. In e es ingly, he e was an EBA II chambe omb jus highe up he gen le slope (Hood 1981, 150–153, ig. 83, pl. 29 d, e). While Tomb 4 was emp y, Tomb 3 con ained Mycenaean deco a ed po e y o aLH IIIB da e (Hood 1982, 582–583, ig. 260, pl. 117:a; Moun joy 1999, 1149). LH IIIB ombs o he same ype ha e been documen ed a A chon iki on he neighbou ing island o Psa a, whe e aMycenaean ceme e y was in use om LH IIB o LHIIIC. Excep o a ew ombs, all o he bu ial s uc u es we e o ien a ed no h– sou h (jus as a Empo io Tomb 3, bu no aces o body we e p ese ed in his omb; Cha i onidis 1961–1962, 266; Hood 1981, 152–153, ig. 83; 36 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Achila a 1996; A chon idou -A gy i 2006, 41). Simila cis g a es o hose a Psa a ha e been ound a Panaz epe (E kanal -Ök ü 2018, 54–57, Ta . 96, 98, 99), and less well de ined cis g a es ha e also been de ec ed a Maka a on Lesbos (Cha i onidis 1961–1962, 265) and Beşik Tepe in he no h (e.g., alikely LH IIIA2 Cis 75 wi h aslab; Basedow 2000, 49, Ta . XXXVI:1). A ea F is si ua ed on he no he n edge o he Ac opolis hill, o e looking he shielded Ha bou bay (Hood 1981, 154–164, igs. 88–95). Se e al soundings we e made below he Roman occupa ion le els: T enches S, F, D, B, K, L, and J, e ealing 3 m deep B onze Age deposi s, pa ly loca ed on qui e as eep slope. Unlike in A ea D, Hood de ined eigh s ages he e designa ed by A ab nume als. Le el 8 was o apos -B onze Age da e, bu he con ex s we e s ill p e -Roman, likely belonging o an A chaic phase ye o be de ined a he si e. Two clea ly da ed LBA building phases we e dis inguished in his a ea. They we e named S age 6 and S age 7 by Hood. While he la e one was conside ed a‘Mycenaean’ building phase belonging o Final LH IIIC (S age 7), he da e o he ea lie pe iod (S age 6) could no be secu ely assigned and was he e o e e med ‘P e -Mycenaean’ by Hood. Ne e heless, po e y om bo h s ages was p esen ed in he inal publica ion all oge he and concep ualised as Mycenaean (e en hough Hood poin ed ou ha po e y coming om S age 6 could also be ea lie and non -Mycenaean in cha ac e ; Hood 1982, 579–580). Thus, lumping oge he S ages 6 and 7 has made amo e speci ic da ing o S age 6 p oblema ic, and o e all Hood’s e m ‘p e -Mycenaean’ is o ela i ely li le help (Hood 1981, 158–161). In any case, he la e LBA building phase ended wi h ades uc ion and inal abandonmen du ing LHIIIC. In o de o be e unde s and he s a ig aphy in A ea F, one needs o s a a he beginning o he sequence, e en i b ie ly. He e, S ages 1–4 clea ly belong o EBA, wi h he la es S age 4 said o ha e been con empo a y wi h T oy II (Hood 1981, 154). The majo ques ion, he e o e, conce ns wha happened be ween he end o he EBA and he beginning o he LBA sequence. E en hough Hood men ioned epea edly ha he e is no e idence o any a chi ec u al e- mains o deposi s in a eas exca a ed a Empo io ha would ha e come om he la e pa o EBA (Hood 1981, x, 158; Hood 1982, 568), he ne e heless c ea ed an a i icial S age 5 o b idge he se lemen gap. Based on po e y agmen s, which o him seemed olde han he main LBA g oup and which we e conside ed con empo a y wi h T oy III−V, acon inui y o occupa ion h oughou EBA in o,MBA was sugges ed. Howe e , he exis ence o ,MBA is ano he poin o con en ion a Empo io, as i is based mos ly on agmen s o g ey and