The Inter-visibility of Mycenaean Sites in the Plain of the Argolid Hephaestus, from Ida speeding forth his brilliant

blaze. Beacon passed beacon on to us by courier-flame: Ida, to the Hermaean scaur in Lemnos; to the mighty blaze upon the island succeeded, third, the summit of Athos sacred unto Zeus; and, soaring high aloft so as to arch the main, the flame, travelling joyously onward in its strength ... the pine-wood torch, its golden-beamed light, as another sun, passing the message on to the watch-tower of Macistus. He, delaying not nor heedlessly overcome by sleep, neglected not his part as messenger. Far over Euripus' stream came the beacon-light and gave the signal to the sentinels on Messapion. They, kindling a heap of withered heather, lit up their answering blaze and sped the message on. The flame, now gathering strength and in no wise dimmed, like unto a radiant moon o'erleaped the plain of Asopus to Cithaeron's scaur, and roused another relay of missive fire. Nor did the warders there disdain the far-flung light, but made a blaze higher than had been bidden them. Across Gorgopus' water shot the light, reached the mount of Aegiplanctus, and urged the ordinance of fire to make no dallying. Kindling high with unstinted force a mighty beard of flame, they sped it forward that, as it blazed, it o'erpassed even the headland that looks upon the Saronic gulf; until it swooped down when it reached the look-out, nigh unto our city, upon the peak of Arachnaeus; and next upon this roof of the Atreidae it leapt, yon fire not undescended from the Idaean flame. Such are the torch-bearers I have arranged - in succession one to the other completing the course; In this passage of Aeschylus' Agamemnon Clytaemnestra explains the chorus how she knows that Troy is fallen and the way the message travelled to reach the palace. This method of communication, signalling with the light of fire, has also been used by the Romans at the Limes. Indians passed messages with smoke-signals. Both techniques are based upon the principles of inter-visibility. But what is inter-visibility? It is made up of two words, namely `inter' and `visibility'. The Oxford Dictionary defines `visibility' as "a condition, state or fact of being visible; visible character or quality; capacity of being seen. `Inter', when it is prefixed in adjectival relation to substantives, with sbs of action or condition, denotes according to the Oxford Dictionary, "performed or subsisting between things or persons, esp. between each other, mutual, reciprocal". Thus, inter-visibility means "a mutual condition, state or fact of being seen". This triangular plain, in the south of Argolis, is a closed area, delimited to the north, the direction of Corinth, by Mt Tritos and Megavouni, to the west, towards Arcadia and the Central Peloponnese, by the Artemision range and to the east, the area of Epidauros,Troizen and Ermione, by the Arachnaion. The Gulf of Argolis forms its southern border. The plain has a coastline of about 14 km and it extends for some 21 km northwards, this is from the coast to the pass over to Corinth. This is quite large, compared with the other coastal plains of Greece. On the eastern side of the plain there are 2 extensions. At the coast, east of the hills, which rise behind Nafplio, there is the Asinaia, the plain around Asini. It is triangular in shape with a base of about 4 km and 4 km in depth. This area is surrounded by mountains. Further to the north there is a plain, also surrounded by mountains, around the modern village of Prosymna. There is only one easy link between the area of Berbati and the plain of Argos. It is approximately 7 km east-west and 4 km north-south. The land of the plain rises slowly from the coast to the mountains. At some spots, close to the sea, it is little bit marshy, in between, there is the plain with here and there isolated hills, some rocky and steep, others low and more rounded, and at the edge, especially at the east

