Western Argolid Regional Project

Undefined

Project Abbreviation: 

WARP

Ephorate(s): 

Research Type: 

Project Director(s): 

Project Team Members: 

Permit Type: 

Project Date: 

Sunday, June 1, 2014 to Friday, September 26, 2014

Funding Source: 

Project Period: 

Project Description: 

Five-year plan of research

WARP's five-year plan includes three six-week field seasons of pedestrian survey in 2014, 2015 and 2016, with six-week study seasons in 2017 and 2018. Field seasons (2014-2016) will take place from late May to mid-July. We plan to survey 10 square kilometers/10,000 stremmata in each of the three field seasons, for a total area of 30 square kilometers/30,000 stremmata (see section vi below). Study seasons (2017-2018) will also take place from late May to mid-July.

Context of the research project

Summary

Although Argos is an important center in virtually every period of Greek prehistory and history, and plays an important role in scholarly discussions among Greek archaeologists and historians, very little is known of its hinterland. Historians and archaeologists have done much to improve our understanding of the countryside of the Argive plain, but despite their efforts, sites known from literary texts remain unidentified (e.g., ancient Lyrkeia: Pausanias 2.25.4-5, Strabo 6.2.4, 8.6.17, etc.), and major identified sites cannot be dated chronologically, nor have they been accurately mapped (e.g., the ancient city of Orneai, on the Palaiokastráki hill above modern Lyrkeia). These limitations are predictable given that previous studies of the Argive hinterland have been single-investigator, unsystematic surveys, whose shortcomings are well known (Cherry 1983). A systematic archaeological survey can therefore make a substantial contribution to our understanding of the archaeology of Argos by discovering new sites, especially but not exclusively smaller ones, and by refining the chronology and spatial extent of known sites.

The western Argolid also played a crucial role as a corridor for land travel through the Peloponnese (as is noted by Pausanias 2.25.6). The Klimax cart road, for instance, connected Argos to Mantineia through the Inachos river valley (Pausanias 2.25, 8.6.4; Πίκουλας 1995) and appears to have been a major route linking the northeastern Peloponnese to Arkadia and points beyond. Numerous natural passes converge on our study area, linking it to Stymphalos, Nemea, Oinoa, and Argos itself. WARP is consequently in a position to make a substantial contribution to our understanding of the various overland routes and networks that connected the Argolid to the rest of the Peloponnese.

Specific research goals

The researchers of WARP aims to understand human occupation and activity in the study area in all periods of Greek prehistory and history. Within this broad umbrella, however, they have three specific research questions and goals. 

(1) First, they aim to understand the settlement history of Argos, an important center in virtually all periods of Greek history but whose hinterland is scarcely understood. The southeastern half of our study area, which is located 9–12 km from the center of Argos, probably fell within the city’s immediate hinterland for most of its history. Indeed, the peroikic city of Lyrkeia is probably in this area, since Pausanias reports its location at a distance of ca. 60 stades from Argos (Pritchett 1980: 13-19, followed by Πίκουλας 1995: 188-191, 263-267; but cf. Tausend 2006: 78-79. On Lyrkeia as a perioikic city, see Piérart 2004: 603). The ancient town of Lyrkeia, not to be confused with the modern village of the same name, is thought to have stood in this part of the survey area, although its precise location is unknown. Scholars have identified it either with the hill of Skala on the left bank of the Inachos river, where the remains of a Medieval fortification have been observed (Leake 1846: 268, Müller 1927, Πίκουλας 1995: 263-64, Pritchett 1980: 14-15), with the hill of Melissi (Renaudin 1923), or even with a site near the modern village of Chelmis (Παπαχατζής 1963-1975, vol. 2: 187-88, Παπαχριστοδούλου 1970). Although Pausanias (2.25.4-5) thought that Lyrkeia had been destroyed before the Trojan War, the historical record suggests that it was dependent on Argos from the Archaic period until its abandonment, perhaps in the Hellenistic period (Piérart 1997, 2004: 601, 603). On the hill of Melissi, in 1920, Renaudin excavated five Mycenaean chamber tombs (Renaudin 1923; Παπαχριστοδούλου 1970). Such tombs are consistently associated with settlements in the Late Bronze Age (Dabney 1999), indicating the existence of a contemporary settlement nearby that has yet to be located.