ma -pain ed wa es hough o be con empo a y wi h T oyVI. Ye , he e is almos no e idence o a chi ec u al emains ha could be da ed o his pe iod. Only Wall 30 in A ea F was iden i ied as apossible candida e (Hood 1981, x, 158−161, ig. 88; o he o iginally de ised po e y g oups see Hood 1982, 568−578, ig. 254−257). NEW EXAMINATION AND PERIODISATION OF POTTERY FINDS FROM EMPORIO As s a ed abo e, he ce amic ma e ial ound mainly in A eas D, E, and F was o iginally pub- lished only ypologically and wi h li le conside a ion o s a ig aphy, as Hood hough ha i was all coming om dis u bed s a a. Howe e , Pa úk (2010) no iced ha he inds desc ibed as ‘P e -Mycenaean’ do clus e in Hood’sS age 6 (in A ea F) and P e -S age I(in A eaD) and ha hei associa ion does make sense i one app oaches he Chian assemblage om aWes e n Ana olian poin o iew, so o speak, in he sense ha essels om Empo io seem o e lec shapes known in wes e n Ana olia and no on he G eek mainland. I was hus decided o e -analyse he assemblage and econs uc all o he o iginal s a ig aphic con ex s 37KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ using Hood’sindica ions (Ja ošo á 2016). As will be shown in he ollowing pages, his was awo h -while unde aking. Since Hood’sno ebook sec ions indica ed all iden i ied le els o each ench, and since he indica ed o which le el almos e e y single published piece belonged, i was decided o y and ollow hese o iginal assignmen s and econs uc he o iginal con ex s as exca a ed by Hood. Bes esul s we e achie ed o T ench Q in A ea D and o T enches B, D, and F in A ea F. Pla es wi h po e y d awings we e c ea ed acco dingly as well. Fo he non -Mycenaean shapes, anew e minology was in oduced based on he knowledge o po e y shapes om Ana olia and he su ounding islands. Re aining Hood’so iginal s age designa ions by ench, each s a um was da ed anew in ela i e e ms (by ce amic ypologies and in espec o e ical s a- ig aphy) (Fig. 2). While he ea lie pos -EBA s a a we e da ed using compa a i e examples om o he si es on he eas e n Aegean islands and wes e n Ana olian coas , he new da ing o he s a ig aphically la e con ex s has been based on Mycenaean pain ed po e y, which has been mo e p ecisely da ed by Moun joy (1998, 53–67 and Moun joy 1999, 1147–1155). No only did his de ailed examina ion con i m Pa úk’sobse a ion ha he a i icially c ea ed g oup called T oy III–V, mos o he ma -pain ed po e y, as well as he so -called p e -Mycenaean po e y ac ually all belong o he same ho izon da ing oughly o he Ea ly Mycenaean pe iod, bu also anew da ing o he Empo io sequence could be p oposed, which now complemen s and supe sedes he one sugges ed by Gi ella and Pa úk (2016, ig. 2.5). The LBA se lemen sequence a Empo io can now be di ided in o h ee b oad ho izons e med p elimina ily he e LB 1, 2, and 3: LB 1 co e s he Ea ly Mycenaean pe iod on he G eek mainland (LH I–II), ollowed by apossible gap du ing LH IIIA. LB 2, co esponding o he Pa- Fig. 2: Upda ed ch onology o he La e B onze Age le els a he si e o Empo io (a e Ja ošo á 2016). Chios, Empo io A ea, T ench Le el New ela i e da ing Hood’s s ages D, Q 7 LH IIIB P e–I D, Q 6, 5, 4, 3 LH IIIC Middle I D, Q 2 LH IIIC La e 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–La e 7 F, B 2 LH IIIC Middle–La e 7 F, B 1 LH IIIC La e 7 F, D 5 LH I–II 6 F, D 4 LH