During the excavations in the Hamdi Balaban Field (HBT) Sector at Klazomenai, which is located between Liman Tepe, prehistoric and Bronze Age Klazomenai, and the Acropolis Hill of the Archaic site further to the south, significant data is gathered for the early history and archaeology of the site. In the excavation campaigns of the mid-90s domestic levels dating to the Late Classical period, and various installations including the iron smelting complex as well as the olive oil plant of the Archaic period were exposed. Based upon this evidence, we may define this part of the Archaic settlement as an extended workshop area, away from the living units during the late seventh and the sixth centuries BC[1] . When the excavations were expanded further to the east in the successive excavation campaigns, substantial data were found that produced significant information related to the historical topography of the site covering a rather long period from the late third millennium BC until the end of the Archaic period[2] .
Essentially three major levels were identified that help us to understand and evaluate the use of the area during these excavations. The chronology and the characteristics of each of them are summarized under individual headings below:
Level 1: Defense wall of the Lower Town of EBA Klazomenai (Advanced years of EBA II (ca. 2500-2200/2100 BC)
During the excavations of this quarter at Klazomenai, between 2005-2011, that aimed to define the characteristics of the defense wall of the Archaic city, a horseshoe-shaped bastion, and a fortification wall were uncovered under the 7th century remains and in the area, next to the olive oil installation of the Archaic period (Fig. 1). The maximum preserved height of the bastion, which dates to the late third millennium BC, is about 1,50m and it is 8,30m long and 6,75m wide (Fig. 2). This monumental construction shows close similarities with the example exposed at Liman Tepe, immediately next to the modern highway, and therefore dates to the late third millennium BC according to the diagnostic pottery found during its excavation[3] . This new defense system which was identified about 700m to the southwest of the main core of the settlement was highly likely built for protecting the lower town that was established in the late EBA II period. The emergence of densely populated, nucleated, and fortified sites is one of the characteristic features of third-millennium urbanism in Western Anatolia and the Aegean. As is the case for various sites in the region, development in animal husbandry and agricultural practices, created an economic basis for feeding larger populations and also allowed the materialization of resource-intensive projects, of which the construction of extensive fortification systems is an example. The physical remains of this bastion strongly suggest that during the late third millennium BC (Liman Tepe Level V-2b-2a-1b), the settlement at Klazomenai went through a dramatic change and expanded in size with the formation of the lower town, which appears to have been also fortified[4] .
The construction technique of the horseshoe-shaped bastion, with somewhat thin but long and rectangular slabs inserted into the mud-brick core, closely follows the defense systems protecting the promontory at Liman Tepe during the Early Bronze Age I (Liman Tepe Level VI) and the late Early Bronze Age II periods (Liman Tepe Level V-2b-2a-1b) (Fig. 3)[5] . Although it is not certain whether the initiative that was taken for protecting the lower settlement was completed or not, it is clear that in this particular spot, there was a row of horseshoe-shaped bastions built next to one another, which was highly likely dictated by the topography of the area. The stone socle of the main wall of this Bronze Age defense system, which was built with large, roughly shaped boulder-like stones runs in the north-south direction and reaches a height of 1,30 m at the most and is about 1,0 m wide (Fig. 5). Also when the excavation in the area was progressed, about 4,10 m further to the west of the bastion, a narrow ditch cut into natural rock, measuring 3,80 m wide on top and 2,40 m wide at the bottom, and around 0,45 m deep on its outer ends were discovered (Fig. 3)[6] . Similar examples of this defensive moat, which was deliberately constructed to enhance the fortification system of the EBA Klazomenai attested in a vast area including the Near East, Asia Minor, and the Aegean in different periods[7] . This moat or ditch associated with the EBA at Klazomenai was gradually filled and in the later period, during the Early Iron Age, used as a burial ground as discussed below. Immediately to the west end of the deep corridor of the Archaic gateway, traces of wheel ruts on the bedrock were observed. These traces were interestingly cut by a pithos burial dating to the 10th century BC. This observation strongly suggests the fact that the cuts on the bedrock belong to a period before the Early Iron Age, perhaps to the earlier gateway in the area associated with the defense system of the EBA II period protecting the lower town of prehistoric Klazomenai (Fig.4)[8] .