A further 60 stades from Lyrkeia was the Classical polis of Orneai, according to Pausanias, which virtually all scholars now place on the hill of Palaiokastráki above modern Lyrkeia (Παπαχατζής 1963-1975, vol. 2: 184-92; Pritchett 1980: 19-32; Πίκουλας 1995: 119-121, 267-270; Piérart 2004: 603, 612-613; Tausend 2006: 94), mentioned in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships (Iliad 2.571, pace Marchand 2002). This settlement seems to have been an independent political community closely allied in most periods to Argos, and not part of the Argive polis (Piérart 2004: 612). It is politically subordinate to Argos in Herodotus (8.73), but an independent ally of Argos in Thucydides (5.67.2, 5.72.4, 5.74.3), and this independent status appears confirmed by a late 4th century BC dedication at Delphi (Jacquemin 1999, no. 381). Orneai was briefly controlled by the Spartans after their victory over Argos in the battle of Mantinea in 418 BC, but it was almost immediately destroyed by a force of Athenians and Argives (Thucydides 6.7.2, Diodorus Siculus 12.81.4-5). The inhabitants of Orneai were then perhaps moved to Argos (Pausanias 2.25.6). The site was apparently reinhabited in the 4th century BC. In 353/2 BC a battle was fought nearby and the town was conquered by the Spartans (Diodorus Siculus 16.34.3, 16.39.4). Thus the WARP survey should allow us not only to map the internal settlement organization of the Argive state, but also to map the transition from the Argive hinterland proper (its chora) to the hinterland of Orneai, an affiliated but independent polity. Unlike most surveys in Greece, which have limited themselves to the territory of a single political center, WARP will seek to define the boundaries of the Argive hinterland through time, and the nature of this border. This should help us to understand how the Argive polity interacted with its neighbor Orneai.

The settlement patterns of the Argive hinterland are also important for periods where the political geography of the Argolid is debated. In the Late Bronze Age, for instance, it is uncertain whether Argos is an independent center, or if it is dependent on a larger political unit such as Tiryns or even Mycenae itself (Sjöberg 2004: 11-19, 131-145, with references; see too Marzolff 2004). Although archaeological survey is unlikely to answer such questions definitively, the discussion ultimately concerns regions and regionality, so that survey data, with their regional scope, have become increasingly important to the debate (e.g., Kilian 1988; Wright 2004).

(2) The second research goal, closely connected to the first, is to trace the historical dynamics of power and resistance in the landscape of the western Argolid. As mentioned above, the emergence of Argos as a political center would have involved particular configurations of political and economic power in the hinterland of Argos. Beginning in the 4th c. BC, the Argolid was heavily influenced by external political authorities: Macedon, Rome, Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottoman Empire. These powers will have manifested themselves locally in various ways that can be traced by the archaeological survey, for example, through changes in settlement structure and the construction of roads and fortifications. A series of known but undocumented fortifications demonstrate efforts to control movement through the region, but as the historical record indicates, these methods of control sometimes failed. Local communities were not, and are not, passive players in these processes. At times they actively struggled against external authority, as during the Greek War of Independence, when the region was of strategic importance due to its location on the route between Tripolis and Argos (Χρησανθόπουλος 1888, 1899).

(3) The third main research goal is to detect the networks that connected the micro-regions of the western Argolid to each other and to neighboring valleys in the northeastern Peloponnese. Historians and archaeologists have increasingly recognized the importance of the many exchange networks, on land and sea, which bound the Mediterranean together (Horden and Purcell 2000). WARP is well-positioned to contribute to this important and wide-ranging debate for two reasons. First, it lies not only on an important route between Argos and Arkadia, but also at the confluence of other passes that lead north to Alea and Stymphalos, northeast to Aidonia and Phleious, and east across the northern edge of the Argive plain to Mycenae. The existence of these routes and their shifting importance over time is shown by ancient testimonia and interviews with modern inhabitants. Second, the density of archaeological work in the northeastern Peloponnese makes the archaeological study of exchange networks plausible. Not only has the region seen a large number of archaeological surveys (Cherry 1998, Wright 2004), but it is also the location of many long-term excavations at major sites.