IIIC Middle–La e 7 F, D 3 LH IIIC Middle–La e 7 F, D 2 LH IIIC Middle–La e 7 F, D 1 LH IIIC Middle–La e 7 F, F 3 and 2 LH I–II 6 F, F 1 LH IIIC Middle 7 38 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 3: Rep esen a i e selec ion o po e y da ed o he LB 1 pe iod. 1–9, 11–12– unpain ed; 10– ma ‑ ‑pain ed; 13, 14– coa se. All o scale 1:3, unless s a ed o he wise. Adjus ed a e Hood 1982; cou esy o The B i ish School a A hens. 39KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ la ial pe iod on he G eek mainland, is e idenced by LH IIIB s a a in A eaD. The e migh be ano he sho gap du ing LH IIIC Ea ly, ollowed by awell -e idenced se lemen in LH IIIC Middle and La e, cons i u ing he local LB 3. The ce amic de elopmen s can be summa ised as ollows: LB 1 (c. LH Iand LH II) includes ma -pain ed po e y and local unpain ed po e y including some ki chen wa es and pi hoi. Among especially dis inc i e open shapes a e conical cups (Fig. 3:1, 3), ogi al handleless cups (Fig. 3:4), S -cups (Fig. 3:2, 5), and bead - im bowls (Fig. 3:7). Rep esen a i e closed shapes a e ea -po s/b idge spou ed ja s (Fig. 3:8), e oil mou hed jugs (Fig. 3:9, 11), and jugs wi h cu away spou (Fig. 3:10). LB 2 (c. [LH IIIA?]–LH IIIB) cons i u es he smalles segmen o LBA po e y om he si e. I consis s mainly o local unpain ed po e y and a ew Mycenaean pain ed ases (o a e y good quali y, hough i is unclea whe he local o impo ed), and some g ey wa e she ds (which a e likely impo ed). Among ep esen a i e ypes a e conical cups (Fig. 4:1), hick- -walled deep ound bowls wi h ho izon al handles (Fig. 4:6, 7), kylikes, om which FS 258 is e y equen in he pain ed a ian , bu he unpain ed class also occu s o en (Fig. 4:4, 5), jugs wi h ci cula mou h (Fig. 4:8), s i up ja s (FS 182) (Hood 1982, pl. 126:2848, 2849), and a ious ypes o small o medium ja s. Ano he ep esen a i e shape is he la ge Mycenaean lask (FS 186/189) (Fig. 4:9). The cis g a e om A ea E yielded Mycenaean pain ed po e y ha con ained amug (FS 226), abowl wi h one handle (FS 244), and an alabas on (FS 94), which a e also common shapes o he pe iod (Fig. 4:2, 3, 10). LB 3 (c. LH IIIC) includes he highes amoun o po e y om he LBA s a a. This g oup includes some o he g ey wa e bu consis s mainly o local unpain ed wa e and Mycenaean pain ed wa e (see ep esen a i e shapes in Fig. 5). The mos commonly ep esen ed shapes a e ca ina ed cups (Fig. 5:7), kylikes (FS 275) (Fig. 5:3), ledge - im bowls (Fig. 5:1), kala hoi (FS 291) (Fig. 5:2, 9; o he in e io design see Hood 1982, pl. 121:2758), as well as basins, k a e s, jugs, and di e en ypes o a iously sized ja s. Cooking jugs and pi hoi a e also p esen (see ep esen a i e examples on Fig. 6; pi hoi o his pe iod a e men ioned in he ex below). Among he mos equen Mycenaean shapes o his pe iod a e deep bowls wi h ho izon al handles (FS 285) (Fig. 5:4), small bowls wi h one ho izon al handle (FS 242) (Fig. 5:6), hyd iae (FS 128) (Fig. 5:11), ampho ae (FS 70) (Fig. 5:10), ing -based k a e s (FS 282), and s i up ja s (FS 175). An ampho iskos (FS 59) is an excep ional shape (Fig. 5:8). NEW CLASSIFICATION OF POTTERY WARES The po e y om Empo io has now been e -classi ied in o six di e en wa e -g oups: ma - -pain ed wa e, local unpain ed wa e, Mycenaean pain ed wa e, g ey wa e, ki chen wa e, and pi hoi. Anew