The core of the EBA bastion was made of pure packed earth similar to the one perhaps protecting the upper citadel, uncovered at Liman Tepe. During the clearance of part of the inner fill of the EBA defense system, limited pottery was collected which found their best parallels in the advanced phases of Troy II and Troy III settlements. On the other hand, the lack of any archeological material dating to the second millennium BC in this part of the site suggests that the scope of Bronze Age Klazomenai during the second half of the second millennium BCE was not extended beyond the proximity of Liman Tepe further to the south and southwest of the prehistoric upper citadel.
Level 2: Early Iron Age (11th through late 8th centuries BC)
In this part of the settlement, following the termination of the defense system of the Early Bronze Age, there was a long silence until the early 11th century BCE. At Klazomenai, the evidence of domestic activity was largely confined to the mound formation at Limantepe and its immediate vicinity in the south during the Early Iron Age. Because of the later disturbances caused by the construction of the large mansion on the tip of the small promontory at Limantepe, unfortunately, the stratigraphy postdating to the Middle Bronze Age was severely disturbed and almost all the finds of the Early Iron Age, as well as the Archaic and the Classical periods, were found in the loose fillings in the North Sector of Liman Tepe excavations. During the late second and early first millennium BC, it is beyond question that the former prehistoric mound continued to be habituated, and highly likely at the summit of the promontory there was once a temple serving the Clazomenian community during the Archaic period. Although there was no significant architectural evidence from the Early Iron Age at Liman Tepe because of the later disturbances, large dwellings dating to the 11th century BC as well as the architectural remains of the preceding century postdating the collapse of the palatial civilization in the Aegean were uncovered in the area of the Early Bronze Age II bastion and its immediate south. These remains and as well as stratified deposits covering the 12th through 8th centuries BC suggest that the main core of the habitation was confined to Limantepe and its immediate surroundings in the south.
The proximity of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age structures, of which some were even stratified over one another, suggests that there was no break, instead of a smooth transition to the so-called Iron Age through the end of the second millennium BC. Over time, the Iron Age settlement was expanded further to the south and southwest of Liman Tepe during the 10th and 8th centuries BC. The model of the settlement at Klazomenai in the Early Iron Age was quite likely a nucleated type similar to Lefkandi[9]. On the other hand, the existence of isolated burials, which were identified rather far away from the core of the settlement argues for the existence of clusters of dwellings around the main core of habitation in this period.
During the Early Iron Age (ca. 11th through late 8th/early 7th centuries BC), the area where the defense system of the Early Bronze Age lower town was identified, served for pottery production as well as a burial ground until the construction of the fortification wall of the Archaic city (Figs. 2, 6)[10]. These burials are more significant in number, particularly around the Archaic gateway and the EBA bastion, and they diminished and became less frequent in number further to the north and the east. The pottery kiln complex, which predates the Iron Age burials, was constructed immediately to the south face of the bastion (Figs. 2, 6). The choice of this location for the kiln is by no means coincidental and most likely due to reducing the impact of strong northerly winds by remaining close to the debris formed by the ruined superstructure of the Early Bronze Age bastion. This kiln, which is rather large in size and interesting in terms of its design predates the late 10th century burials in the area. The ground plan of the kiln complex with its curved ending on the east side recalls the large Minoan and the Mycenaean examples of the Late Bronze Age and suggests the existence of the long tradition inherited by the community of the Early Iron Age at the site[11].
