On the basis of large databases created by intensive surveys we can draw conclusions about settlement patterns. There are many reasons why this is so important. Knowledge of settlement hierarchies gives indications of the political structures in regions for which we have few or no historical sources. The distribution of settlements in the landscape also enables us to understand in what ways and how intensively the countryside was exploited, and to what degree regional and temporal differences exist. This again constitutes an important basis for our knowledge of demographic trends in antiquity (below).
Most intensive surveys have divided the sites found into a three-tier hierarchy (towns, hamlets and/or villages, farmsteads). One of the main criteria for this hierarchical division is the area covered by the settlements, according to which towns are usually expected to be larger than 5 ha, hamlets and/or villages between 0.5-1 and 5 ha, and farmsteads smaller than 0.5 or 0.3 ha. The main exception to this three-tier hierarchy has been put forward by the Lakonia Survey, which introduces a five-tier hierarchy (towns, villages/forts, hamlets/large villas, villas/clusters of farmsteads, single farmsteads). However, in reality, their villages/forts and hamlets/large villas can be merged together into the second level of the three-tier hierarchy (hamlets and/or villages) and villas/clusters of farmsteads and single farmsteads perhaps into the third level (farmsteads).
Most controversy around the results ofthe intensive surveys has been concentrated on the occurrence of isolated farmsteads in the countryside, as this so clearly deviates from the traditional picture of ancient Greece, according to which the population lived in nucleated settlements such as towns, villages and/or hamlets. However, the realization that the population to a considerable degree lived in second-order, politically subordinated villages/hamlets not only in large poleis such as Athens (the demoi of Attika, not all of them necessarily nucleated, though), but also in several smaller poleis - for instance in Boiotia (e. g., Bintliff 1999a; 1999b), Arkadia (Forsen & Forsen 2003), the Argolid (e. g., Mee & Forbes 1997) or the Cyclades (Hoepfner 1999: 132-3) - offers valuable information for our understanding of the origin and nature of the Greek city-state. A pattern is revealed with villages/hamlets located at a distance of c. 4-6 km from each other, of which some develop into poleis, sometimes incorporating other villages/hamlets into their territory.
The second general feature of the classical period detected by intensive surveys is the existence of isolated farmsteads. Some have also been reported by extensive surveys. As a result we know of isolated farmsteads in most regions, including, e. g., Boiotia, southern Attika, Argolido-Korinthia (southern Argolid, Methana, Berbati-Limnes, Nemea), Arkadia, Lakonia, Messenia, Euboia, Keos, Melos, Delos and Chios (Catling 2002; Forsen & Forsen 2003). Additionally farmsteads occur commonly in the colonies, for instance in Metapontion in Magna Graecia or in Chersonesos on Crimea (Carter 1990; Pedrka 1973). Some have even been excavated, the most frequently cited examples being the Vari house and the Dema house in Attika.
The results of the intensive surveys have been variously interpreted. Some scholars believe that the small settlements found scattered around the landscape, especially towards the end of the classical period, are isolated farmsteads, each supporting one family or perhaps two. Others, however, argue that what we know from other sources about Greek inheritance systems (partible inheritance being the normal case), in conjunction with Greek farmers’ tendency to exploit fragmented holdings in a wide range of micro-environments, makes such an interpretation unlikely. According to them, such sites were more likely to have been used on a temporary or seasonal basis as storage sheds, field buildings or animal folds by residents in nearby towns and/or villages/hamlets. According to them it is symptomatic that ancient Greek lacks a single word that means ‘farm’ in the sense of a farmhouse located on its own in the middle of some fields. Even the excavated Dema and Vari houses have been interpreted as agricultural installations inhabited only seasonally in connection with summer grazing or bee-keeping (Osborne 1987; Foxhall 2002).
Although it may very well be that some of the farmsteads were used only on a temporary or seasonal basis, there are still several factors that may be used as arguments for extended human occupation. Many of these small sites produce a wide range of finds, such as fine table ware, cooking ware, storage jars, as well as olive presses, grinding stones, mortars, loom-weights, etc. Soil chemistry in some cases has revealed abnormal concentrations of phosphate and trace metals indicating prolonged human occupation in connection with the localities (Bintliff 1999a; For-sen & Forsen 2003). In Metapontion small necropoleis, seemingly used by single families for two or three generations, have been discovered in close proximity to several of the farmsteads (Carter 1990). Furthermore, the full analysis of the excavated Pantanello necropolis shows that the numbers of burials in general follow the numbers of datable farmsteads, though often with a time lag of 50 years (Sbonias 1999b). A special case could also be made with respect to areas with large numbers of small, dispersed farmsteads that cannot be connected to any nucleated settlement in the vicinity (e. g., as revealed by the Lakonia, Nemea or Berbati-Limnes surveys). In these cases the long distances to nucleated settlements speak in favour of the farmsteads being permanently settled.
Unfortunately several questions that historians have about the ancient countryside cannot be answered on the basis of what we know of different settlement patterns. The difficulties involved in dating archaeological finds more exactly than within a range of some 20-30 years at best makes it impossible to prove that the farmsteads in a certain area really were contemporaneous. And even if we assume permanent occupation of the farmsteads, this tells us nothing of the social status of the residents, i. e., whether they owned the property or were just tenants. Neither can archaeology give any clues to whether the residents of the farmsteads in Lakonia were Spartiates, perioikoi or helots. On the other hand archaeology can sometimes confirm or refute assumptions made on the basis of written sources. For example, the fact that small, dispersed farmsteads do not seem to appear in Messenia until after 370 clearly challenges previous hypotheses according to which the helots lived isolated from each other in order to increase the security of their Spartan masters (Alcock 2002).
Even though the character ofthe data gathered with the help oflandscape archaeology will never suffice to answer some of our specific historical questions, this does not imply that we cannot draw any historical conclusions from this material. More work will probably be done in the future to compare the settlement patterns of different Greek regions. Furthermore, regional studies can also contribute to the understanding of the non-agricultural usage of the countryside. to extensive exploration and analyses of written sources, we have a very good idea of how marble was quarried in Pentelikon and then transported from there to Athens (Korres 1995), or of how silver was produced at Laureion (Rihll 2001). But we know little about other quarries or mines, like the ones on Thasos or the marble quarry at Doliana in Arkadia, to mention just a couple of examples. Above all, we know far too little about how the settlement patterns were affected by large-scale quarrying or such industrial activities as silver production at Laureion, which may have employed as many as 10,000 slaves. Intensive surveys of quarrying or mining areas are definitely a desideratum for the future.
Isolated towers can be mentioned as examples of structures that seem to have some connection with the activity in quarries and mines. Such towers are notoriously difficult to date, although most appear to be classical. They have been detected in large numbers, not only on the islands of Amorgos, Lesbos, Siphnos, Thasos, Keos, but also in Attika and along the borders between the Argolid, Korinthia and Arkadia. The frequency of these towers in Thasos, Siphnos and southern Attika, all areas renowned for their mineral wealth, may indicate that they played a role in protecting the mines and ore-processing facilities or in providing security for the supervisors of the slaves. The fact that the towers also are common in borderlands and along the coasts points towards a more general defensive function. At the same time, many of the towers have some association with agriculture and may be parts of isolated farmsteads (Cherry et al. 1991). According to Morris & Papadopoulos (2005) the towers may even have served as places where the slaves were confined. The ongoing discussion about these towers once again illustrates how difficult it is to explain how archaeological structures were used, i. e., all structures of the same kind do not need to have had the same function, and some of the structures may have had multiple functions.
World History