ypological e minology has been es ablished, e lec ing be e he ‘P e- -Mycenaean’ pa o he po e y sequence, which does no ma ch he s anda d Mycenaean shapes acco ding o Fu uma k’s ypology (Ja ošo á 2016). This e -classi ica ion has also been based on au opsy in he A chaeological Museum o Chios, conduc ed by he au ho in yea s 2017–2019. Bo h local and impo ed wa es/ ab ics ha e been dis inguished, bu planned pe og aphy will p o ide inal assessmen o hese g oupings. The majo i y o he inds seems o be o local o igins, and only some o he Mycenaean pain ed wa es (especially he LH IIIB ones) and likely all o he g ey wa es seem o ha e been impo ed (Pa úk 2010). Hood sus- pec ed also one piece o ma -pain ed wa e o be impo ed, bu ha emains o be e i ied (Hood 1982, 574, 578; pl. 115a:2681). 40 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Fig. 4: Rep esen a i e selec ion o po e y da ed o he LB 2 pe iod. 1, 5–8– unpain ed; 2–4, 9–10– Mycenaean pain ed. All o scale 1:3, unless s a ed o he wise. Adjus ed a e Hood 1982; cou esy o The B i ish School a A hens. 47KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ PITHOI The pi hoi a Empo io a e o alocal cha ac e . They ha e been ound p ima ily in A ea F. This coa se wa e is e y ha d i ed, con ains inclusions o small s ones and commonly also mica (including gold mica). She ds a e usually o ange o g ey in he b eak and pale o ange o ed- dish on he su ace. The su ace o he essels is usually le plain o washed in pale b own colou , smoo hed o sligh ly bu nished. One agmen was pain ed (Hood 1982, pl. 119b:2906). P incipally, he pi hoi a e o he necked - ype wi h ing o la base, wi h aised bands on he body, o deco a ed wi h ho izon al g oo es. The heigh o he essels is es ima ed o be up o 1 me e (Hood 1982, 611–612). A ypical pi hos usually has wo o h ee ho izon al handles ( o mo e illus a ions, see Hood 1982, ig. 276:2900, 2901), bu a a ian wi h al e na ing e ical and ho izon al handles is also p esen (Fig. 3:14). Acompa able essel has been ound in Panaz epe (E kanal -Ök ü 2018, 87, Ta . 85:AH 1) and is conside ed o be an impo om Chios by he exca a o . Fu he pa allels o he a ie y wi h h ee ho izon al handles can be ound a Ayia I ini on Kea (Caskey 1972, 397, pl. 94: H 29) and a agmen wi h ho izon al ibs comes om he Chian se lemen o Volissos: Le ka hia (Hood 1982, 8). MINOANISATION AND MYCENAEANISATION Empo io seems o ha e been e -se led a he end o he AegeanMBA o ea ly in LBA; ahia us is now expec ed o he mos o MBA. I shows an in e es ing mix o island cul u es wi h Ana- olian elemen s (Gi ella − Pa úk 2015, 404). In amo e es ic ed con ex , he island o Chios plays an impo an ole o he o e all assessmen o he so -called eas e n Aegean– wes e n Ana olian In e ace (Moun joy 1998). In he case o he Aegean B onze Age, his ma e ial in- o ms on he p ocesses o Minoanisa ion (B oodbank 2004; Knappe – Nikolakopoulou 2008) and Mycenaeanisa ion (Moun joy 1998; Go ogianni– Pa úk– Gi ella 2016). I we accep Moun joy’s(1998) di ision o he eas e n Aegean in o he Uppe and Lowe In e ace, i is impo an o econside he posi ion o he island o Chios in e ms o he In- e ace. Acco ding o Moun joy, Chios should belong o he Uppe pa (Moun joy 1998, ig. 1). Howe e , he si e has now shown many links o he sou h du ing he LB 1 pe iod (which is also he case o Çeşme -Bağla a