This area following the abandonment of the kiln complex was used for the burials from the late 10th until the middle of the 7th century BC, the latter, which is the approximate date for the construction of the fortification wall of the Archaic settlement that reached this point in the concerning period (Figs. 2, 3). The majority of these graves that belong mostly to the young infants are simple pot burials without any significant finds[12]. Only a few examples are of adults, which were either inhumations directly placed on earth or cremations, and the dominancy of adolescent and infant graves among all these burials provides fresh evidence regarding the way how deceased minors were treated during the Early Iron Age in the eastern Aegean. The latest burials in the area are from the second half of the eighth century BC and their dating is based upon the stylistic analysis of a few vases associated with graves (Fig. 7). Funerary goods are rather few and consist mostly of small clay vessels. Only a few isolated items other than pottery, made of metal and bone were found in these burials. The cosmetic spoon made of bone, which is in the shape of a naked woman was highly likely one of the earliest eastern imported goods uncovered at the site[13]. The long period of use and high frequency of burials in the area belonging to different age groups suggest the fact that this was a formal burial ground of Klazomenai during the 10th to late 8th and early 7th centuries BC. Apart from these graves of the Early Iron Age, numerous burials belonging to young infants mostly in pots (enchytrismoi) and sometimes in small cists were uncovered over the remains of the abandoned houses of the 11th and 10th centuries BC[14]. In other words, Klazomenai in the Early Iron Age both suggests the existence of a formal burial ground, as well as the use of formal dwellings as a burial place for young individuals, which was not an uncommon phenomenon for the sites in the Eastern Aegean and Crete during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages[15].
Immediately to the west of the northern glacis of the Archaic defense wall associated with the Level 3b, one notices various cavities, hemispherical and shallow pits on the bedrock (Fig. 11). There is no question that these features predate the fortification wall, but on the other hand there is a severe disturbance in the area during the construction of the glacis during the early seventh century. Therefore it is not possible to to propose any firm date or function for these features.
Levels 3a-b: Archaic period, early 7th through late 6th century BC)
This level marks first the construction (Level 3, Phase a) and secondly the renovation/ modification (Level 3, Phase b) of the defense wall of Archaic Klazomenai (Fig. 3). The use of the area as a burial ground during the Iron Age reached an end in the final years of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh century BC.
As a major initiative, the defense wall of Archaic Klazomenai began to be constructed in the early seventh century (Figs. 3, 8). There is as yet no physical evidence to suggest the existence of a fortification wall at Klazomenai in the Early Iron Age, but this possibility cannot be completely ruled out when we consider the early defense systems uncovered at Old Smyrna, and other major sites like Gordion and Boğazköy in the Anatolian heartland during the 9th and the 8th centuries BC[16]. The development of defense structures during the Iron Age in the Aegean, as well as Asia Minor, is generally explained by the consolidation of sociopolitical structures and economical conditions within the communities in the concerning regions. Quite likely sufficient human resources and material substances as well as strong social and political power provided an impetus to start such a massive project, which lead Clazomenians to affirm their identity and compete with contemporary city centers around them. In this context, the notion of polis formation in Ionia should not be completely ruled out. Interestingly the appearance of the burial grounds beyond the limits of the defense wall surrounding the Archaic settlement not only provides an important vestige for the urban layout of the city but also gives additional support for the chronology of the fortification wall. In direct relation to this, the formation of the burial grounds surrounding the Archaic settlement coincides with the construction of the fortification wall of Klazomenai[17].