Study Area

The WARP researchers propose to survey this region because it is the most conducive to intensive survey close to the city of Argos. The study area is almost entirely open, plowed fields with excellent surface visibility. The closer one gets to the city of Argos, the more often the fields are fenced, the more often the fields are citrus groves, which in our experience are not conducive to archaeological survey, and the more settlement and development there is. Moreover, there are well-known problems with the geomorphology of the Argive plain. As Zangger (1993: 39) notes, “surface deposits around Argos consist entirely of overbank loams and floodplain deposits” of recent date. This geomorphological situation makes surface survey closer to Argos extremely difficult, if not foolish. Our study area is close enough to Argos that we can say something about its relationship to its hinterland, but not so close as to encounter the difficulties near the city.

Methodologies

Our methods will correspond to modern standards of survey in Greece. Five survey teams (each composed of four students and one supervisor) will walk systematically over the study area, using modern fields as survey units. Walkers will be spaced at 10 meter intervals, counting and collecting material in a 2 meter wide strip, representing a 20% observation sample of the ground surface. Additional sub-unit data will be collected at 40 meter intervals to increase our spatial control over artifact distributions (cf. Bevan and Conolly 2013: 14).

Our collection strategy is near-total: walkers will collect all stone tools and all pottery fragments, whereas fragments of tile will be sampled. Walkers will collect all diagnostic fragments of premodern tiles (i.e., fragments with edges preserved) and one example of each distinct tile type. All finds will be washed, conserved if necessary, and analyzed by a team of specialists. Per our consultation with Dr. Alkestis Papadimitriou, director of the 4th Ephorate of Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities, we have made arrangements for a storage facility in Argos for the storage and study of collected artifacts. Survey and artifact data will all be entered into a database linked to a spatial database in ArcGIS. In addition to the standard identification of artifact types, the fabrics of ceramic artifacts will be examined macroscopically and (with permission) microscopically in petrographic thin sections to identify ceramic production centers. Standing architecture will be noted by the survey teams; it will then be studied and documented by specialists in ancient architecture.

Once the artifacts have been analyzed by specialists and entered into the database, teams may also collect additional artifacts from the surface in fields defined as archaeological sites or in areas of particular interest. For instance, low-density scatters composed of artifacts that are not commonly encountered or are difficult to identify are excellent candidates for additional surface collection, as several scholars working in Greece have noted (Bevan and Conolly 2013: 16; Caraher, Nakassis and Pettegrew 2006: 33-34). These supplemental collection strategies will depend on the size of the site, the density of artifacts, and the condition of the modern ground surface. We anticipate, however, that in most cases we will divide the area into 10 × 10 m grid squares, within which we will carry out total collections in a portion of the square (5 m2 for dense scatters, larger areas for less dense scatters).