ası, loca ed on he opposi e Ana olian coas ), which makes i wo hwhile o conside he new concep o ‘Cen al In e ace’ (Gi ella– Pa úk 2016, 34). The na u e o he Minoan and Mycenaean in ol emen on he island o Chios, as seen p edominan ly h ough he po e y and small inds, can now be desc ibed as ollows. Em- po io was likely dese ed du ing he so -called ‘P e -con ac S age’ o Minoanisa ion in,MBA, as de ined by Gi ella and Pa úk (2016). The e a e only a ew i ems (e.g. pendan mould, see Hood 1982, pl. 137:39) ha can be conside ed as belonging o he ‘Con ac S age’. In con as , he so -called ‘Hyb id S age’ is now mos ly well ep esen ed by he ma -pain ed po e y and by se e al Aegean/Minoan shapes o he local LB1 pe iod (Gi ella– Pa úk 2016, 18–24). As a as he Mycenaean in luence (o Mycenaeanisa ion) a Empo io is conce ned, we ha e e idence om LH IIIB onwa d om bo h he se lemen and une a y con ex . While non- -Mycenaean shapes con inue o be used du ing LH IIIB, possibly in he adi ion o hyb id shapes ound al eady in he p eceding pe iod, he LH IIIC pe iod seems o be en i ely My- cenaean in e ms o shape o ms and he ac ha Mycenaean shapes we e clea ly imi a ed in local wa e. O e all, he LB 1 pe iod shows hyb id ma e ial cul u e wi h some in luences in po e y om he sou he n Aegean, s emming mainly om he ea lie p ocess o Minoanisa ion. The nex 48 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 pe iod, LB 2, co esponds ch onologically wi h he Mycenaean pala ial pe iod and shows an in eg a ion o Mycenaean o ms in o he local cul u e, o example h ough impo s o LH IIIB Mycenaean pain ed po e y, bu many non -Mycenaean shapes a e p esen . The las pe iod, LB 3, is de ined comple ely by Mycenaean ea u es and mass p oduc ion o locally imi a ed Mycenaean pain ed po e y. The absence o clea LH IIIA2 ma e ial is ac ually su p ising, as i is his phase ha is well ep esen ed a almos all si es in he eas e n Aegean, yielding Mycenaean po e y. CONCLUSIONS This a icle p esen s he i s esul s o anew e -e alua ion o he published ce amic ma e ial om he si e o Empo io on Chios. All o he published 2nd millennium BC po e y om he si e was newly so ed acco ding o he o iginal s a ig aphic con ex s, e -e alua ed, and e- -da ed. This new e alua ion makes i now possible o assign he majo i y o he po e y in o h ee majo ho izons: LB 1 ( oughly con empo a y wi h LH I–II on he G eek mainland), LB 2 ( oughly LH IIIB), and LB 3 (LH IIIC Middle and LH IIIC La e).7 This eda ing also changes he o iginally -pos ula ed heo ies abou con inui y and discon inui y o he se lemen ac i i ies h oughou he B onze Age. Ahia us can now be de ec ed be ween he end o EBA II and he beginning o LBA. Sho occupa ion gaps possibly occu ed du ing LH IIIA and LH IIIC Ea ly. A ew she ds om he A chaic pe iod aside (Hood’sS age 8), he si e was ully e -occupied only in he Roman pe iod. Re -assessed he e a e wo main exca a ion a eas wi h e idence o he 2 nd millennium BC.In A ea F on he Ac opolis Hill he e we e wo majo building phases da ed o LBA: S age 6 (‘P e -Mycenaean’) and S age 7 (‘Mycenaean’). The analysis showed ha Sinclai Hood’sloosely de ined ‘p e -Mycenaean’ phase can now be da ed o he ea ly pa o LBA (ca. LH I o LH II). This ea ly phase is di ec ly ollowed by anew se lemen da ing o LH IIIC Middle and La e. The e is cu en ly no e idence o habi