The accumulation of earth over the ancient remains in the area where the fortification wall, as well as the olive oil plant, was exposed is not substantial, and this makes understanding and grasping the architectural features of this massive initiative rather difficult. Despite this major obstacle, stratigraphical soundings, as well as the architectural analysis and the study of the finds coming from various layers related to the Archaic defensive wall, suggest two distinctive phases for this major enterprise. Following the abandonment of the area as a burial ground, and when the line through which the defense wall would pass was planned, the whole area was leveled and filled with a sand layer mixed with small pebbles. This leveling fill gently slopes down through the west and directly rest upon earlier graves as well as the natural rock in the area (Fig. 8). Following the artificial leveling for the construction, a single row of large boulders running vertically through the glacis of the Archaic defense wall in the west served as a foundation for the inner fill of this fortification. Next to the outer face of the wall, there is additional support constructed in parallel to the structure (Figs. 3, 8). The glacis, the artificial slope that was made of stone and quite close to the Iron Age examples of central Anatolia in its overall design, was constructed about 13 m further to the west of the outer face of the fortification wall[18]. This feature not only provides additional support for the actual wall but also enhances the defense system. The original height of the glacis is not known. One cannot be sure whether it rose to the outer face of the original wall or made a platform-like area on its top that would be backed by the outer face of the wall. Obvious differences in the masonry of the glacis that is observed on either side of the deep corridor of the gateway support the idea of two distinct phases associated with this defense system. Stratigraphic analysis based upon the excavations conducted inside the glacis of the early phase shows that large polygonal stone slabs were fixed with chips of limestone fragments, collected after the blocks were shaped at the spot.
The identification of Level3b is based upon the alteration of the defense wall, namely the opening of a gateway with a deep corridor constructed in the late sixth century BC (Fig. 3). It was exposed in its entirety during the 2007 campaign and in the following seasons, trial excavations were made to understand its stratigraphic sequence (Fig. 9). The plan of the entrance is arranged so that it is perpendicular to the main wall running in the north-south direction. Just next to the glacis and outer face of the main wall in the west is a deep corridor measuring about 8 by 4 m in dimensions and in between the actual gateway, up to the outer face of the wall is another space that is slightly wider than the deep corridor in the west (Fig. 9)[19]. This area is 7 m long and 3,60 m wide and lies immediately to the west of the actual threshold, which was made of a large, single rectangular block measuring 2 m long and 0,40 m wide (fig. 10)[20]. In the defense systems of the ancient Mediterranean world, wide gates were considered undesirable, since they exposed weaknesses in the fortification walls.
This gateway with its deep and narrow plan is an axial entrance type with an overall length of about 15 m including a deep corridor in the front. The gentle slope in the corridor rises towards the east, therefore there is an approximately 1,00m difference in elevation between the original surface on the west end of the corridor and the one next to the threshold block in the east. To materialize this, packed stones, mixed with sand and pebbles as well as some boulders and mostly chunks of white gypsum, the leftovers from large blocks were used for the fortification wall in the area. In the western end of the corridor associated with the gateway of the final phase of the complex, only part of the northern glacis bordering the deep corridor was preserved (Fig. 11). The outer face of the southern section was destroyed during the construction of the major terrace wall of the Late Classical period in the west. Only the inner filling of the glacis is visible in the south; but in the north, the lowermost blocks of the glacis, which were made of finely shaped rectangular blocks were diagonally placed and fixed into the bedrock by pounding the lowermost rectangular slabs used as a base for the upper ones (Fig. 11). Also, the inner filling partly observable both in the southern as well as the northern parts of the glacis suggest that to fix the blocks small chunks of local limestone blocks mixed with the dust of the same stone functioning like cement were used as a bedding for finely cut rectangular slabs. There is an obvious difference in the masonry technique one can observe on the glacis immediately next to the corridor of the gateway. The blocks in this area that were made of large rectangular slabs are different from the polygonal blocks to the north and further to the south, suggesting two distinctive phases in the fortification wall protecting the site in its western limit (Figs. 10, 12). The reason why we attribute the planning of the gateway as well as part of the glacis immediately next to the deep corridor to the Late Archaic period is based upon the analysis of small finds, coming from the corridor itself. Some decorated pottery sherds, including a few Athenian and Clazomenian black-figured examples, bronze arrowheads as well as the fragmentary anta capital, carved from local gypsum, quite likely related to the monumental gateway of the complex were found on the beaten earth floor of the corridor, laid over the rubble filling sloping upwards towards the east. All the small finds and the pottery stylistically belong to 525-500 BC[21].