side, there is the more typical Greek landscape. The soil is richly supplied with water, partly subterranean (which collects on the surface from the surrounding mountains), partly by the rivers Inachos, Xerias, Erasinos and other minor streams. The plain is formed by alluvial fill, brought down from the mountains by the winter rains. In recent years the farmers of the Argolid have taken advantage of that soil by irrigation and increasingly specialized agriculture. Starting from the mountain slope and upland areas, one first sees tobacco. Farther down a belt of olive trees and generally purpose dry farming. In the plain itself, however, the land is dominated by large citrus-groves and rich vegetable lots. This is maintained by artificial irrigation on an extensive scale, using the underground waterresources. The border between the citrus orchards and the olive groves is still moving northwards, in the direction of the mountains, due to the expansion of the artificial irrigation. In comparison with Antiquity the landscape has changed and this also effects the intervisibility. The devotion of the best land to citrus-orchards is a recent development. Until the fifties the plain was comparatively treeless, as is shown by photographs of ancient sites in the Argolid. The trees hamper the visibility in general and some sites,especially these on low mounds, e.g. Tiryns, are almost swallowed up by the orchards. The haze which is hindering the visibility, is another effect of the use of artificial irrigation. Eleven sites are chosen (indicating them on the map). Lerna (1), Argos (2), Tiryns (3), Nafplio (4), Asini (5), Katzingri (6), Midea (7), Argive Heraion (8), Vraserka (9), Mycenae (10) and Berbati (11). First we are going to discuss the sites separately. Lerna is a low mound site close to the sea and it is surrounded by springs. Caskey excavated there what Bintliff describes as `a LH III village with streets, one of which possibly led to the shore'. The site is inhabited since the Neolithic and was apparently abandoned in LH IIIB. Argos is easy recognizable by its two citadels, the Aspis, a low and broad hill, and the high conical Larissa. It occupies a strategic position at the western edge of the plain. From there you have a magnificent view over the plain and it controls the valley leading to Corinth. Although Argos is inhabited since the Neolithic, the settlement seems first of any size during the middle bronze age. Walls of MH houses are found on the Aspis, in the South Quarter and at the foot of the Larissa. Until now there is no positive evidence of a palace structure or a tholos. The `Cyclopean' character of the blocks, build in the fortification-wall of the medieval castle on the top of the Larissa does not necessarily mean that they are late Helladic. A dromos with stone build walls has been found in the Deiras. There is not only discussion about the identification as a tholos and about the date of construction, but also about identification as a dromos. It is known that the Mycenaean settlement covered a considerable area. Mycenaean finds are found wide-spread. The quality and quantity of them could be an indication of the importance of the settlement. Some chamber tombs on the slopes of the Deiras, of which many can be dated in LH IIIB, are wealthy monuments with painted entrances, and could form another indication of the importance of Argos during the late bronze age. Tiryns is situated on a long and low oval shaped limestone outcrop, on 5 km distance of the sea. The citadel, inhabited since neolithic times, was probably first fortified during LH IIIA2, at roughly the same time as Mycenae. The palace has known its fullest extent in LH IIIB, when a tunnel has been dug through the walls to an underground water-supply.

The large Prophitis Ilias was the site of a large chamber tomb cemetery and of two tholostombs, of which one has been excavated and the other is under excavation. The architecture of the first tholos, robbed in Antiquity, suggests a date in the LH III period for its construction. Nafplio with its two citadels, the high and conical Palamidi and the Akronafplio, a promontory projecting into the sea, is situated at the east side of the plain. Some Mycenaean sherds were found on the acropolis. This was presumably the site of the Mycenaean settlement. The main evidence of LH occupation is formed by extensive chamber tomb cemeteries in the Pronoia area and on the NE slope of the Palamidi. The contents are mainly of the LH IIIA and IIIB periods. The top of the Palamidi is crowned by a Venetian castle. From there you have a magnificent view over the plain of Argos. There are, however, no indications of a Mycenaean occupation. The harbour, which offer shelter from the prevailing winds, was good. Asini is a steep promontory on the south end of its small plain. The Mycenaean remains on the acropolis have been much disturbed by later constructions. The chamber tombs on Mt Barbouna are mostly rich and large. Their contents cover all Mycenaean periods, esp. IIIA and IIIC. LH IIIB is not well represented in the tombs or on the acropolis. Possibly the site had two harbours, one to east and one to the west. Katzingri occupies a strategic position above the old road from Argos to Epidauros. On the slope there was a simple fortification and a limited settlement. It was inhabited during LH IIIB. The acropolis of Midea, which dominates the route Argos - Epidauros, comprises the summit of high conical hill at the west side of the plain of Argos. The `Cyclopean' fortification wall, as massive as those of Tiryns at the northeast side, have been built during the LH IIIB period. Systematic rock cuttings indicates that there was a building at the summit. On the base of sherds and house foundations a Mycenaean settlement is located on the acropolis and the NW slope. Foundations of LH III houses have also been found on a hill, adjacent on the northwest. Between this hill and the foot of the acropolis there is a spring. At the modern village of Dendra, about 15 minutes walking to the SW of Midea, there is rich Mycenaean cemetery with 14 excavated chamber tomb and 1 tholos. The contents of the chamber tombs range in date from LH IIA until IIIB. In the tholos there was little pottery left to suggest a date, but the bronze vessels, found in Pit I, are mainly types found in LH IIBIIIA1 contexts elsewhere. According to Hope Simpson there is no Mycenaean habitation-site in the neighbourhood and he links this cemetery with the settlement at Midea. The Mycenaean settlement at the Argive Heraion occupies the summit and the upper and middle west and south slopes of a conical hill on the northeast side of the Argos plain. The hill was continuously inhabited from the EH II period onwards and this without break until LH IIIB. Remains of LH III houses and streets are found on the middle terrace and of LH houses on the acropolis. The massive constructions in the later sanctuary have obscured or obliterated most of what would have been the centre of the Mycenaean settlement. A cemetery of more than 50 Mycenaean chamber tombs extends over the slopes to north and northwest of the Argive Heraion. Their contents range from LH I until IIIB. A robbed tholos tomb is situated 1 km NW of the Argive Heraion. One assumes that it belongs to this settlement. The date of the pottery in the tomb is LH IIA.