a ion on he said e ace du ing LH IIIA, bu indi idual esidual LH IIIB she ds we e p esen in he LH IIIC s a a and on he su ace. A ea D, a e ace on he wes e n slope o he ac opolis Hill, shows asligh ly di e en ch onological sequence. He e, he ea ly pa o LBA is ba ely p ese ed. Almos di ec ly on he bed ock is ahabi a ion s a um e med p e -S age Iby Hood. This can be now da ed o LH IIIB, ada ing ha has no been p ope ly ecognised be o e.8 Two ollowing building phases in A ea D we e e med S age Iand S age II by Hood. Bo h phases can be da ed o LH IIIC, bu i seems ha almos all agmen s da ed by Moun joy o LH IIIC Middle concen a e in S ageI. The ollowing S age II is less well p ese ed and o amo e mixed cha ac e , yielding bo h LH IIIC Middle and IIIC La e po e y. While S age Ideposi was des oyed by i e, he cause o he end o S age II is no clea (Hood 1981, 149–150). 7 Should, in he u u e, e idence o habi a ion con empo a y wi h LH IIIA appea , i can be hypo h- esised ha i will likely belong o LB 2, gi en he de elopmen al endencies on o he eas e n Aegean Islands, as cu en ly unde s ood. 8 Apossibly non -con amina ed o closed cha ac e o he s a um was i s ecognised by Gi ella and Pa úk (2016), who da ed i o LH IIIA2. This con ibu ion’ssugges ed da ing o LH IIIB is based on he ull -scale e -e alua ion o he ma e ial, which ma ches he da e o he cis -g a e in he nea by A ea E. 49KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ex o his pape was p epa ed as pa o he ‘Along In e ace’ P ojec , unded by he Czech Science Founda ion (Awa d 17-19746S). Iwould like o hank he B i ish School a A hens o g an ing he necessa y pe missions o s udy and e -publish he 2nd millennium BC inds om Empo io and he Epho a e o An iqui ies o Chios o making he assessmen o inds s o ed in he A chaeological Museum o Chios possible. Special hanks go o Pe e Pa úk, he supe iso o my MA hesis. ABBREVIATIONS FM: Fu uma k Mo i e (a e Fu uma k 1941) FS: Fu uma k Shape (a e Fu uma k 1941) BIBLIOGRAPHY Achila a, L. 1996: Mycenaean E en s om Psa a. In: E.L. De Mi o– G.A. Sacconi (eds.): A i e memo ie del secondo Cong esso in e nazionale di Micenologia. Incunabula G aeca 98. Roma, 1349–1353. Al am -S e n, E. 1996: Das Neoli hikum in G iechenland, mi Ausnahme on K e a und Zype n. Die Ägäische F ühzei 2. Fo schungsbe ich 1975–1993. Wien. A chon idou -A gy i, A. 2006: Psa a. Ena s a hmos s in pe iphe eia o Mykinaikou kosmou. Psa a. Ayku , A. 2010: La e B onze Age Po e y om Çeşme Bağla a ası. Olba 18, 1–63. Basedow,M.A. 2000: Beşik ‑Tepe. Das spä b onzezei liche G äbe eld. S udia T oica Monog aphien 1. Mainz am Rhein. Bayne, N. 2000: The G ey Wa es o No h–Wes Ana olia in he Middle and La e B onze Age and Ea ly I on Age and hei Rela ion o he Ea ly G eek Se lemen s. Asia Mino S udien 37. Bonn. Beaumon , L. 1999: New Wo k a Ka o Phana, Chios. The Ka o Phana A chaeological P ojec . P elimina y epo o 1997 and 1998. The Annual o B i ish School a A hens 94, 265–287. Beaumon , L. 2004: Exca a ions a Ka o Phana, Chios: 1999, 2000 and 2001. The Annual o B i ish School a A hens 99, 201–255. Beaumon , L. 2007: Chios. The Ka o Phana A chaeological P ojec . In: J. Co be – V. on G ae e– W.