In order to answer our research questions about regionality, we will pay close attention to how surface assemblages change over time and space. For instance, one of our research questions is to understand the expansion of the Argive state. First, we would expect that attendant to the formation of the Argive territory (its chora) is the formation of a border zone (an eschatia). This could be reflected in the intensity of activity of the border zone, the archaeological proxy of which would be decreased density. The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project discovered just such a border zone in the hilly terrain between the two Mycenaean provinces of the Pylian state: as the Mycenaean state grew in power, so too did evidence for human activity in the border zone between the two provinces wane (Davis et al. 1997: 423-424).  Second, we will be paying close attention to the types of pottery we are finding in various parts of the study area. For instance, the distribution of specifically Argive types could be indicative of an Argive economic region, which might provide insight into political configurations. Morgan and Whitelaw (1991), for example, have shown convincingly that similarities in ceramic styles from various excavated sites could shed light on the formation of the Argive state.  Intensive collection at specific sites within our survey area will help us to flesh out regional differences and reduce problems associated with sample size. In addition to ceramics identifiable through traditional typological features (shape, decoration, etc.), we will also consider fabric types. Indeed, surveys in Greece have been at the forefront of intensive regimes of fabric analysis (e.g., Moody et al. 2003).  One of our team members, Heather Graybehl, is currently completing her Ph.D. dissertation on the petrographic evidence for the production and distribution of Hellenistic ceramics from Nemea; she is also working on the petrography of Hellenistic and Late Roman pottery from Corinth, and of the Geometric to Hellenistic ceramics from Lerna. She thus has already compiled an extensive reference collection that includes the Argolid and the Corinthia.

Geomorphological study is a crucial part of our archaeological survey. Without careful investigation of the geological processes that have shaped landscapes, it is impossible to interpret the spatial distribution of artifacts, which are affected by a variety of post-depositional factors, especially land surface erosion and soil degradation. Surface sheet wash and gully erosion can significantly and quickly alter soils in semi-arid and arid climates where vegetation density is low and agricultural disturbance is high. Van Andel, Zangger and Demitrack (1990) have documented the specific role of land use histories in Greece, and highlight the importance of understanding the causes, controls and rates of soil erosion in archaeological research. Much of the evidence for long-term erosion histories is contained in the alluvial deposits of the seasonal streambeds and river valleys.

Joseph  Desloges, a fluvial geomorphologist at the University of Toronto, and a graduate student under his supervision, will examine the soil erosion potential of the study area, highlighting areas of current and past high potential. These results will be compared to the spatial distribution of surface finds and will aid in interpreting the effect of geomorphic processes in the depletion and redistribution of artifacts. A number of physically-based soil erosion models will be assessed and the most parsimonious will be applied to the study site. They will examine cutbank exposures of the alluvial infill history of the upper Inachos river. The infill stratigraphy will be assessed in the context of the Older Fill (late Pleistocene to early Holocene) and Younger Fill (Late Roman to Medieval age) debates regarding the role of climate versus human impact in sediment redistribution in Greek watershed (see Fuchs 2007).

Unlike the Venetian administrative documents that relate to the western Argolid (Παναγιοτόπουλος 1985), the relevant Ottoman texts have not been published. Such administrative texts, which include cadastral surveys, imperial orders to local officials, and taxation documents, have proven to be invaluable to regional projects in other parts of Greece (Davies and Davis 2007, Zarinebaf, Bennet and Davis 2005). A specialist in Ottoman administrative documents, S. Mohammad T. Shariat-Panahi, is gathering, translating, and studying these documents, currently housed in the Babakanlık Archives in Istanbul. We will also be incorporating analysis of the reports of early travelers to the region and early maps, such as those produced by the Expédition scientifique de Morée.                                                                                        

Ethnography, along with study of modern documents, will allow us to document the modern history of the western Argolid. Ioanna Antoniadou, an archaeologist and ethnographer, will interview local inhabitants in and around the study area. In addition to collecting information about the changing nature of land use, human interconnections involving trade, transhumance, and marriage, she will illustrate how landscapes are historically constituted by both archaeologists and local residents, and how such articulations of the landscape shape our analyses and conclusions.

References

Bevan, A.  and J. Connolly. 2013. Mediterranean Islands, Fragile Communities and Persistent Landscapes: Antikythera in Long-Term Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caraher, W., D. Nakassis, and D. Pettegrew. 2006. “Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-Rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern Corinthia, Greece.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19.1: 7-43.

Cherry, J.F. 1983. “Frogs around the Pond: Perspectives on Current Archaeological Survey Projects in the Mediterranean Region.” Pgs. 375-416. In Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean. D. Keller and D. Rupp eds. Bar International Series 155. Oxford: Bar International Series.

Cherry, J.F. 1998. "Review of 'The Berbati-Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988-1990'." American Journal of Archaeology 102: 825-826.