On the base of some scattered sherds Hope Simpson propose to locate a Mycenaean settlement at Vraserka, which lies on the Mycenaean road from Mycenae to the Heraion. There is a spring in the neighbourhood. Some chamber tombs are reported here. The acropolis of Mycenae is a flat-topped hill between ravines, with a sharply defined upper citadel with steep or precipitous sides. Although some Neolithic pottery is reported the habitation of the site starts in EH I. According to the rich finds in Grave Circle A Mycenae had outstripped all possible rivals at the beginning of the Late Helladic period. Although occupied for equally long as Tiryns, Argos,..., it was probably inferior to all these in earlier phases. Many reasons are given for this rise, as absence of rivals, geographical position, control of the routes to the hinterland, easy access to the sea,..., but they all do not satisfy. The earliest fortification around the upper citadel is of LH IIIA2 date. The earliest surviving remains of the palace are of the same date. The palace has known its fullest extent in LH IIIB, when at the southwest side Grave Circle A was incorporated within the walls and at the northeast a concealed entrance to an underground water-supply. During this period the settlement outside the citadel was wide-spread and important. At the end of LH IIIB a disaster, involving destruction by fire, overtook the settlement. Mycenae was re-occupied during the next period, but it seems to have lost all importance after the middle of LH IIIC. The distribution of the chamber tomb cemeteries around Mycenae is wide. The database of the Mycenae Survey contains information of more than 200 chamber tombs. Their contents range in date from LH I until LH IIIC. There are 9 tholoi and all are robbed in Antiquity. They range in date from LH IIA until LH IIIB. The settlement at Berbati is centred on a small, but conspicuous acropolis. It dominates the Berbati-valley, commands the main entrance to it from the south and controls the Kontoporeia pass as well as the route northwest to Mycenae. Occupation of the hill starts in the Early Bronze Age and goes on without break until LH IIIB. The site appears to have been abandoned at the end of this period. It is very difficult to assess the importance of the Mycenaean settlement, since relatively little has been excavated. The site has to have some importance, if the tholos, containing LH IIA to IIIA1 pottery and some other finds, belongs to this settlement. There are also chamber tombs in the slopes of the hills on the west side of the valley. The cemetery spanned the LH IIA to LH IIIB periods. In conclusion we can say that according the archaeological finds Mycenae was pre-eminent in the Plain of the Argolid followed by Tiryns. It is than also not surprising that Mycenae and Tiryns are the only sites in the Plain where Linear B-tablets have been found. Inter-visibility could have been used for communication. A example of this is the signalling in Aeschylus' Agamemnon. If one assumes that there existed a communication-system between the settlements in the Plain, then one postulates a kind of organisation with a central authority. Does the archaeological evidence allows us to do so? At first sight one is inclined to say yes. Mycenae excels all other sites in quality and quantity of the finds. The tholos tombs at the Argive Heraion, Dendra and Berbati are confined to the early Mycenaean period while Mycenae carries on with bigger and better tholoi. A closer look, however, gives the impression that there was a kind of competition between