In its final phase, the defense wall of Klazomenai shows close similarities with the fortifications of Sardeis, Phokaia, and finally Old-Smyrna. All these examples including the one from Klazomenai exhibit a mature type of defense architecture in the Archaic period, whose roots go back to the Bronze and Early Iron Age architectural traditions of Anatolia. As the other examples in Anatolia and the Aegean show, the fortification wall of the Archaic period at Klazomenai served not only as a defensive construction but also as a symbol of power and also as a key element in the definition and the development of urban space (Figs. 12, 13). The abandonment of the formal burial ground of the Early Iron Age in the area is directly linked to the construction of the fortification system in the area in the early seventh century BC.
As we know quite well from the various excavations at Klazomenai, including large-scale works in the domestic quarters, as well as at burial grounds, and finally from different facilities related to various production activities, including pottery kilns, ironsmith workshops, and finally olive oil installations, dating between ca. 525/520 to 500/490 BC appear to be such an active period for the site. In other words, there is a dramatic difference between this period and the third quarter of the sixth century BC, which marks the Persian dominion at Klazomenai as well as the other coastal sites in western Anatolia following the collapse of the Lydian empire after 547 BC.
Defining the cultural characteristics as well as material differences of the sixth century is a hard task in the eastern Aegean because of the lack of extensive stratigraphical evidence coming from various contexts at different sites. The available archaeological data in the eastern Aegean belonging to the late sixth century BC is rather limited at many sites including Old Smyrna, Miletos, and Ephesos. The same picture also emerges in the Heraion of Samos for the same period. In contrast to this, Klazomenai produced such a vast archaeological material, particularly in the domestic as well as the funerary contexts dating to the last decades of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth century BC[22]. The lack of any significant remains stratified under these levels, which may belong to the middle of the sixth century, suggests that the size of the population at Klazomenai diminished dramatically after the first Persian Invasion in 547/6 BC. Quite likely people affected by the Persian military raids fled from their city and became a refuge overseas and also in the countryside[23]. The movement of the mass population during this period is known from various written sources, moreover, the surge in the number of Ionian colonies in the Black Sea and the western Mediterranean including Southern France, Italy as well as the Iberian peninsula is thought to be the outcome of the Persian military campaigns in the region[24]. As the Klazomenai evidence suggests, the effect of this turmoil gradually eased and the city, perhaps as a result of the social and political climate of the period, once again attracted people to unite and live together in their former settlement on a larger scale few decades before the Ionian Revolt. Quite likely internal political dynamics in the Persian court, namely the succession of Darius I (Darius (522/1–486 BC), who carried significant administrative reforms must have had a strong impact on the Ionian sites that were controlled by the Persians after 547 BC[25]. Based on Herodotus’ long discussion (Herodotus III.39-45), it is widely accepted that the reforms of Darius I include the completion of the division of the empire into provinces (satrapies) with their regular and annual money taxes that were collected centrally rather than irregular tributes paid by the lands controlled by the Persian administration before. During the reign of Darius I, it is also claimed that the satrapies in Anatolia entered into closer contact with the ruling elite, and the Persians supported the loyal tyrants in the region, especially in Ionia[26], it may even be claimed that the Achaemenids pursued a deliberate policy of centralizing the empire or independent rulers, each of whom built relations with the Persians, and they also even imposed a tyrannical form of government in Ionian city-states[27]. There are, however, different interpretations related to Persian policies towards the Ionian cities that were thought to be more likely. For instance, it is argued that both under Cyrus and Cambyses and Darius I, Persians did not have a regular and purposeful policy of imposing tyrannies in the Ionian cities, and tyranny as an institution had its roots in Ionia that went back to the eighth century. Still, however, there was no question that Darius I received support from the Ionian leaders/tyrants or local elites as participants in his campaigns against the Scythians[28]. Such an extensive activity at Klazomenai, corresponding to the ascension of power to Darius I after Cambyses in our opinion is not a coincidence but a direct result of the positive political and economic climate brought in by the new king who came to power in 522 BC.
ILLUSTRATIONS