-D. Niemei- e – K. Zimme mann (eds.): F ühes Ionien, eine Bes andsau nahme. Milesische Fo schungen 5. Be lin, 37–148. Lamb ech s, B. 2014: Iden i y and In e ac ion in he Neoli hic Island Aegean. The P oduc ion, Ci cula ion and Consump ion o Ce amic Vessels on Chios. Tijdsch i oo Medi e ane A cheologie 52, 65. B oodbank, C. 2004: Minoanisa ion. P oceedings o Camb idge Philological Socie y 50, 46–91. Bu le , W. 1935–1936: Vo geschich liches in de S ad Samos. Nach äge. A henische Mi eilungen 60/61, 184–200. Caskey, J.L. 1972: In es iga ion in Keos, Pa II. AConspec us o he Po e y. Hespe ia 41/3, 357–401. Cha i onidis, S. 1961–1962: A chaio i es kai mnimeia on nison Aigaiou. A chailogikon Del ion 17 B, 261–267. Cul a o, M. 2007: The Middle B onze Age Po e y Sequence in he No he n Aegean Islands. The E idence o Poliochni, Lemnos. In: F. Fel en– W. Gauß– R. Sme ana (eds.): Middle Helladic Po e y and Synch onisms. P oceedings o he In e na ional Wo kshop held a Salzbu g, Oc obe 31s o No embe 2nd, 2004. Ägina- -Kolonna. Fo schungen und E gebnisse 1. Wien, 323–332. 50 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXII/2 Da is, J.L.– Che y, J. 2007: The Cycladic Po e y om La e B onze ILe els. In: A.C. Ren ew– N. B odie– C. Mo is– C. Sca e (eds.): Exca a ions a Phylakopi inMelos1974–1977. The Annual o B i ish School a A hens, Suppl. 42. London, 265–306. E kanal -Ök ü, A. 2018: Panaz epeI. Die F iedhö e on Panaz epe. Tü k Ta ih Ku umu 51a/1. Anka a. E kanal, H.– Keskin, L. 2009: Rela ions be ween he U la Peninsula and he Minoan Wo ld. In: C. Mac- donald– E. Hallage – W.-D. Niemeie (eds.): The Minoans in he Cen al, Eas e n and No he n Aegean. New E idence. Ac s o aMinoan Semina 22–23 Janua y 2005. Monog aphs o he Danish Ins i u e a A hens 8. A hens, 97–110. Fu uma k, A. 1941: The Mycenaean Po e y. Analysis and Classi ica ion. S ockholm. Gi ella, L.– Pa úk, P.2015: Minoanisa ion, Accul u a ion, Hyb idisa ion. The E idence o he Minoan P es- ence in he No h Eas Aegean be ween he Middle and La e B onze Age. In: N. S ampolidis– Ç. Mane – K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Cul u e, Mig a ion and In eg a ion in he Aegean Islands and Wes e n Ana olia du ing he La e B onze and Ea ly I on Age. Is anbul, 387–420. Gi ella, L.– Pa úk, P.2016: The Na u e o Minoan and Mycenaean In ol emen in No heas e n Aegean. In: Go ogianni– Pa úk– Gi ella (eds.) 2016, 15–42. Go ogianni, E.– Pa úk, P.– Gi ella, L. (eds.) 2016: Beyond Thalassoc acies. Unde s anding P ocesses o Mi‑ noanisa ion and Mycenaeanisa ion in he Aegean. Ox o d. Günel, S. 1999: Panaz epeII. Die Ke amik on Panaz epe und ih e Bedeu ung ü Wes kleinasien und die Ägäis im 2. Jah ausend. Tü k Ta ih Ku umu VI/51. Anka a. Heiden eich, R.1935–1936: Vo geschich liches in de S ad Samos. Die Funde. A henische Mi eilungen 60/61, 125–183. Hood, S. 1981: P ehis o ic Empo io and Ayio Gala. Exca a ions in Chios 1938–1955, I. The Annual o he B i ish School o A chaeology a A hens, Suppl. 16. London. Hood, S. 1982: P ehis o ic Empo io and Ayio Gala. Exca a ions in Chios 1938–1955, II. The Annual o he B i ish School o A chaeology a A hens, Suppl. 16. London. Hood, S. 1986: Mycenaeans on Chios. In: J. Boa dman– C.E. Vaphopoulou -Richa dson (eds.): Chios. ACon e ‑ ence a he Home eion in Chios 1984. Ox o d, 169–180. Ja ošo á, K. 2016: Ke amika s řední apozdní doby b onzo é zlokali y Empo io na os o ě Chios [Middle and La e B onze Age Po e y om Empo io on Chios]. Unpublished,M.A. Thesis, de ended a Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Knappe , C.