Mycenae and Tiryns. Both citadels have known an architectural history, which is almost exactly identical. At both sites one have found linear B-tablets. During LH IIIB both settlements are centres, surrounded by satellite-settlements, Tiryns by Bourasania, Ay. Georgios, Neo Rhinio, Prophitis Ilias and Mycenae by Boliari, Fichtia, Priphtiani, Berbati, Argive Heraion. And what do we have to think about Midea, of which the acropolis has been fortified during LH IIIB? In my opinion the Plain of Argos has never been united under one ruler during Mycenaean times. There were always at least two centres. Later history of the Plain has shown that there always existed some rivalry between the settlements. Even nowadays the people of Nafplio can't stand the one of Argos and vice versa. But is it possible to signal from site to site? Let we say in case of war against a common enemy. As indicated on the hand-out there are no problems within the Plain itself (Signalling: a. Sites). The value one indicates the possibility of inter-visibility between 2 settlements and the value zero the impossibility. You can see from Argos, Tiryns and Nafplio each site within the plain (showing slights). The citadel at Mycenae is only visible from Argos. Berbati and Asini are completely invisible. Assume there were look-outs on top of the Palamidi (Nafplio), the Larissa (Argos), the Prophitis Ilias (Tiryns) and the Prophitis Ilias (Mycenae). There is little physical evidence for these look-outs. Bintliff found some obsidian implements on the top of the Prophitis Ilias (Tiryns) and several obsidian pieces on the summit of the Palamidi. Some LH III sherds in the collection of the American School are reported from the Larissa. During the excavations at the chapel on the Prophitis Ilias (Mycenae) professor Wace discovered some Mycenaean pottery. The most important change is the existence of inter-visibility between Prophitis Ilias (Tiryns) and Asini and of a possible link between Prophitis Ilias (Mycenae) and Berbati (see Signalling:b. Look-outs). In this way Asini and Berbati would be incorporated within the communication-network. The Prophitis Ilias (Mycenae) is also more inter-visible than the citadel itself. A second hypothesis is that inter-visibility has something to do with hierarchy. According to this theory the settlement with the highest degree of inter-visibility would be the most important place. For testing this hypothesis we use `the shortest path program', a computer program developed by Guy Sanders and Ian Whitbread. This analysis employs Graph Theory, a method of describing geometric patterns mathematically, by which the axiality of nodes within the graph could be assessed. By measuring the connectivity of the nodes within the graph an idea of the relative importance can be given. The application has already be used to describe the connectivity of past road systems on the Peloponnese and on Crete. The first stage of the analysis is to describe the network in binary terms and in matrix form. The value one or zero denotes the presence or absence of a link between nodes or settlements. Network 1 is recorded as matrix 1. The first row of the matrix records the links from node 1 to nodes 2 to 7; there is a link from 1 to 2 and from 1 to 7. The index of centrality of each node is calculated by powering the matrix, that is multiplication by itself

until no zero values remain. The totals of each row of the new matrix represents the total number of links between a point and all other points. The node with lowest value is "closest" to all others, that with the highest, the furthest away. In this matrix the value one denotes the possibility of inter-visibility between 2 settlements. The value zero indicates the opposite. When the centrality of each node is calculated, the node with the lowest value is the most inter-visible to all others, that with the highest, the less. According to the archaeological finds Mycenae is pre-eminent followed by Tiryns. There are tholos tombs at the Argive Heraion, Dendra-Midea and Berbati. One may reasonably presume that these places were of some importance. The rich finds in Argos indicates that also this place was important during the Mycenaean period, although a tholos or a palace structure are lacking. An analysis of the inter-visibility of the Mycenaean sites in the Plain of Argos tends to confirm the documented importance of four of the six sites (indicating Argos, Tiryns, Dendra and Argive Heraion). Argos is the single most central node in the network. Lerna and Nafplio seem to have a greater importance than the archaeological evidence suggests. Both are coastal settlements and can be linked with a major centre, Lerna with Argos and Nafplio with Tiryns. This particular analysis fails to demonstrate the apparent importance of Mycenae and Berbati. The inter-visibility between Berbati and any other site is zero. The same is true for Asini. An obvious explanation would be their location in a separate plain. If one assumes that during LH IIIB Berbati was a satellite of Mycenae, than one could expect that there existed intervisibility between these 2 sites. Mycenae is second last in the ranking and that doesn't correspond with the archaeological evidence. Does this mean that the hierarchy-hypothesis doesn't work? Inter-visibility shows a hierarchy, which one could have expected on base of common sense and geographical position, but it fails to take into account other factors which could have overruled the decision to build the settlement at the most obvious spot. In conclusion of this seminar, one can say that there is no single explanation for the intervisibility of Mycenaean sites. The two hypotheses tested above fail to explain the documented archaeological pre-eminence of Mycenae. The communication-hypothesis even postulates a kind of organisation with a central authority. An assumption,which is - in my view - not supported by the material evidence. The hierarchy-hypothesis does not take into account other factors which could have influenced the decision concerning the localisation of the settlement, than the geographical one.

Jan Verstraete British School at Athens March 1992