The Englianos ridge was one of the prime targets of PRAP's programme of prehistoric research in the area. Our major goal was to elucidate from surface remains the extent of the Late Bronze Age 'town' that was known to exist around the palatial structures (e. g. Blegen et al. 1973: 3-68). The area was tract-walked in 1992 to determine the extent of the densest material, while in 1993 and 1994 total artefact collections were made in 468 20-m grid squares over the area of highesf density (Davis et al. 1997; 403-404, 427-30). From the study (chiefly by Cynthia Shelmerdine and Sharon Stocker) of the over 35,000 ceramics collected we were able to chart the site's expansion through time (Davis et al. 1997: 429, fig. 12; Bennet 1999: 12, fig. 2.3).
There was virtually no Early Bronze Age material in the immediate vicinity of the palace. Indeed the earliest material on the Englianos ridge seems to have been confined to the Deriziotis Aloni site that belongs to the latest phase of fhe Early Helladic (EH) (Blegen et al. 1973: 219-24; Stocker 1995). Within the Middle Helladic (MH), the site expanded considerably, reaching a maximum size in terms of the presence of diagnostic MH material within collection units of 5.48ha. By Late Helladic (LH) I-If, the early Mycenaean phase, datable material was present over 7.08ha. Within the following LHIII phase, we ran into some difficulties in narrow chronological definition. Definitively LHIIIA material was distributed over 2.36ha; definitively LH IIIB material over 4.6ha. Although this might give the impression of a decrease in size in these periods, in fact material that could be defined generally as LHIIf (and therefore likely to contain both LHIIIA and IIIB) extended over 12.4ha, a significantly larger area than that of the LHI-II period. On this basis, we suggest that the total area of the site in LHIIIB, including the palatial structures themselves (c. 2ha) was perhaps 14-15ha.
We are constantly reminded that 'size matters' but, in attempting to understand the expansion of a complex site like that at Ano Englianos, structure is perhaps more significant. It is easy to view the changes in size documented by PRAP from the point of view of the end product, the final palace and town. In such interpretations, growth is constructed teleologically towards this end, the inevitable progress of Bronze Age Pylos to become the largest site in Late Bronze Age southwest Messenia.
We would like to make three points in relation to such a 'story'. Firstly, the overall site represented by the densest surface material does not merely comprise undifferentiated habitation, but contains an important sequence of burial structures that were situated in different locations relative to the settlement centre in different periods (Bennet 1999: 13, fig. 2.4). These are the so-called 'Grave Circle' constructed in late MH to the southwest of the area of the later palace centre; Tholos IV constructed in early LH I (perhaps one to two generations later) to the northeast; and Tholos III constructed in LHII nearly a km distant along (i. e. to the southwest) the Englianos ridgetop at a location called Kato Englianos.
Secondly, a wall was constructed around the highest point of the citadel, apparently in late MH/early LHI, with its gateway aligned on Tholos IV, implying a relationship between whatever the wall encircled and the tomb at roughly the same time (Blegen et al. 1973: 4-18). Between the wall and the tomb, it appears, was open space (Blegen et al. 1973: 64-68; Zangger et al. 1997: 604-605), perhaps a plaza of sorts, associated with funerary display when the tomb was in use. It is possible that PRAP has traced the wall further, if it is represented by a geophysical anomaly to the southwest of the palace structures (Zangger et al. 1997: 606-13, esp. fig. 40).
Thirdly, because we know (or think we know) that Bronze Age Pylos ended up as the centre of political and economic power in the area, we tend to take its earlier development for granted. It is worth reminding ourselves, first of all, that the overall site has a long and complex history. Even the central palatial structures changed substantially from early to late LHIIIB, with perhaps three phases (Shelmerdine 1997: 545, summarizing recent investigations by F. A. Cooper and M. C. Nelson). These were not just changes in form, but also in approach (Wright 1984: figs. 1 and 2; cf. Davis and Bennet 1999: 110). Similarly, the direction of approach fo the site might have changed, as the overall topography and the discovery of a monumental stairway to the SW building suggest (Blackman 1997-98: 56, fig. 79). In addition, areas changed function through time. It seems, for example, that the 'Grave Circle' went out of use early and may have been overrun by settlement, unlike the monumentalized open space in front of Tholos IV. Perhaps the construction of Tholos III at some distance from the palace was prompted as settlement grew still further, although it may also have facilitated funerary display, now focused on the palatial elite, for whom, it seems, the tholos was the exclusive preserve by LHII.
World History