Dabney, M.K. 1999. “Locating Mycenaean Cemeteries.” Pgs. 171-175. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier eds. Aegaeum 20. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'Art et Archéologie de la Grèce Antique.

Davies, S. and J.L. Davis. 2007. Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in Early Modern Greece. Hesperia Supplement 40. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Davis, J.L., S.A. Alcock, J. Bennet, Y. Lolos and C.W. Shelmerdine. 1997. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part I: Overview and the archaeological survey.” Hesperia 66: 391-494.

Fuchs, M. 2007. “An Assessment of Human versus Climatic Impacts on Holocene Soil Erosion in NE Peloponnese, Greece.” Quaternary Research 67: 349–356.

Horden, P. and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Jacquemin, A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales à Delphes. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 304. Athens: Ecole Française d' Athènes.

Kilian, K. 1988. “The Emerge of wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7: 291-302.

Leake, W.M. 1846. Peloponnesiaca. London: J. Rodwell.

Marzolff, P. 2004. “Das zweifache Rätsel Tiryns.” Pg. 79-91. In Macht der Architektur – Architektur der Macht. E.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt ed. Mainz: Von Zabern.

Marchand, J. C. 2002. “A New Bronze Age Site in the Corinthia.” Hesperia 71: 119–148.

Moody, J., H. Lewis Robinson, J. Francis, L. Nixon and L. Wilson. 2003. “Ceramic Fabric Analysis and Survey Archaeology: The Sphakia Survey.” British School at Athens 98: 37-105.

Morgan, C. and T. Whitelaw. 1991. “Pots and Politics: Ceramic Evidence for the Rise of the Argive State.” American Journal of Archaeology 95: 79-108.

Müller, W. 1927. “Lyrkeia.” Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft 13: 2498–2499.

Παναγιοτόπουλος, Β. 1985. Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοποννήσου: 13ος-18ος αιώνας. Athens: Εμπορική Τράπεζα της Ελλάδος - Ιστορικό Αρχείο.

Piérart, M. 1997. “L’attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cites d’Argolide.” Pg. 321-351. In The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community. M.H. Hansen, ed. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.

———. 2004. “Argolis.” Pgs. 559-619. In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Παπαχατζής, N.Δ. 1963–1975. Παυσανίου Ελλάδος Περιήγησις, 4 vols. Athens.

Παπαχριστοδούλου, I. 1970. “Λύρκεια–Λύρκειον.” Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών 3: 117–120.

Πίκουλας, Γ.1995. Οδικό Δίκτυο και Άμυνα: από την Κόρινθο στο Άργος και την Αρκαδία. Athens: Horos

Pritchett, W.K. 1980. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part III: Roads. Berkeley.

Renaudin, L. 1923. “La nécropole «mycénienne» de Skhinokhori-Lyrkeia (?).” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 47: 190–240.

Sjöberg, B.L. 2004. Asine and the Argolid in the Late Helladic III Period: A Socio-economic Study (BAR-IS 1225). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Van Andel, T., E. Zangger and A. Demitrack. 1990. “Land Use and Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Historical Greece.” Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 379-396.

Χρησανθόπουλος, Φ. 1888. Βίοι Πελοποννησίων Άνδρων. Athens: τυπ. Σακελλαρίου, Π.Δ.

———. 1899. Απομνημονεύματα περί της Ελληνικής Επαναστάσεως. Athens: τυπ. Σακελλαρίου, Π.Δ.

Wright, J.C. 2004. “Comparative Settlement Patterns During the Bronze Age in the Peloponnesos.” Pgs. 114-131. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean. J. Cherry and S. Alcock eds. Oxford: Oxbow.