– Nikolakopoulou, I. 2008: Colonialism wi hou Colonies? AB onze Age Case S udy om Ak o i i, The a. Hespe ia 77/1, 1–42. Lamb, W. 1930–1931: An issa. The Annual o he B i ish School a A hens 32, 41–67. Lamb, W. 1936: Exca a ions a The mi in Lesbos. Camb idge. Me iç, R.– Moun joy, P.2002: Mycenaean Po e y om Bademgediği Tepe (Pu anda) in Ionia. AP elimina y Repo . Is anbule Mi eilungen 52, 79–98. Momigliano, N. 2012: B onze Age Ca ian Iasos. S uc u es and Finds om he A ea o he Roman Ago a (c. 3000– 1500 BC). Missione A cheologica I aliana di Iasos 4. Roma. Moun joy, P.A. 1998: The Eas Aegean–Wes Ana olian In e ace in he La e B onze Age. Mycenaeans and he Kingdom o Ahhiyawa. Ana olian S udies 48, 33–67. Moun joy, P.A. 1999: Regional Mycenaean Deco a ed Po e y. Rahden/Wes . Moun joy, P.A. 2015: The Eas Aegean–Wes Ana olian In e ace in he 12 h Cen u y BC. Some Aspec s A is- ing om he Mycenaean Po e y. In: N. S ampolidis– Ç. Mane – K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Cul u e, Mig a ion and In eg a ion in he Aegean Islands and Wes e n Ana olia du ing he La e B onze and Ea ly I on Age. Is anbul, 37–80. Pa úk, P.2010: Minyan o no . The Second Millennium G ey Wa e in Wes e n Ana olia and i s Rela ion o Mainland G eece. In: A. Philippa -Touchais– G. Touchais– S. Vou saki– J. W igh (eds.): MESOHELLADIKA. 51KRISTINA JAROŠOVÁ The G eek Mainland in he Middle B onze Age. In e na ional Con e ence, A hens, 8–12 Ma ch 2006. Bulle in de Co espondance Hellénique, Supplémen s 52. A hens, 931–943. Schoop, U.D. 2005. Das ana olische Chalkoli hikum. Eine ch onologische Un e suchung zu o b onzezei lichen Kul u sequenz im nö dlichen Zen alana olien und den ang enzenden Gebie en. U geschich liche S udien 1. Remshalden. Schwall, Ch. 2018: Çuku içi Höyük 2. Das 5. und 4. Jah ausend . Ch . in Wes ana olien und de Os agäis. OREA 7. Wien. Şahoğlu, V. 2007: Çeşme -Bağla a ası. ANew Exca a ion in Wes e n Ana olia. In: F. Fel en– W. Gauß– R. Sme ana (eds.): Middle Helladic Po e y and Synch onisms. P oceedings o he In e na ional Wo kshop Held a Salzbu g, Oc obe 31s o No embe 2nd, 2004. Ägina -Kolonna, Fo schungen und E gebnisse 1. Wien, 309–322. Şahoğlu, V. 2015: Çeşme -Bağla a ası. AWes e n Ana olian Ha bou Se lemen a he beginning o he La e B onze Age. In: N. S ampolidis– Ç. Mane – K. Kopanias (eds.): NOSTOI. Indigenous Cul u e, Mig a ion and In eg a ion in he Aegean Islands and Wes e n Ana olia du ing he La e B onze and Ea ly I on Age. Is anbul, 593–608. W ede, W. 1935–1936: Vo geschich liches in de S ad Samos. Fund a sachen. A henische Mi eilungen 60/61, 112–124. Yalou is, E. 1986: No es on he Topog aphy o Chios. In: J. Boa dman– C.E. Vaphopoulou -Richa dson (eds.): Chios. ACon e ence a he Home eion in Chios 1984. Ox o d, 141–168. Ze ne , C.W. 2008: The Middle Helladic Po e y, wi h he Middle Helladic Wa es om La e Helladic Deposi s and he Po e s’ Ma ks. In: W.D. Taylou – R. Janko (eds.): Ayios S ephanos. Exca a ions a aB onze Age and Medie al Se lemen in Sou he n Laconia. Annual o he B i ish School a A hens, Suppl. 44. London, 177–298. K is ina Ja ošo á Ins i u e o Classical A chaeology Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y Cele ná 20, CZ-11000 P ague 1 k is ina.ja oso a@ .cuni.cz