Zangger, E. 1993. The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid. Argolis 2. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet and J.L. Davis. 2005. A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century. Hesperia supplement 34. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Bibliography: 

Bevan, A.  and J. Connolly. 2013. Mediterranean Islands, Fragile Communities and Persistent Landscapes: Antikythera in Long-Term Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davies, S. and J.L. Davis. 2007. Between Venice and Istanbul: Colonial Landscapes in Early Modern Greece. Hesperia Supplement 40. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Fuchs, M. 2007. “An Assessment of Human versus Climatic Impacts on Holocene Soil Erosion in NE Peloponnese, Greece.” Quaternary Research 67: 349–356.

Caraher, W., D. Nakassis and D. Pettegrew. 2006. “Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-Rich Environment: Case Studies from the Eastern Corinthia, Greece.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19.1: 7-43.

Zarinebaf, F., J. Bennet and J.L. Davis. 2005. A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece: The Southwestern Morea in the 18th Century. Hesperia supplement 34. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Wright, J.C. 2004. “Comparative Settlement Patterns During the Bronze Age in the Peloponnesos.” Pg. 114-131. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the MediterraneanJ. Cherry and S. Alcock eds. Oxford: Oxbow.

Sjöberg, B.L. 2004. Asine and the Argolid in the Late Helladic III Period: A Socio-economic Study (BAR-IS 1225). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Piérart, M. 2004. “Argolis.” Pgs. 559-619. In An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis. M. H. Hansen and T. H. Nielsen eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marzolff, P. 2004. “Das zweifache Rätsel Tiryns.” Pgs. 79-91. In Macht der Architektur – Architektur der MachtE.-L. Schwandner and K. Rheidt ed. Mainz: Von Zabern.

Marchand, J. C. 2002. “A New Bronze Age Site in the Corinthia.” Hesperia 71: 119–148.

Horden, P. and N. Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dabney, M.K. 1999. “Locating Mycenaean Cemeteries.” Pgs. 171-175. In Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year. P.P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier. eds. Aegaeum 20. Liège: Université de Liège, Histoire de l'Art et Archéologie de la Grèce Antique.

Jacquemin, A. 1999. Offrandes monumentales à Delphes. Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 304. Athens: Ecole Française d' Athènes.

Piérart, M. 1997. “L’attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cites d’Argolide.” Pgs. 321-351. In The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community. M.H. Hansen, ed. Acts of the Copenhagen Polis Centre 4. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.

Πίκουλας, Γ. 1995. Οδικό Δίκτυο και Άμυνα: από την Κόρινθο στο Άργος και την Αρκαδία. Athens: Horos.

Zangger, E. 1993. The Geoarchaeology of the Argolid. Argolis 2Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Van Andel, T., E. Zangger and A. Demitrack. 1990. “Land Use and Soil Erosion in Prehistoric and Historical Greece.” Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 379-396.

Kilian, K. 1988. “The Emerge of wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7: 291-302.

Παναγιοτόπουλος, Β. 1985. Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοποννήσου: 13ος-18ος αιώνας. Athens: Εμπορική Τράπεζα της Ελλάδος - Ιστορικό Αρχείο.

Pritchett, W.K. 1980. Studies in Ancient Greek Topography. Part III: Roads. Berkeley.

Παπαχατζής, N.Δ. 1963–1975. Παυσανίου Ελλάδος Περιήγησις, 4 vols. Athens.

Παπαχριστοδούλου, I. 1970. “Λύρκεια–Λύρκειον.” Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών 3: 117–120.

Müller, W. 1927. “Lyrkeia.” Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft 13: 2498–2499.

Renaudin, L. 1923. “La nécropole «mycénienne» de Skhinokhori-Lyrkeia (?).” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 47: 190–240.

Χρησανθόπουλος, Φ. 1899. Απομνημονεύματα περί της Ελληνικής ΕπαναστάσεωςAthens: τυπ. Σακελλαρίου, Π.Δ.

Χρησανθόπουλος, Φ. 1888. Βίοι Πελοποννησίων Άνδρων. Athens: τυπ. Σακελλαρίου, Π.Δ.

Kilian, K. 1988. “The Emerge of wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 7: 291-302.

Leake, W.M. 1846. Peloponnesiaca. London: J. Rodwell.

Project Website: 

http://westernargolid.org/

Location